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
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 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
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
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
actions amounted to the total of 7000 l. as himself affirmeth and to which actions he never pleaded those Articles although he might but either the general issue of not guilty or suffered Iudgement to pass against him by confession or default When he was arraigned at the Upper-Bench-Bar for his life he did not so much as mention those Articles He now saith in his Remonstrance pag. 30. that upon his moving to plead specially the Court did order that he should bring in his special Plea the first day of the next Term and did assigne him Councel for that purpose but what that special Plea was or intended to be whether touching his Articles or any other matter sir Iohn is not pleased to acquaint us hower during this time sir Iohns deportment was full of disdain towards the Authority of Parliament High it was at his first coming to Goldsmiths Hall higher at the second being there and highest at his arraignment at the Upper-Bench-Bar all which do manifest his intention not to compound through his ambitious hopes aforesaid But when by the Kings death his hopes began to sink and were absolutely lost by the King of Scots the late Kings pretended successor his taking the Covenant and thereby engaging against sir Iohn his Cause and Interest then and not before he abated the height of his insolencies how milde then he grew witness his carriage sunk even to a dejection before the High-Court of Iustice and how fearfull his endeavour to escape out of Newgate being thither committed for High-Treason doth testifie And then and not before he took up his pretences and flew back to the mercy of those Articles which he formerly slighted and to regain the lost benefit of them he insinuates with the Army suggesteth unto them the great dishonour if their faith should be questioned and that the highest security that the world affords is engaged for his Indempnity and his confidence of restitution is such that his Agents give out that Commissary General Whaley will leave no stone unturned to preserve it to the great scandal and abuse of that person of valour and integrity Whereas it is true that the Faith of an Army is a high security and the honour of it ought to be as pretious as the apple of the eye which Faith which Honour sir Iohn had once engaged for his Indempnity but such an Indempnity only that he might the freelier make his Composition with the Parliament But when Sir Iohn did not endeavour but slight nay contemn his Composition and during his stay in the Parliament-Quarters did by colour of that faith in a presumptuous manner disown their Authority in their Committees in their Courts of Iustice and in their very House he hath abused the end for which this faith was given the Armies faith is disingaged and it will be a dishonour unto them now to support him whose offences cry aloud for punishment and who hath in so high a nature abused the end and trust of their engagement and scorned their mercy otherwise then to make use of it to advance his own ambition and that very designe against which the Army did fight when a mutual faith is passed between man and wife the security is greater and as great as the faith of Articles and the wife may with greater reason challenge performance from her husband then a Traitor can upon his Articles yet if the woman shall become an Adulteress she hath abused that faith and the end for which it was given and the husband is disingaged without the least breach of his honour or faith unviolated Therefore doth the faith of the Army remain notwithstanding sir Iohn his imprisonment Trials and sale of his Estate and the rather for that he that now layeth such hold on the Articles of Exon brake his own with the Town of Taunton and committed Dunscomb to rot in the Gaol although his person was indemnified by the Articles of Bristoll Sir Iohn after a recital in his Remonstrance of these transactions against him mentioneth the erection of the Court of Articles in time 18 Iune 1649. and his Petition thereunto to be relieved upon these Articles upon which Petition he saith Remonst pag. 35. no proceedings were made by that Court but tels you not the reason which in truth was for that as they answered his Petition that they could not relieve him standing committed by the Parliament for High-Treason well knowing that by Law that Court could not by general words of their Act of Erection intermeddle with sir Iohns relief seeing he was particularly committed by the House of Commons for High-Treason and thereby implicitely adjudged to have either broken or neglected the performance of his Articles Painted Chamber Westminster Die Veneris 13 July 1644. By the Committee appointed for Relief upon ARTICLES of WAR THe Petition of Sir John Stawell Knight was this day read and the Councel on the Petitioners behalf heard And it was moved that Bail might be taken for the said Sir John or that a Keeper might attend him to his Councel for