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 Common­wealth, (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.

[Page 2]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.

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 contrary) yet this Plea (De son Assault de­mesne) although it is a good Bar in an Action of Assault and Battery. He first Assaulted me, and therefore I did cut, and gave him those wounds in my own defence. Yet here it is no Plea, sithence, for a Theif to say, The Honest-man first assaulted me, and therefore I rob­bed him; or for a Traytor to affirm, The Parliaments Forces first shot at me, and therefore I killed, wounded, and imprisoned them; [Page 4] were never known to be any good Pleas, or so much as colourable ex­cuses; And Sir Iohns being there in Arms against the Parliament, was a Treason of an high nature. Vain therefore are this and the rest of Sir Iohns pretences in that his Remonstrance, and of as little weight are his Protestations therein, one whereof we now light upon: For he pro­tests before the Almighty God, That he did not cut or draw blood on any man that day; but made it his care to preserve any of that party, and to rescue as many as he saw any violence offered unto. The truth of which his Protestation, will appear by this Deposition tran­scribed.

By which Examination, the pretended civility of Sir Iohn doth manifestly appear, by his hacking and hewing upon the pursuit, and his carbonading of Nicholas Ward, a fit expression of that outrage, and would be adjudged so, if Wards mangled face were in present view, his nose being cut off, and his eye cut out, as Nicholas Ward by his Peti­tion to the Court of Articles, and in that Remonstrance recited, doth set forth. But this blood Sir Iohn endeavors to wipe off by affirming, That Ward having once sworn and obtained a Judgment against him for 100 l. damages, findes himself now bound to make good that shameless untruth (so he is pleased to term it) doubtless it is the part of an honest man, at all times, and in all places to affirm a truth, especially having sworn it before a lawful Authority; and therefore [Page 5] Ward inserting in his Petition to that Court of Articles, such Sir Iohns dealing with him, cannot be any scandal, except truth it self be one. For an untruth it cannot now be presumed: For Nicholas Ward in Hillary Term, the two and twentieth of Caroli, brought his Action of Assault and Battery against Sir Iohn Stawel, whereunto he pleaded neither this pretended Plea of Self-defence, nor his being comprised within the Articles of Exon, but the general Issue of Not guilty: Which Issue coming to be tryed at an Assizes for that County of Somerset, the Jury (persons not interessed nor concerned) found him guilty (of this shameless untruth.) And this very Main being then given in evidence, and proved by one Checkford, since deceased, and other witnesses (whereof Ward himself could not be one,) the same Jury assessed so great damages as 100 l. Without which Testimony the Jury would not have found Sir John guilty, unless they themselves knew the truth thereof, as perhaps some of them did, being Inhabitants of the same County. And therefore Sir Iohns bare negation, especial­ly seeing it tends to the attainting of both Jury and Witnesses, must and will with all unbyast persons beat no weight. Which Sir John it seems well knew, and therefore produceth several Certificates and De­positions, in order, as himself saith, to remove the Grievance which then lay on him by that Petition of Ward, (and doubtless will lie on him to Succession.)

And to this Testimony Sir Iohn gives the title of Very Honorable, whereas Neighbor-hood will know how little credit may be given to all those Witnesses and Certificates, except one of them. Mr. Emma­nuel Sandys his Certificate is first produced, which (if admitted) doth make against Sir John himself: For Mr. Sandys certifies, that after some entercourse between the Forces, Captain Preston and the Company offering to march up the Hill in two Bodies, the Company on the Hill (meaning Sir Johns Company) shot at us several times (meaning the Parliaments Forces) and we at them. Of which words, what other construction can be made then, that Sir Iohns Company made the first shot; and if so, where is the truth of Sir Iohns Plea of Self-defence. Thus far Mr. Sandys (and we must believe him, Sir Iohn else will be angry) hath fixt the shameless untruth on Sir Iohn himself, and then proceeds to certifie, That the Parliament Forces flying, Captain Preston and himself were taken prisoners, and their Moneys, Horses, and Weapons taken from them by some of Sir Iohns Company, who had killed them, if not rescued by the now Lord Pawlet and Sir Iohn Stawel. And these prisoners had that night fair Quarters; and for that the Soldiers had taken from them their money, Sir Iohn Stawel, Gen­tleman-like, delivered to Mr. Sandys Forty shillings, which Mr. Sandys took for a civil respect, and afterwards repaid him with thanks, for his favor and kinde usage.

