comprised within the Articles of Exon or of any other Garison or not within Articles yet did they Petition in that manner although they were as zealous for their King as Sir John Stawel deeming it wisdom in them rather so to do then to run the hazard of not performing their Articles and thereby of the loss of their Liberty and Estate and especially since such acknowledgment or expression and formality of Address was within the intention of those Articles For if a man agreeth to submit to a Composition with these Exceptions certainly he doth agree to submit to all other Rules for such Composition not formerly excepted and this was a constant rule and observed at and before the time of the making of those Articles And therefore in regard Sir John Stawel did refuse to insert such an Acknowledgment or Expression in his Petition he hath in a second particular neglected the performance of his Articles and that premediately since he was preadvised Neither is it satisfactory when Sir John alleageth That he did tell Mr. Ashe he had borne Arms for the late King and by his command unless for the Reasons aforesaid he had in writing affirmed as much And yet this very Paper or pretended Petition which was thus delivered was not presented by himself but put in by a Solicitor And Sir John did refuse to subscribe the same as Mr. Michael Herring hath lately affirmed before a Committee of this present Parliament sitting in the Star-chamber And if it shall be objected That although the several Orders aforesaid did inable that Committee to compound onely with Delinquents it followeth not They should compound with none but such as in terminis acknowledged Delinquency It is easily answered when it is considered That Sir John was not advised to acknowledge in express terms That he was a Delinquent but if he had in his Petition set forth some act done by him amounting to Delinquency it had been sufficient but one of them he was by the constant rules of the Committee to insert in his Petition which Sir Iohn refused Sir Henry Berkley with others came in upon the Articles of Exon as well as Sir Iohn yet Sir Henries Petition was in these words To the Honorable Committe for Compounding with Delinquents The humble Petition of Sir Henry Berkley Knight Sheweth THat your Petitioner as formerly a Commissioner of the Army for His Majesty and since did voluntarily contribute to the Forces raised against the Parliament by means whereof he is become under the notion of a Delinquent That being in the City of Exeter upon the delivery thereof humbly craves the benefit of the Articles of the same And that he may be admitted to a favorable Composition for his offence according to the value of his Estate to the end he may free the same from Sequestration And he shall pray c. Subscribed Hen. Berkley But Sir Iohn having taken on a Resolution not to compound took up all pretences to avoid the same But Mr. Ashe asked him as Sir Iohn objecteth whether he had taken the negative Oath and Covenant to whom Sir Iohn answering no and that his Articles did free him from taking any Oaths Mr. Ashe replyed that before he could be admitted to Composition with them he must take them both It is answered that there then lay on that Committee a command several Ordinances of both Houses the transcripts whereof are inserted that injoined them to tender that Covenant and negative Oath to all persons that came to compound and to secure their persons upon refusal Sab. 1 Nov. 1645. ORdered by the Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled That the Committee at Goldsmiths Hall shall have power to tender the Solemn League and Covenant to all persons that come out of the Kings quarters to that Committee to compound either upon Mr. Speakers Pass or otherwise and to secure such as shall refuse to take the Covenant until they shall conform thereunto Sab. 5. April 1645. BE it ordained by the Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled That all and every person of what degree or quality soever that hath lived or shall live within the Kings quarters or been aiding assisting or adhearing unto the forces raised against the Parliament and hath or shall come to inhabite or reside under the power and protection of the Parliament shall swear upon the holy Evangelists in manner following I A. B. do swear from my heart that I will not directly nor indirectly adhere unto or willingly assist the King in the war or in this cause against the Parliament nor any forces raised without the consent of the two Houses in this cause or war And I do likewise swear that my coming and submitting my self under the power and Protection of the Parliament is without any manner of design whatsoever to the prejudice of the proceedings of the two Houses of Parliament and without the direction privity or advice of the King or any of his Councel or Officers other then in what I have now made known so help me God and the contents of this book And be it ordained by the Authority aforesaid that the Commissioners for the keeping of the great Seal of England for the time being shall have power are hereby authorised to tender administer the said Oath unto any Peer or Wife or Widdow of any Peer so coming to inhabit as aforesaid And it shall be lawful to and for the Committee of the House of Commons for Examinations the Committee for the Militia in London and all Committies of Parliament in the several Counties Cities of the Kingdome to tender and administer the said Oath unto every other person so coming to inhabite a abovesaid if any person not being a member of or assistant unto either of the Houses of the Parliament shall refuse or neglect to take the said Oath so duely tendered unto him or her as abovesaid the said Commissioners and Committees respectively shall and may commit the same person to some prison there to remain without bail or mainprize untill he shall