the clearing and dispatch of his business Hereupon it was urged by the Councel for the Commonwealth That the Parliament who were the Supream Authority and from whom all other Courts were derivative had as was confessed in sir Johns Petition committed him for High-Treason and levying War against the Parliament and commanded that he should be detained Prisoner untill they gave further Order So that no consideration was to be had by any other Power under them as to his Bail or enlargement without their leave But his Councel was informed that if they had any thing further to move on the Petitioners behalf they should be heard whereupon they desired time to advise Which was accordingly granted untill Wednesday A true Copy JOHN WILSON Dep. Regist Now from the time that sir John was arraigned at the Upper-Bench-Bar which as himself saith was in May 1649. there did efflux 13 months untill the time that the Parliament passed their Act for sir Iohns Tryal by the High-Court of Iustice which passed 9 Iuly 1650. during which time they patiently expected his reformation but finding him of the same thoughts did by that Act order his Trial by that Court and did in two places thereof mention that sir Iohn was not admitted to compound And therefore when in the tryal of Sir Iohn Stawell for Treason and other offences amongst which the killing of Robert Osborne at Marshals Elme and the hanging of Christopher Viccary in Taunton were two upon hearing all the Evidences and Witnesses produced on the Commonwealth and of the Prisoner it was agreed by that whole Court for so they certified to the Parliament as by the same transcribed in the Remonstrance page 37. 38. appeareth that he was guilty of the Treason and other high offences charged on him that Court ought to have proceeded to sentence his special plea of Articles notwithstanding neither indeed should that plea have been admitted after that
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
allow to such persons as should claim releife by Articles were both received and it was resolved upon the question in the Negative which he prayeth may be specially observed It may be thought presumption in Sir Iohn to intimate any reason or grounds of the refusal of those Provisoes and it would be modesty in us not to imitate him yet in answer to that his intimation we say that the Parliament as appeareth by their proceedings intended so much in the case of Sir Iohn Stawell though perhaps they would not have such a general proviso incerted either because their was no Judgement Vote or Resolution of that Parliament touching Articles but in the Case of Sir Iohn Stawell or because they presumed as well they might that their inferior deivrative Court of Articles would not call inquestion any of their proceedings but as soon as they did find that that Court had proceeded in the Case of Sir Iohn Stawell they forthwith by their Resolution of the 24 of Febr. abovesaid prohibited them any further proceedings especially when that Court began to proceed to sentence contrary to their judgement untill that time wisely forbearing their prohibition in expectation of that subordinate Courts submission to their Declaration of Sir Iohns not admittance to compound and their disposition of his Estate There is likewise a Proviso in that Act of reviver which in effect is the same with the recited Proviso and is in these words viZ. Provided That such person or persons claiming benefit of Articles as aforesaid have not forfeited the same by breach or nonperformance of what is or was on their part to be performed since those Articles were so granted And there cannot be a more supream Declaration or Judgement then that of the Parliament it self that Sir Iohn had forfeited the benefit of his Artitles and therefore the Case of Sir Iohn Stawell the onely Case depending in Parliament touching Articles was already provided for and by consequence that Proviso needless The second Proviso seemeth as needless to be inserted in this Act of Reviver for since it doth revive the former Act and doth enable that newly erected Court to put in execution all and every the powers expressed in that former Act one of which powers is to releive and redress the parties complaining so far as in justice they ought to have by the said Articles by restitution in specie or in value c. That Proviso speaks no more then what was enacted in the very body of that Act and for that reason doubtless was laid aside The next material thing for our Answer is the Letter of Sir Anthony Irbie mentioned in the Remonstrance page 59. to be directed to Mr. Tracy Pauncefoot Reg. of the Court of Articles and at large inserted and because he did Sir Iohn such good service by his said Letter Sir Iohn hath produced him as a Witness before the present Committee of Parliament where his examination was in these words viZ. The Examination of Anthony Irby Knight taken the 16 of November 1654. before the Committee of Parliament to whom the Lord Cravens Petition is referr'd being produced as a Witness on the behalf of Sir John Stawel whose Petition is referred by the Parliament to this Committee VVHo saith That he was one of the Committee for