This is the further effect of Mr. Sandys Certificate; by which it is observable, how soon Sir Iohn Stawels Party had learnt their Trade, first to rob, and afterwards to kill; which must speak aloud Sir Iohn Stawels honor, in that he rescued the prisoners, and gave Mr. Sandys Forty shillings. Which (for ought appears) might be part of the moneys taken from him, or Captain Preston; and if so, Mr. Sandys [Page 6] is favored with a Pig of his own Sowe. But where is the Certificate of Captain Preston on this behalf? A person of valor, and one that hath faithfully passed through the greatest offices of trust in his Coun­ty: his Certificate is not to be found, perhaps not demanded, his usage was so bad. It is certified, his Moneys, Horse, and Arms, were taken from him. And what was the reason, that Sir Iohn gave Master Sandys Forty shillings, and nothing to Captain Preston, seeing both were alike prisoners, alike robbed? Was there no design in this par­tiality? did not Sir Iohn foresee, or had hopes of a facile, or possible corrupting Mr. Sandys and his man Vax, (to whom he gave so liberal­ly as Fourteen pound) or at least abating their zeal and fidelity to the Parliament? It is certified, That Mr. Sandys took it as a civil respect and favor; and it was observed, That Mr. Sandys and his man Vax, did thereafter very coldly, if at all engage for the Parliament. And Mr. Sandys hath in requital of this respect, certified his belief to that Court of Articles, but grounded upon a known untruth; He doth verily believe, That many lives and much blood was that day saved by the onely means of the said Sir Iohn Stawel, who then, and at other times, ever behaved himself as a lover of his Country.

These are the words of this bold Certificant, whereas it is too well known in that his Country, That the series of Sir Iohn his actions, doubtless not unknown to Mr. Sandys himself, doth speak him the con­trary; witness his Depopulations at Cothelstone, and his Planting after­wards under colour of some satisfaction, and through fear of the then Star. chamber, (who began to question such offences) the disterr'd In­habitants on the top of Quantock-Hill; witness those Articles of Complaint by the Town of Taunton (the Inhabitants of a whole Cor­poration, and his Neighbors) exhibited against him in Parliament, which seem to be the Articles mentioned in his Remonstrance, P. 14. to be by that Town preferred. 3 Car. against him unto the Parliament, upon scandalous and false suggestions, as he pretends; and yet they were made good against him, and himself reproved; and which he hath since fully revenged, as will appear. Witness his Breach of the Publick Trust of his Country, by leaving the Parliament (at a time when all the Liberties, and Common-Interest of the Subject lay at stake) and his taking up of Arms to destroy and tyrannize (when thus armed) over the Lives, Liberties, Estates, and Consciences of his Fel­low-Subjects; the very Magistrates and High Sheriff himself of the County not excepted: And yet Mr. Sandys is pleased to term him a lover of his Countrey then, at Marshals-Elm, at that time, when Mr. Sandys himself fighted him (if he fought at all) as a disturber thereof. O Regina Pecunia! What a strange alteration of judgment hath these Forty shillings wrought in Mr. Sandys in a few years!