conform thereunto It is true that the Articles of Exon do free all persons comprised therein from all Oaths Covenants and Protestations but it is likewise as true that those Articles were not at the time of Sir Iohn's being at Goldsmiths Hall confirmed by both Houses as in right they then ought indeed the House of Commons had before that time confirmed them viZ. sixth of May 1646. but they were confirmed by both Houses not before the fourth of Nov. 1647 above an year after Sir Iohns being there so as the command of tendering this Oath and Covenant lay still upon that Committee and they were not to compound with any person be he within Articles or without before he had taken them and therefore it was no injustice in that Committee to deny Sir Iohn to treat with him before he was sworn for they were prohibited otherwise to admit him to Composition which Sir Anthony Irbie in his
of Commission and Iustice of the Peace for and within the Town of Taunton And also saith That about the eight day of the same Month of Iune the said Sir Iohn Stawell in company with Iohn Syms Esquire sent for and commanded the said Davis to bring this Deponent before them at the house of one Edward Cooper in the said Town who told this Deponent that he was fined eight hundred pounds to the King for his rebellion against the said King and after many opprobrious speeches used saying the Parliament and the said Town were a company of Rebels and Traitors against the late King and deserved to be hanged required the said Fine of 800 l. of this deponent and upon his refusal to pay the said Fine committed this Deponent close prisoner to the Castle of Taunton then in the hands and power of the said Sir Iohn Stawell as Governour of the said Garrison for the late King who after divers weeks imprisonment there and several demands of the said Fine by the said Sir Iohn Stawell and refusal of payment thereof by this Deponent he this Deponent was afterwards by the said command transmitted to the Bridewell of Taunton and there kept in Irons close Prisoner with many others not suffered humane necessaries to the great weakning and impairing of the health of this Deponent untill at last being often threatned by the said Sir Iohn Stawell to be hanged or to be sent to Oxford then in the late Kings power to be tryed for his life through fear of which and terrour and for preservation of his life he was constrained to Morgage and Pawn that land credit they had left him for three hundred pounds or thereabouts which he paid then languishing in prison unto the said Sir Iohn Stawell to redeem himself out of that cruel bondage and inhumane usuage and imprisonment This Deponent further saith that during S. Iohn Stawell's bearing power and government in the said Town he exacted great sums of mony from several persons for the late King his armies use Mustered Soulderies for the late Kings service against the Parliament and billited and enforced on this Deponent and divers of the said Town many Soulderies to free quarter And during his Government there a Souldier of his Regiment the name of whom at present this Deponent remembreth not was then hang'd on the Gibbet or Gallowes set upon the Market place in the said Town and by one Reeves his Major declared that it was the command and pleasure of the Governour that he should be hanged which being done the said Reeves did then further declare openly in the Market place that it was a beginning and president for the rest of the Rebels and Roundheads of the Town to look upon and must look some of them to follow after shortly or words to that effect which was to the great terrour and fear of the free-born of this Nation I Honour Powell of Taunton the relict of my late Husband George Powell Gent. am ready to make attestation of what is under written In the time of the late miseries of this Land it pleased God to make us of this Town partakers in a great measure of the calamities of the times of the which my late husband as is well known had not the least share being exposed to the most inhumane cruelties and outrages of the Enemy when this Town was subdued by them and afterwards made the mark of Sir Iohn Stawels envy and hatred as will more largly appear by what is under written when he usurped that most Tyrannous government over this Town First of all he imposed a Fine of eight hundred pounds on him his house being before rifled and plundred by the Souldery for the refusal to pay the said Fine he was committed by the said Sir Iohn Stawell prisoner to the Castle of Taunton after he had lain there a long time he was removed by his order to the Bridewel where he was kept close prisoner and lay night and day in Irons without the least favour nay denying him that favour which we give to horses namely to have a bundle of clean straw to lye on saying that he would make him an ensample to all Rogues and should look through a grate all dayes of his life and saying at his committing to the Bridewell that he would lay him neck and heels until he paid his Fine which words Mr. Maj. of Taunton which now is can attest being in the presence when they were spoken and threatned at several other times that he would hang him Afterwards having paid a Fine of 300. l. of mony besides what other goods were fetcht from us by his order he was then released of his imprisonment being so weak with lying on the ground and in Irons that he was scarce able to go along the street afterwards being sick for not hearing one of their malignant Priests on their Monthly Fast Sir Iohn caused him to be brought before him and fined him 10 l. and told him if he did not pay it forthwith he would levy a greater fine on him which was forthwith paid unto him with many more of such like cruelties and threats which now would be too tedious to recite One act more of his cruelty I cannot here in silence pass by which is this when he had clapt up my