Compounding sitting at Goldsmiths Hall and was present there when Sir Iohn Stawel did prefer his Petition to compound And saith that the same was so preferred within the time limited by the Articles of Exeter as appeared by the Pass of Sir Thomas Fairfax And saith that the said Petition was read at the board but something therein was disliked for Sir Iohn Stawel did not acknowledge his Delinquencie nor would he take the Covenant and Negative Oath And further saith that Sir Iohn Stawel did not behave himself misbecomingly as this Deponent conceiveth only did insist upon the Articles of Exeter and said that by them he was to be admitted to Composition and he this Examinant took no exceptions at his carriage And saith that in those times there was want of mony and it was his opinion that Sir Iohn Stawel ought to compound And further saith That at that time this Examinant did not know of any body that was about to buy any part of Sir Iohn Stawels Estate but saith That about two or three yeares ago as he remembreth he was at Sir Abraham Williams his house being about the time of Sir Iohn Stawels Trial for his life or presently after as he remembreth and there he met Sir Edward Baynton and enquired of him the reason of the prosecution of Sir Iohn Stawell And Sir Edward Baynton then told this Examinant That there was a Gentleman who would have bought a Mannor of Sir Iohn Stawell in Somersetshire or Wiltshire he cannot tell whether and that he the said Sir Edward Baynton had some interest in part of it and had offered if Sir Iohn Stawell would sell his part he also would sell his other part but said that afterwards he was sorry for that offer because he conceived that was the original of Sir Iohn Stawels troubles And this Examinant further saith That Sir Iohn Stawell came punctually within the time limited by his Articles for that the Committee for compounding gave him a time to appear after the date of the time given by the said Articles on purpose that the Committee might shew him no favor when the time given by the Articles was out And saith That Sir Edward Baynton told him this Examinant that the person who would buy the said Mannor was Mr. Iohn Ash And this Examinant further saith That one of the Members of that Committee being the Chairman told the Committee that Sir Iohn Stawell was without with a Petition but said the same was failing in many circumstances And saith That after the Case then in debate was ended which was one Berkleys as this Deponent now remembers Sir Iohn Stawell was called in And this Examinant being now demanded whether Sir Iohn Stawell had subscribed not to bear arms against the Parliament as was required by his Articles This Examinate saith that there was a Committee who sate in Goldsmiths Hall to take Subscriptions without which as he remembreth Delinquents were not to stay within the Lines of Communication but saith that he doth not remember that ever he saw any Certificate that Sir Iohn Stawel had subscribed not to bear arms nor did he ever see the Certificate of any other person to that purpose that came to compound And this Examinant further saith That the Committee had an Order of Parliament not to compound with any that did not take the Covenant and Negative oath which latter the Committee had power to administer and the same was tendred to Sir Iohn Stawel but he refused to take it and said he was excused by his Articles And this Examinant further faith That it was not then objected against Sir Iohn Stawel that he had not subscribed the Engagement not to bear arms
against the Parliament Being Cross-examined on the behalf of the Commonwealth He saith That he doth not remember that Sir Iohn Stawel said the Committee were Traitors or Delinquents That to his remembrance they had no Order of Parliament that persons should acknowledge their Delinquencie before they were admitted to compound but the Committee made such an agreement amongst themselves And saith that some of the Committee did say that Sir Iohn Stawels Petition was rather a Remonstrance then a Petition And saith that there was no Particular of his Estate annexed to his Petition nor was it ordinary so to do but the Particular was usually delivered after admission to a Composition And saith that Sir Iohn Stawel did refuse the Covenant and Negative oath upon account of his Articles and that the subscription not to bear Arms was not to be made before them but in another place before they came to them And saith That he was neer Sir Iohn Stawel when he was with the Committee but did not hear any particular ill language given by him to the Committee as he remembreth but saith that his carriage was then as it was usually not very pleasant or Courtly Sir David Watkins examined at the same time on Sir John Stawels part Saith THat he was of the Committee for Compounding and was there when Sir Iohn Stawel came and presented his Petition to the Committee which was within four moneths from the 8. of April And saith that he came in a civil manner but did not acknowledge his Delinquencie nor would take the Negative oath and was refused to be admitted upon that account And saith that he doth not remember any Order of