Sir Iohns next Proofs are the Examinations of the Lord Pawlet, and one Robert Knight, Gentleman, (which Knight, although not by the title of Gentleman, yet is otherwise notoriously known in his Country,) both their Depositions being to this effect, That Sir Iohn did not hurt any man, nor discharged his Pistol, as the Lord Pawlet remembers, being near unto him, during all that action, and as Mr. [Page 7] Knight verily believes: Sir John not stirring out of the highway; and that the Drummer (whom the Lord Paulet knoweth not) was (as he be­lieves) not hurt by Sir John, but (as he hath since heard) by one Crocker; which Depositions (if true) will no waies invalid Wards testimony, and much less the affirmative and positive testimony of the witnesses at the Tryal and Verdict of the Iury thereon, in regard these Depositions are in the negative, Did not stirr out of the highway, nor discharge his Pistol, nor did hurt any man: Whereas it is proved that Sir John had his sword drawn, and Wards wounds were given by a sword, and might be given as well in the highway as in any other place. Neither is it usual for one Commander to take particular notice of anothers actions, especially in a fight and pursuit of an enemy, and when there was no preintention or cause of any such particular observation; neither is it improbable but that Ward might have that day some wounds given him by Crocker, and yet af­terwards receive 26 more from Sir John Stawell (all his wounds exceed­ing that number) and those by Crocker might be given in the Corn, and those by Sir Iohn in the highway? The same answer might be given to the ensuing Depositions of William Stuckly and Robert Vax, being both to the effect of the former; but that the Deposition of Vax is vo­luntary and extra-judicial: and both the Deponents of no such credit in their Country, as in any sort to call in question the verdict aforesaid, however by comparing the Depositions of Knight, Stuckly, and Vax, it is evident, that Sir Iohns company were by direction and order to, and did give the onset and charge, which argues Sir Iohns actions rather of­fensive then defensive, as Sir Iohn pretendeth, and the first shot to be given by his party. The next endeavour of Sir Iohn is, by his Remon­strance to extenuate his sending of William Cady and Iohn England to Ivelchester Gaol to ease (forsooth) the Castle of Taunton, whom he there found prisoners, and where they were improperly kept. Tis very true they were improperly imprisoned for their faithfulness to the Parliament; and as improperly by Sir Iohn by a Mittimus to the Keeper of Ivelche­chester, removed from Taunton thither.

But Sir John saith that he soon after released England, but could not Cady, because he was a prisoner for debt upon his first coming thither; but Cady swears that Sir Iohn committed him to the common Goal, and kept him there in chains for a year and more, and threatned to hang him, and said he was a Traitor against the King, and demanded 20 l. of him, and Iohn England doth depose, that he tasted very deeply of Sir Iohns cru­elty.

The Transcriptions ensuing are full.

By which Depositions of William Cady, it is manifest that Sir Iohn Stawell fought and drew blood at Marshals Elme; yet Sir John Stawels honorable testimony would perswade, that they believe, he did hurt or wound no man there.

A very neat belief to mince a truth; as if the wounding of Ward to [Page 9] desperation of life (found so by verdict) his hacking and hewing upon the pursuit (proved by Nicholas Ward) and his fighting and drawing of bloud (attested by William Cady) were no hurting of any man. These Depo­sitions likewise prove the cruelty of Sir John, and yet Sir John thinks it impossible for him to be guilty of so much bloud and cruelty as is men­tioned in the Petition of Cady and Ward; as if 26 wounds draw little or no bloud, and as if chains, irons, close imprisonment, exaction of great fines of well-affected persons, to advance the late Kings interest, to the destruction of the Commonwealth (as the insuing Depositions will plain­ly manifest) be less cruelty then is mentioned in their moderate Petition. We do pray that Sir John may no longer stand on publick extenuation of these and the ensuing outrages of his; but in secret repent them, hum­bly imploring the divine mercy, to avoid divine Justice, being the rea­diest way to pacifie the restless proceedings of them, who (as he scanda­lously pretendeth) hate him without a cause; but probably are the instru­ments of that Justice.