husband close prisoner in the Bridewel putting him in the common prison where Felons and other Rogues were kept he would not suffer me nor yet admit my children to go unto my husband And although Sir Iohn Stawell by his Remonstrance page 15. seems to excuse Mr. Powells imprisonment and detainer because he found him committed and his offence of such a nature as that he could not be delivered without due course of Law Mr. Powell upon his Oath discovereth the cause of his detainer to be for his affection to the Parliament and not payment of the 800 l. imposed on him for his proportion of that Fine Mr. Iasper Chapline who was then Maj. of that Town and a person of about 70 years of age will next relate Sir Iohn's usuage of him and the cause thereof His certificate followeth viz. Some particulats of Sir Iohn Stawell's Remonstrance answered by me Jasper Chaplin the 28 of Nov. 1653. When my Lord of Stanford first entred into the Town of Taunton I being then Major was commanded with others to seize the Castle into our hands for the good and safety of the County which was done acordingly And some of the honourable Deputie Leiutenants of this County authorised me to receive of divers Delinquents great sums of money which I ceived and paid according to order but when the Kings army entred this Town I was wounded in the Knee and sent to prison into the Castle being an old man and paid a hundred pound Fine for which I have a receipt under Sir Iohn Stawells hand Whilst I was there in prison divers of those of whom I received great sums of money became suitors to
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
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
Sir Iohn Stawell to this effect as I remember that they might be repaid out of my personal Estate by whose importunity as I conceive I was still kept in prison but how long I was so kept in prison I remember not it being about ten years sithence and my self about 80 years of age as also for that I had received of _____ Hellier of Exon 200 l. which was thus as I have since been informed he came into this County supposing to have remained here in some safety but this being known unto the deputy Lieutenants he was brought unto the Inn called the Three Cups in Taunton as it seems gave bond for paiment of 200. l. to be paid unto my self I not knowing therof until I saw the bond but I received the 200 l. and it was thus imployed the Dep. Leiut before that time wanted 200 l. which was procured by my self Mr Searl and others on our bonds and repaid accordingly as by our bonds appeareth During my imprisonment my house was plundered and I not left worth ten shillings to my knowledge more then the timber stuff so that I lost 400 l. or thereabouts And Sir Iohn Stawell came himself to the Prison at my enlargement but I never found such contentment in prison as to desire the said Sir Ioh. Stawell to send me back to prison again as is alledged so that for my suffering and losses the said Sir Iohn confessed me a judgement 313. l. as I was informed by my Attorney By me Jasper Chaplin And although Sir John in his Remonstrance p. 20. seems to justifie it the imprisonment being by his consent and for his good for the Reasons therein set forth yet doth Mr. Chaplin deny any such consent or any contentment in his imprisonment to induce either his desire thereof or consent thereunto Indeed his great Age could take no delight in nor endure any imprisonment but the truth was he was detained by Sir John until he had paid a considerable proportion of that moderate Fine And although it should be granted That he was imprisoned in such manner and for those curteous ends mentioned in that place of his Remonstrance yet Sir Iohn had no Authority nor Reason so to do no Authority we know nor Reason himself confesseth For as he saith he wrote unto Prince Maurice That it was contrary to Reason to enforce that from him meaning Mr. Chaplin who was admitted to his Composition which he was liable to repay unto his Creditors But Sir Iohn did first imprison Mr. Chaplin and then return an Answer to the Prince whereas it had perhaps been more just first to have endeavored the Princes satisfaction Mr. Matthew Quash Mr. William Milles Mr. Christopher Taylor Mr. John Adams Mr. Evans Mr. Andrew Pit Mr. George Treagle Mr. William Cady Mr. Iohn England Mr. Alexand Kingsland Mr. George Lyssant and others of the chiefest Inhabitants suffered likewise under him some of whom were so much weakned by their imprisonment and ill-usage therein that they were not well able to go out again All which these Oaths and Certificates will manifest The Information of John Adams of Taunton in the County of Somerset Gentleman taken upon Oath before Sir William Rowe Knight George Manby and William Weston Esquires A Committee of Examinations appointed by The High Court of Justice the 12 day of December 1650. Who saith HE hath known Sir Iohn Stawel Knight of the Bath by the space of sixteen years and upwards last past and that in Iune in or about the 19 year of the Reign of the late King He knoweth That the said Stawel was in Taunton with Prince Maurice and Marquess Hertford and about a week after he was in Taunton and acted there as the Governor and sent Summons to this Informant under his hand to appear before him where being come the said Sir Iohn Stawel commanded him to provide One hundred pounds for the late Kings service whereof one Fifty pounds he demanded in hand and the other shortly after Which said One hundred pounds was imposed on this Informant as his part of Eight thousand pounds imposed as a Fine upon the said Town of Taunton for their Rebellion as the said Sir Iohn Stawel termed it against the said late King by their adhering to the Parliament Which Money this Informant refused to pay and was therefore committed prisoner by Warrant under the Hand of the said Sir Iohn Stawel to the Castle