Parliament that did forbid them to Compound with persons that did not acknowledge themselves Delinquents but such as had not taken the Oath and Covenant And saith that he saw the Lord Fairfax his Pass dated in April and that he doth account four moneths after the rate of 28 dayes to a moneth And saith that he doth not know that any Certificate was brought to them touching Subscription not to bear Arms either in this or any case of persons compounding upon those Articles and saith that Sir Iohn Stawels not subscribing was not objected against him at that time Being Cross-examined on the behalf of the Commonwealth He saith That some did say That Sir Iohn Stawels Petition was rather a Remonstrance then a Petition but the title was A Petition But he had not acknowledged his Delinquencie nor taken the Negative Oath and Covenant and for that reason he conceives it was called a Remonstrance That the Committee were informed he had subscribed not to bear Arms against the Parliament Sir Anthony Irby being called in after the Company were withdrawn and asked whether there were any private discourse at the Committee to Sir John Stawels prejudice HE saith that Sir Iohn Stawell being without the dore the Chair-man went out and on his return told this Examinant That Sir Iohn Stawel was a great Enemy had raised Arms against the Parliament drew the first blood in the West of England that his Petition was not valid he acknowledged no Delinquencie had not taken the Negative Oath and saith that the Committee pressed him to it and upon refusall gave him time till his Articles were out because then they knew how to deal with him and saith that the Committee did not meddle with subscription for that was to be done by particular Committees separated from them because that concern'd Delinquents stay in Town but only to see that they did take the Negative Oath and Covenant And further saith that the second day that Sir Iohn Stawell appeared Mr. Stephens was in the Chair as he remembers Of both which to make some observations Sir Anthony saith in his Letter That he knoweth sir John delivered his Petition within the time according to Articles And in his Examination that the same was so preferred within the time limited by the Articles of Exon as appeareth by the Pass of Sir Thomas Fairfax But in neither hath he explained himself what he meaneth by the time limited for if he intendeth thereby Kalendar time it is then true for sir John appearing first on the sixth of August came within the time limited But then it cannot be true what Mr. Michael Herring hath both sworn and affirmed upon his examination that the Committee refused him not for not coming in time And so Gens contra Gentem But if sir Anthony reckoneth but 28 daies to the Month sir John must first appear before the 30 of July when the time according to that Act expired but then the suggestions of sir Anthony's own Warrant of the Committee whereof sir Anthony was one and present of the fourth of August cannot be true for that surmiseth that sir John had not then appeared before any Committee And by this construction there is sir Anthony Irby the Commissioner against sir Anthony Irby the Witness He saith upon his Examination The Petition was read but something therein was disliked because sir Iohn did not acknwledge his Delinquency neither would he take the Covenant and Negative Oath As touching the refusal of the Oaths that could be no cause of disliking his Petition it might be of refusing his Composition the Oaths being collateral to the Petition As touching his acknowledgement of Delinquency it is strange that it is now grown with sir Anthony a finding of fault or an occasion to pick a quarrel with one that deserved no favour by reason of a Character given him of the violentest and earliest enemy which was indeed true let whomsoever give that Character when as it was the constant rule by which that Committee and sir Anthony himself did walk neither was there any person whatsoever that did compound without it let him deserve favour or not But if sir Anthony intended to shew him no favour why did sir Anthony for he sweareth that We did give him time for eight or ten daies or fortnight He further deposeth that he did not certainly remember but it was to his cetain remembrance that by that time his time given him by his Articles would be out that We might deal with him the better which if it should be believed to be true because he sweareth it certainly sir Anthony was then too severe in his Justice rather injust as he is now too mercifull neither can he be excused of casting snares in sir Iohns way to satisfie his passion for sir Anthony himself was then the violentest man against him though to the breach of the faith of the Army and Nation But we will not take advantage with an Habemus confitentem reum we will not for his own credit at this time believe him but do believe Mr. Iames Ash that time was given unto sir Iohn Stawell upon the entreaty of Mr. Iohn Ash and in hope to draw sir Iohn in the interval unto a submission Sir Anthony's testimony touching sir Iohns carriage at that Committee hath been
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