Sir Johns Remonstrance hath brought us to the year 1643. and to Marquiss Hartfords approach to the Town of Taunton, the place which afterward God preserved amidst the fires, and notwithstanding the adusted wrath and rage of the besiegers; and which Sir John, during his Command thereof, made the Rendezvous of Tyranny and arbitrary power, not to advance the Royal Interest (as was divulged) but (as is very likely) to satisfie the displeasure he had taken up against the Inhabitants thereof, upon the occasion abovesaid; upon which approach, these faithfull In­habitants (finding that they were not of strength sufficient to protect themselves from this rebellion) sent their Justice of Peace, Mr. George Powel, and one Mr. Nicholas to the Besiegers, to Treat of a Rendition upon Articles, during which Treaty, and after Articles agreed on (a­mongst which, some of them were, That the Inhabitants should be free from Plunder and Imprisonment) the Enemy upon pretence (without the least ground of truth or probability) that the Inhabitants were flying with their Moveables (whereas they were in truth some strangers only then in the Town that went out) did enter the same, and (notwithstanding those Articles) plundered it to the value of 10000 l. and imprisoned the then Maior, and chief Inhabitants thereof. With what face then can Sir John now call so loud upon the faith of the Parliament and their Armies to perform their Articles; when himself and his associates then brake theirs. Now after this Plunder was made, then Sir Iohn (as he saith) intreated that the Town might be admitted to a reasonable Fine, which was asses­sed at 8000 l. a sum which that poor exhausted Town was not able to pay (the richest of them being, before that time plundered to what could be found:) And this moderate Fine was thus imposed (likely) to the knowledge of Sir Iohn (if not by his Vote) for he was then of the Coun­cel of War, that imposed it, and Governor of the Town: And yet now he saith it was 8000 l. as he hath heard. To gain which Government, Walter Cliffe the Gaoler, Aldred Seaman, and others, Sir Iohns Agents were sent to gain subscriptions to the Petition in that Remonstrance reci­ted page 13. which Petition was drawn beforehand, and without the knowledge of the Inhabitants; some of whom in hopes to get out of prison, and others for fear of being imprisoned, subscribed the same, and [Page 10] such as denied their subscriptions thereunto, were by Sir John Stawels special command inhumanly dealt with. Sir John having thus gained unto himself the Government of this Garrison, begins his intended re­venge on the Inhabitants, labouring with all rigour to extort that fine from them, which he knew to be unreasonable, and contrary to Articles, to maintain (as he confesseth page 16.) the souldiers left there in Garri­son, indeed his fellow-Traitors. And such Inhabitants as refused to pay the same, either through a good affection to the Parliament, or disa­bility, he imprisoned, laid them in irons, threatned to hang them, and de­nied them humane necessaries, causing a spout to be taken away, which served them with rain water for their drink. In which hardships Sir John kept them untill he had gained from them such sums of money as he thought fitting; and then scoffingly boasted, that he now knew a way to get money; meaning, by hard imprisonment, and the torment of irons, to inforce men by any means to raise sufficient to satisfie him. Neither will his allegation that the Town agreed with the Marquiss to pay that fine, any way excuse him, in regard such Composition was con­trary to their Articles, and made when a plundring sword was amongst them. Mr. George Powel was then a Justice of the Peace in that Town; and how Sir John used him, his depositions and his wifes attestation will declare, being as followeth, viz.

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.

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.

Alexander Kingsland did then likewise depose to this effect, That Anno 1643. Sir Iohn Stawel was Governor of Taunton for the King, and did imprison this Deponent, and divers other well-affected; and kept them in Irons, until they had paid great sums for their enlarge­ment.

Henry Dunscomb did then likewise swear to this effect, That Sir John Stawel committed him to Ilchester Goal, to lie there till he did rot, if he would not take up Arms against the Parliament.

Robert Audrey also upon his Oath, did affirm to this effect, That Sir Iohn Stawel being Governor of Taunton, this Deponent for his affection to the Parliament was indicted for High Treason at Wells; and Sir John Stawel said, That he would see this Deponent hanged, drawn and quartered, for being against the King; and would hang his quarters upon the Gates of Taunton.

Which Testimonies fully declare Sir Johns disposing of the Estates and Persons of the chiefest of those Inhabitants at his will, and con­trary to all Law: And therefore some of them upon their Actions brought against him for these Injuries, obtained respective Verdicts and Judgments upon full Evidence on both sides, and by Testimony satisfactory to a Forreign Jury, a Jury at the Guildhal, London. Nei­ther were persons and Estates the bounds of Sir John Stawels rage: He breathed out threats, and persecution against their Consciences, sty­ling them Puritans, Tub-Preachers: He fined Mr. Powel Ten pound for being absent from Sir Johns Fasts, when sick: He forbad Mr. Mills, and his Fellow-prisoners, either to pray or sing Psalms in prison, telling them, If they did, he would be so neer unto them, as to hinder their long Prayers, or to that effect.