of Taunton where he remained about ten days until his wife had borrowed Fifty pounds and paid it to the said Stawel and so procured his liberty And shortly after the said Sir Iohn Stawel sent to this Informant for Twenty pounds as his part of Two thousand pounds which the Messenger that came to him from the said Sir Iohn Stawel told him was to be sent to the Garison of Bristol then held for the late King which Messenger also told this Informant as from the said Sir Iohn Stawel That in case the Money was not forthwith paid he the said Sir Iohn Stawel would send this Informant to the Bridewel in Taunton and would there keep him a prisoner until he had paid full Two hundred pounds to which his Fine was increased And he further saith That the said Sir Iohn continued Governor of Taunton about one year during which time divers well affected persons to the Parliament were by his command made prisoners and put to fine and ransom for their affection to the Parliament As namely Mr. Evans the School Master Mr. Iasper Chaplin then Major of Taunton Mr. George Powel one of the Justices of the Peace for the Town with divers others And that during Sir Iohn Stawels Government there divers of the Parliament Officers and Soldiers were brought in there and made prisoners and there kept by his Command until such time as they were discharged by Exchange or let go upon their Parol Iohn Adams 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 GEorge Treagel of Taunton in the County of Somerset Clothier Aged Fifty years or thereabouts sworn and examined saith That he hath known Sir Iohn Stawel Knight of the Bath for the space of Twenty years or thereabouts and that he knew that about seven years since the said Sir Iohn Stawel was Governor of the Town of Taunton for the late King against the Parliament And that the said Sir John together with other of the Kings Party committed this Deponent as a prisoner into the Castle of Taunton for the space of five weeks or thereabouts for his affection to the state Part of which time he was kept in Irons And further saith That the said Sir Iohn Stawel did raise Forces both of Horse and Foot for the late King and levied War against the Parliament
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
Letter mentioned in the Remonstrance page 60 is pleased to confess viZ. that the truth was that by the order of the House that Committee was bound up from admitting him to compound unless he took the Covenant except the House would dispence with it which he saith they did when they approved of those Articles Certainly when Sir Anthony wrote this Letter he had forgotten that the Negative Oath and Covenant were injoyned to be taken by Compounders by Ordinances of both Houses of Parliament And therefore although the approbation of the Articles of Exon by the House of Commons should be granted to be a dispensation of those Ordinances in respect of them yet the Ordinance of the House of Lords lay still on that Committee as a prohibition not to make any Composition without the tendring of those Oaths otherwise why did that Committee and Sir Anthony amongst the rest send some of those Gent. that were comprised within those very Articles of Exon to the House of Lords after that the House of Commons had approved of them to procure such their dispensation likewise which had been needless if the approbation of the House of Commons alone had wholly disengaged that Committee from the tender of those Oaths and although they were thus limitted yet was not Sir Iohn without his means of Composition for he might have Petitioned the then Parliament to admit him to Composition who did before the Committee of Goldsmiths Hall were enabled constantly to compound with Delinquents which Sir Iohn neglecting or rather refusing to do the nonperformance of his Articles lyeth still on his accompt for suppose Sir Iohn had come to the Court of the Upper Bench or any other Court and had presented by Petition his offer to compound with them and that Court had told him they could not compound with him and that thereupon he had sate down had not Sir Iohn neglected the performance of his Articles or was it any fault in that Court that Sir Iohn could not be admitted by that Court to compound certainly no and there is no difference but that the Court of Upper Bench had no power at all to compound and the Committee of Goldsmiths Hall had such a power but limited to such rules which Sir Iohn refused the primitive and original power of Composition remaining still in the Parliament which Sir Iohn neglected nay refused to submit unto It is observable that notwithstanding sir Iohn had denied to take those Oaths or to acknowledge his Delinquencies yet that Committee our of a designe to preserve him gave him some time to consider thereof as himself confesseth Remonstrance pag. 24. which he seemed to accept as Mr. Ash affirms although sir John now denies it Let it be either yet it doth aggravate his neglect or obstinacy that having longer time notwithstanding the expiration of the four moneths and finding that Committee was disabled otherwise to compound with him he had not resorted to the Parliament it self for his peace Again the House of Commons themselves had after their confirmation of those Articles and before sir John came to compound viZ. Die Martis 2 Junii 1646. RESOLVED THat all persons that have or shall come and reside in the Parliament-Quarters shall take the National League and Covenant and the Negative Oath notwithstanding any Articles that have been or shall be made by the Souldiery So as after this time the Negative Oath and Covenant were to be taken by all Compounders at Goldsmiths Hall though they were within Articles and this by the command of both Houses Neither can sir John object the Order following viZ. Die Sabb. October 18 1645. ORdered That all Compositions for the discharge of the Delinquencies