And because many Women resorted unto other Congregations, and were not willing to hear his Malignant-Preacher, he threatned by his Soldiers to strip them to their Smocks; and would own it as an act of his own. And further his malice extended not to the well-affect­ed Inhabitants of Taunton alone, but likewise to those of the Neigh­bor-hood, he seized on the Estate of Colonel Ceely, whilst he was in the Parliaments service; the incivility of his Soldiers in the mean time hastning the death of the Colonels Wife, and her childe. And al­though Sir Iohn is pleased in his Remonstrance (Pag. 19.) to say, That there were taken from the Colonel by his Command, no more then seven or eight loads of Hay, in a time of necessity. These ensuing Certificates together with a Verdict given for Col. Ceely at the Guild­hal, London, will shew the contrary.

It is therefore wondred, That Sir Iohn Stawel should pass by so slightly the sufferings of those who felt his unjust plunder and cruel­ty, and yet bear the damage thereof legally obtained so heavily (though little in consideration to the wrong done, and yet unpaid.) And in a Remonstrance (set out to gain pity (as it is supposed) by a Mis-narative of his own sufferings) should use so little truth and sinceri­ty in the Relation of the loss of another man.

This is inserted, to undeceive the people, and take off the slan­der of a legal Tryal had and prosecuted.

Mr. Henry Ceely of Northcurry, was likewise plundred and imprisoned, and Mr. Henry Myntern imprisoned by Sir John Stawell, but wherefore, and in what manner, their own Depositions hereunder transcribed will best declare.

[Page 21]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.

For the time, it appeareth, both by the Two and twentieth of those Articles, which is the Article of Explanation, and the Generals Pass, That such persons as were comprised within those Articles, were to make their Composition within four moneths from the ninth of A­pril, 1646. Which moneths being understood to consist of Eight and twenty days to each moneth, expired on the thirtieth day of Iuly fol­lowing, inclusive.

Now although Sir Iohn pretends, that his Petition was delivered on the Four and twentieth day of Iuly, five days before the expiration of the four moneths, yet that could not be; for by an Order of that Committee, of the fourth of August following, Sir Iohn was sum­moned to appear on the sixth, as one that had not then appeared; the words of which Order are,

Again, Mr. Leech, the Clerk of that Committee did depose before the High Court of Justice, that he saw not Sir Iohn there until after the fourth of August; and yet he frequently attended that Committee. Indeed Mr. Iohn Ashe in his Deposition recited in the Remonstrance, Page 26. saith, That he doth not well remember the precise day of the moneth, when Sir Iohn first appeared before the Committee at Goldsmiths Hall; but this he doth well remember, That it was about four days before the four moneths limitted by the Articles of Exon expired, which was true, and yet he did not come in until after the fourth of August, if Mr. Iohn Ashe be rightly understood; for Mr. Ashe meant Kalender moneths, which ended on the tenth of August exclusive; and by this construction, the sixth of August, (the day pre­scribed for his appearance in the Warrant) was four days before the expiration of these moneths: And that this was his meaning, doth plainly appear, by the subsequent words of his Oath, That when Sir Iohn next appeared (and he did but twice appear) before that Com­mittee, it was about three days after the four moneths limitted by the Exeter Articles; For it is granted by all, that his second appearance was on the thirteenth of August, for of that date is his Mittimus, and the Order likewse of Goldsmiths Hall; for Mr. Stephens report as appeareth by the Remonstrance, Page 25. Now the thirteenth day was three days after the tenth of August, (the day of the expiration of the Kalender moneths) but could not be so after the thirtieth day of Iuly, the day of the expiration of the four moneths after the rate of eight and twenty days to the moneth; which construction makes the Oath true in every particular, otherwise it will prove repugnant to it self. And this doth also agree with the Depositions of Mr. Michael Herring, one other of that Committee, who did swear before the High Court of Justice, and hath since affirmed before the Committee of Parliament, in the Star-chamber, That that Committee of Gold­smiths Hall did not refuse his pretended Petition; for that he came [Page 27] 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 [Page 28] 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 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 [Page 29] 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.