of any persons and for the taking off their Sequestrations shall be made with the Committee of Goldsmiths Hall and that no other Committee do compound with any Delinquent without the special directions of this House JOHN BROVVN Cler. Parl. Nor can sir Iohn upon this Order say that since this Order doth enable that Committee to compound with Delinquents in general that therefore it was the only place for sir Iohns address For although they were to compound with all Delinquents yet not untill after the taking of the Oaths but sir Iohn was to compound without Oaths which composition the Parliament alone could make Again this Order taketh away this power of compounding from all other Committees and centers it in the Committee of Goldsmiths Hall alone but still reserving to themselves either the power it self in cases extraordinary or direction thereof Sir Iohn therefore finding the Committee of Goldsmiths Hall to be limited to Rules and Oaths from which himself pretended an exemption by Articles should have made his address to the Parliament to make his Composition with them or from them to receive directions where else to make it especially when the Articles do mention Compositions with the Parliament and sithence his Composition made at Goldsmiths Hall if he had made any must before it could be effectual have the approbation of the Parliament If it should be objected that these Articles being confirmed were become the Articles of the Parliament and not of the Souldiery and so by consequence not within the word Souldiery in that Order of the second of June It is answered that those Articles ought to have the confirmation of both Houses which they having not until above 12 Months after they still continued the Articles of the Souldiery especially when the words are Articles that have been made by the Souldiery Sir Iohn therefore not making any application to the Parliament touching the gaining his Composition is guilty of this neglect those objections notwithstanding If Naaman had washed twice seven times in Abanah or Pharpar he had not been cured the command and together with it the healing vertue being fixt in Jordan which Naaman upon advise wisely performing was cleansed of his Leprosie But Sir Iohn not applying himself to the Parliament on whom the agreement rested and in whom the compounding power remained though importun'd thereunto continueth yet a Delinquent Every Compounder at Goldsmiths Hall was to deliver in a particular of his Estate by these resolves following viZ. Die Sab. 13 Dec. 1645. REsolved That if any shall come in to compound he shall present the particular of his Estate to the Committee of Goldsmiths Hall and the true yearly value of it as it was before these troubles began and for that that is concealed or omitted he shall have no advantage by his Composition but shall pay four times the yearly value of what real estate is concealed and for his personal estate concealed he shall forfeit all Such a particular Sir Iohn likewise did neglect both at the first and second time of his appearance although advised thereunto before he came by Mr. Ashe and at his first coming by the whole Committee and it had been wisdome in Sir Iohn to have hastened his Composition having vainly spent already so much time
thereof Neither is the objection of weight that a particular was to be brought in when the Compounder was admitted to his Composition for Sir Iohn was really admitted observing the Rules of that Committee whereof a particular was one and to perform which he had time given him but at that time neglecting it his resolution not to compound appeareth and without such a particular that Committee being strangers to his estate could not without a survey thereof which would be chargable to the Commonwealth compound according to the rates prescribed them to avoid which charge the Parliament ordered a particular Sir Iohns having no notice of these Rules hath been vainly objected for when Mr. Iohn Ashe gave him the visit he was informed by him of the form of his Petition and of the particular and when he first came to Goldsmiths Hall the Committee gave him longer time as himself confesseth to consider of the Oath and Covenant or as Mr. Iohn Ashe deposeth upon hopes that at his next appearance he would be better advised and yield submission to the authority of Parliament and conform to the Rules of the Committee or as Mr. James Ashe informeth to amend his Petition and bring in his particular to compound of which also he was told by the Committee neither could it be in any sort prejudicial to him to subscribe a Delinquency or some act amounting unto it for this over act of subscription could not have been treason or breach of his Articles in regard it was known and taken as an inabling rule of that Committee onely if it had been yet the very subscription carried with it a pardon of that subscription So as in these four particulars Sir Iohn Stawell did neglect the performance of his Articles and therefore the blame of his after troubles must light on himself not on the Parliament especially since the Committee of Goldsmiths Hall did admit him to composition accoring to the Rules of Compositions but he would not submit unto it and sithence the Parliament hath performed what their Armies promised in suffering Sir Iohn quietly to enjoy his liberty during the four Moneths and expressing their readiness to compound with him at two years value had he Petitioned them to that purpose but he wilfully refused it for as Mr. Ashe affirmeth although Sir Iohn Stawell did appear at the Committee of Goldsmiths Hall yet he never intended to make any Composition there according to the Order of Parliament and the rules prescribed for Composition upon the said Articles but did oftentimes declare his resolution to the contrary which his resolution he seconded by his carriage and words at his first coming thither And although Sir Henry Berkly hath said that it was fitting and Sir David Watkins that he came to that Committee with a fair and civil respect And Sir Anthony Irbie took no offence with his carriage neither as he thinketh justly there could be any taken neither saw he any incivility at the time he was before them either in carriage or language yet hath Mr. Richard Wareing deposed that it was insolent Mr. Michael Herring that it was very high Mr. Samuel Moyer that his comportment was very insolent and Mr. Iohn Ashe that the sence and substance of his words were That the Parliament had seized and sequestred his Estate or had taken it away by force for doing his duty to the King as by the Law and several Oaths which he had taken he was bound to do and that he could not have his Estate again unless he gave that Committee mony to redeem it that he was a person in debt and his debt and his debts were much increased since his Estate was taken from him by the Parliament by which means he was disabled to pay the Committee much money notwithstanding if they could accept of what he could procure he would then compound with them for the redemption of his Estate And Mr. James Ashe doth attest that his words were and Mr. Samuel Moyer certifieth that he scornfully said that he was no Delinquent but the Parliament and they was who contrary to their Oaths had fought against the King and although Sir Henry Berkly being of the same judgment and affect so although Sir David Watkins by forgetfullness or age and Sir Anthony Irbie for some other respect seem now to excuse him yet certainly his deportment then both in the opinion of Sir David and Sir Anthony themselves was very disrespective to the Government and such as the whole Committee and especially Sir Anthony Irby being the most earnest had thereupon resolved forthwith to have it reported to the House of Commons had not Mr. Iohn Ash desired them to give him some four or five days respite upon the hopes aforesaid which the Committee did accordingly Sir Iohn having thus voluntarily refused the Armies mercy in not making his Composition within the four moneths limited he was after the expiration of them reduced to a Delinquent that had forfeited his Articles and therefore cannot complain of injustice when upon his coming to Goldsmiths-Hall the 13 of August 1646. they then committed him for refusing to take the Negative oath and Covenant and upon his reiterated misdemeanors being higher in his expressions then at his first being there although his former expressions contemptuously disowned the authority of the Parliament Ordered Mr. Stevens their then Chairman to report such his carriage to the House of Commons And being thus committed he did not in the least degree petition or desire that Committee to be admitted to Composition he only craved maintenance which that Committee promised him to take care of as himself relateth in his Remonstrance During his imprisonment there he and the rest of the Prisoners whereof Mr. Michael Tidcombe a Wiltshire Gentleman was one having received an intimation of the late Kings pleasure that the Prisoners might make their peace with the Parliament debated what to do therein at which debate Sir Iohn was present And although the rest of the Prisoners did agree to make their Composition with the Parliament yet Sir Iohn utterly opposed it in his particular and laughed at such as already had or would make such Composition which jeering at such Compounders he used at another time by the testimony of Mr. Ash Afterwards Mr. Stephens accordingly doth make his Report to the House of Commons and as Mr. Iohn Ash hath sworne before the High Court of Justice to this effect viZ. That the opinion of that Committee was That Sir Iohn Stawell had slighted and contemned the Authority of the present Parliament and forfeited their mercy contained in the Articles of Exon with this conclusion That if the Parliament did not make Sir John Stawell a Traitor Sir John had made them Traitors And this conclusion is likewise attested by Mr. Iames Ash Upon which Report Sir Iohn is sent for to the House of Commons but being staid some time in the Lobby till the Debate of the House was ended Mr. Iohn Ash came
this Informant remembers positively but the Parliament and you who contrary to your Oaths of Allegiance have fought against the King Or words to that effect Being cross interrogated by sir Iohn Stawels Councel He saith That it is the custom of the Parliament when a Delinquent is brought to the Barr that the Delinquent doe first kneel before he receive any Charge And saith that upon the Debates in Parliament it was alleadged That sir Iohn Stawell had forfeited his Articles and it was clearly the opinion of the House that he had forfeited his Articles And that was one ground of their judgement there was no Vote passed to that purpose that he knows of but it was taken as a thing clear and indisputable And further saith That M. Iohn Ash was to have the benefit of sir Iohn Stawels Composition by Order of the House of the 20 of Iuly 1646. as he takes it which was to be towards the satisfaction of debts and disbursments to the value of ten thousand pounds which had been entred into by the said Mr. Ash Col. Popham Col. Fines c. in Somersetshire for the service of the Parliament which being satisfied the overplus was to go to Mr. Ash towards his losses and sufferings but for certainty this Informant refers to the said Order it self This Informant further saith That Mr. Stephens did report to the House the high and insolent behaviour of sir John Stawell who came to Goldsmiths Hall under the pretence of a Compounder and had spoken divers words tending to the dishonour and disowning of the Parliament for which the Committee had committed sir Iohn Stawell and commanded him to report the same to the House And he concluded his Report in these words Although the Parliament shall not make sir John Stawell a Traitor yet he hath made them Traitors And further the Informant saith he doth not know that ever Mr. Iohn Ash did make application to sir Iohn Stawell to buy Aubery nor did ever hear of any such thing untill sir Iohn Stawell told the story at the High-Court of Iustice six years after the business of his Composition The Information of Michael Herring Esquire taken the same time in the same Cause Who saith THat he was one of the Committee at Goldsmiths Hall and present when sir Iohn Stawell came and presented himself to compound as he understood it who was very high in his language and in carriage but this Informant remembers not the words He refused to take the Negative Oath and Covenant and to subscribe his Petition to acknowledge himself a Delinquent as all men did For my Estate said he doe what you will but I would keep my conscience to my self And this Informant refers to his old Examination at the High Court And further saith That he conceives sir Iohn Stawell came to compound because he came there and presented himself but doth not remember that he desired to compound There was a Paper presented but sir Iohn Stawell would not put his hand to it This Informant did not read it nor can he remember that the Committee read it nor that they called it a Remonstrance this Informant understood it as a Petition and doth not remember the particular reason why sir Iohn Stawell did not subscribe the Paper nor did he subscribe any Paper to the Committee that this Informant knows And this Informant conceives the said Paper was brought in by sir Iohn Stawels Sollicitor who acted for him This is a true Copie Examined by T. PAUNCEFOOT Hitherto sir Iohn Stawell notwithstanding his Imprisonment continued his resolution not to compound It is true that about five nights after his imprisonment in Newgate he sent late in the night the Lady Stawell to Mr. Iohn Ashe under pretence of a business of importance but when Mr. Ash was come accordingly he entreated Mr. Ash to move the House for his removal to the Tower for his better accommodation but being desired by Mr. Ash to Petition for a remission to Goldsmiths Hall to make his Composition and receive the benefit of Exon Articles He answered That Mr. Ash knew his resolution as to compound and that if he had a mind to compound that he had no money to pay his Composition Which is not only attested by Mr. John Ash in his Answer annexed to pag. 11. but by the Ladies affirmation to a Justice of Peace in the County of Somerset whose Certificate followeth viZ. I have several times being in discourse with the Lady Stawell heard her to say that Mr. Ash hath been a very good friend to her husband notwithstanding all those calumnies he hath cast on the said Mr. Ash for his endeavouring to save the said sir Iohns Estate And about a quarter of a year since being in the company of the said Lady at Ham I acquainted her that Mr. Iohn Ash had not long before that acquainted me with the passage of his visiting the said sir Iohn at Newgate late at night upon the earnest importunity of the said Lady and on assurance from her that her husband had then a real mind and will to submit to a composition But when he came there he found the said sir Iohn to take him up with needless and impertinent discourses wholly waving his business of compounding so that the said Lady was enforced to say Sir Iohn is it not sufficient for you to abuse me but must you also abuse your good friend Mr. Ash who hath at such an unseasonable time and at such a place come unto you and by your direction for the good of you and yours or words to that effect All which the said Lady at the time aforesaid consented unto alleadging that it was the truth which I had made relation of In witness whereof I have set my hand this 14 day of December 1654 John Barker In which stubborness he continued for the space of four years and could not be perswaded to a composition notwithstanding the many indeavours of his friends as Mr. James Ashe hath attested upon his knowledg Mr. Iohn Ashe doth Answer page the 2 affirm that when the Lady Stawell his wife and Sir Edward Stawell his son then in France did earnestly solicite him that they might Petition the Parliament to be admitted to compound for the Estate since he refused it Sir Iohn denied to give his consent thereunto threatning his Son to disherit him if he attempted any such thing and was much incensed against his son Edward for writing Letters to Mr. Ashe for his admission since his Father refused it Mr. George Longe was deeply engaged for him as surety whose ensuing Certificate will acquaint you how he stood affected unto a Composition during his imprisonment in Newgate George Longe Gent. doth certifie that he being engaged for Sir John Stawell for several great sums of moneys as by the Counterbonds and other obligations will appear borrowed by Sir John Stawell in 1637. and 1638. to purchase lands in Aubury in the County of Wilts before the
beginning of the late Wars which being not paid caused the said George Longe to go at several times to the Gaol at Newgate to intreat him to Petition the Parliament that he might be admitted to a Composition but the said Sir John Stawell was much discontended with him for his endeavour therein Also the said George Longe being prosecuted on his said engagements for Sir Iohn Stawell made again his request unto the said Sir Iohn that he would think upon some way to make his Composition and peace with the Parliament telling him that the Parliament as it should seem had taken such notice of his not prosecuting his Articles or forfeiting them that an Act was drawing up for the sale of his and other Delinquents lands a Copy or draught whereof the said George Longe at his own cost procured and delivered to him and he read the same being left with him to consider and did further acquaint him that until the Act was perfected there was hope yet left so as he would betake himself to the work but if he neglected it that he would not onely undoe his own family but also this Certificant and his Which courtesie of the said George Longe the said Sir Iohn Stawell repaid with disdainful scorn and pride telling him that he had better Councellors then the said George Longe Which Act passed not until about an year after during which time many of the persons which were first mentioned got themselves struck out of the said Act their causes being referred to a Committee and as it is thought so might Sir Iohns have been if he had but laid hold of the advice of his meanest friends Afterwards his Highness the Lord Protector was to make his voyage into Ireland to reduce it before whose going the said George Longe went again to Sir Iohn Stawell in regard of his the said Georges sad condition to intreat and perswade him and having made some relation of his thoughts did acquaint Sir Iohn that he was come the third time to draw a Petition unto his Highness then Lord General that he would intercede to the House in his behalf that he might be admitted to a Composition wherein the said George Long being so nearly concerned did promise unto him if he would cause his Petition to be drawn and therein humbly state his case he the said George would find some means of procuring his Petition to be answered In which the said George Long could not prevail with the said Sir Iohn Stawell at which this Certificant stood amazed to see Sir Iohn Stawell and himself so near undone and the said George Longe so sensible and Sir Iohn no way regardful of his condition and so took a sorrowful farewell George Longe Was not this an apparent wilfulnes in Sr. Iohn that rather then he would Petition the Parliament for his admittance to Composition he would hazard the ruine not of himself and Family alone but of this Gentleman and his house who had so friendly and deeply engaged for him and is not Sir Iohn justly declared by the Parliament to be not admitted to Compound when he had for four years space for the Articles were granted the ninth of April 1646 and the Act that declared his non admission was passed the ninth of July 1650 against the advice and notwithstanding the importunities of his friends and sureties disdainfully neglected to Petition to that purpose which by his Articles he ought to have done for it was not enough for Sir Iohn passively to submit to a Composition but by all means to compass it actively and to that end the word submit in the twelfth Article is explained by the word make in the 22 of the same Articles Sir John is pleased in his Remonstrance to produce a Petition which he saith he delivered to Mr. John Ashe but indeed hath been lately drawn by Sir John of purpose to secrete his resolution not to compound for Mr. Iohn Ashe Ans page 13. saith that the Petition which after many amendments and obliterations of the high language therein Mr. Iohn Ashe was to deliver as then it was Mr. Iohn Ashe upon his going into the Country did by Sir Iohns appointment deliver to Mr. DenZil Hollis who refused to deliver it because it desired his removall to a Prison more commodious but not his admissito his Composition neither doth that Petition in his Remonstrance mention any such desire nor indeed his removal therefore could not be the Petition delivered to Mr. Iohn Ashe but one of a later birth Thus his resolution not to compound continueth still upon him notwithstanding his now endeavours to perswade a continual readiness in him thereunto if suffered In the interim he is by Order from the House of Commons of the 18. of August 1646. at the next Assizes held for the County of Somerset at Taunton found by the then Grand-Iury guilty of High-Treason But that Indictment being in a legal formality only insufficient to bring him to his Trial was laid aside and afterwards by another Order of the same House of the 18 of February 1647. there were three Indictments found against him one for High-treason and two for Murder one for killing of Robert Osborn at Marshals-Elm being the first blood shed in the West of England in that quarrel and the other for the murder not execution of Christopher Viccary Which Indictments were found by a Grand Iury consisting of nineteen Esquires and Gentlemen some whereof have been since and now are in the Commission of the Peace four whereof only were of Taunton viZ. Mr. Richard Bovet Mr. Samuel Whetcomb Mr. Philip Lyssant and Mr. George Powel the rest living in several places in that County and but two of these four viZ. Mr. Richard Bovet and Mr. Powel had then obtained Iudgments against Sir Iohn and yet those legally and upon evidence and defence made The one for Sir Iohns taking away unjustly 1200 l. worth of Mr. Bovets estate the other for his cruelty towards Mr. Powel as aforesaid and Mr. Bovet only hath since chased a parcel of Sir Iohns Estate But doe all or any of these allegations invalid those Verdicts found by fifteen more besides those four of Taunton Because Sir Iohn Stawels most frequent and greatest acts of Treason and the Murder of Viccary were committed in Taunton was it not fit that some of the Jury should be of Taunton that could best judge of these his acts And because some of them had obtained Verdicts against him upon sufficient proofs for injuries done unto them can it be any exception against their Verdict especially since they had long before the time of the Verdict recovered the same And as weak is the last allegation Because one of them hath purchased some Estate exposed to sale in 1651. Therefore he was no competent Iuror 1647. four years before when such exposal to sale could not without a spirit of divination be before seen and might have been prevented if he had pleased but being now sold
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