But Sir Iohn having taken on a Resolution not to compound, took up all pretences to avoid the same.

[Page 30]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.

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 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.

[Page 32]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.

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.

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 [Page 33] 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.

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 [Page 34] 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 [Page 35] 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 [Page 36] 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.

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.

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.

[Page 40]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 [Page 41] 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; [Page 42] 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 1200l. 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, he catcheth at every twig to recover it.

However the truth of those Verdicts and Indictments is since con­firmed by the Iudgment of the High Court of Iustice, upon Sir Iohn Stawels Plea of Not guilty, and the Depositions of several Witnesses to that purpose; as is certified under the subscriptions of three and twenty of that Court, and manifested by the recital of the proceedings of that Court in the Remonstrance.

Sir Iohn being thus found guilty by three several Indictments of Treason and two Murders, and still refusing the mercy of his Articles, the Parliament in honour of Iustice, and upon consideration of his forfeiture of Articles, did on the 14 of March 1648. and two years and a half and more after his first Commitment, Order his Trial upon these Indictments at the Upper-Bench bar, where his Expressions were more insolent, and his disownings of the present Authority greater then at any time before: And so far was Sir Iohn Stawel (after so long imprisonment) from accepting the benefit of his Articles, that he did not then mention them in order to his exemption from that Trial; but on the contrary, distinguishing Mr. Iustice Bacon from Mr. Iustice Roll, owned the first, as one sitting by the Kings Commission; but disowned the latter, being appointed by the Parliament under the Great Seal by them approved; which Seal he termed a Counterfeit, and accused the then Sollicitor-Generall of high treason for prose­cuting against him in the name of the Parliament, as was by several Witnesses proved before the High Court of Iustice.

And as Mr. Iohn Ash affirmeth, uttered words to this effect, viZ. My offence is not Treason for which I am here arraigned, but because I would not permit the Committee of Goldsmiths Hall to pick my purse, and give my consent to pay a sum of mony for the redemption of my Estate which is unjustly taken from me. Which speeches, if they had fallen from one formerly innocent, had been an offence of an high nature; but being [Page 43] spoken by sir Iohn, a person guilty (and so found by several Grand Iuries, and at several times) of Treason, Murder, and other high offences; And by one that came into the Parliament-Quarters under the pretence of a Composition; and in that conjuncture of time, when divers Garrisons held yet out for the late King, and some Ships had renegaded the Parlia­ment-service: and in one of the highest Iudicatures whither multitudes re­sorted to observe his deportment, became not a Compounder, much ag­gravated his former offences, must prove prejudicial to the Parliaments affairs, and contrary to the 21 of Exceter Articles, and to sir Iohns En­gagement and subscription at the Guild Hall, and was doubtless a breach of his Articles.

And although perhaps these insolencies were not Treason within the Cognizance of an inferior or ordinary Judicature, yet might the Parlia­ment adjudge them so, which they have done: For in their Act of sale, they have mentioned Treason committed by him; which must be his miscarriages since his Articles, for his former were pardoned: And al­though it be granted they do not amount unto Treason, yet they may be a breach of Articles; for it is not Treason only that doth break them, inferior offences may prove a breach, the breach of good behaviour (and certainly his miscarriages are of no less nature) is a forfeiture of a pardon; and why not of Articles? Truely much more: for pardon (though of grace) is grounded upon the compact and agreement of the whole Nati­on; but these Articles are but the agreement of certain persons thereof; of the Army with Traitors. And although by the third Article of Exon, certain enumerated Acts are made a breach of those Articles; yet que­stionless other matters not enumerated, may be a breach; whereof these of sir John are some: and (it seems) have been so adjudged by the Parlia­ment: For in the Debate of all Acts and Resolutions of theirs against sir John, they still had a consideration of his Articles, and adjudged these his miscarriages a breach of them; and therefore declared him not to be admitted to Composition, having forfeited the benefit thereof. And although the Articles bind not sir John in point of his judgement, yet they restrain him from all open and overt expressions thereof, to the prejudice of the Commonwealth. A man in private thoughts, deemeth another man to be a thief (perhaps knoweth him to be one:) This judge­ment, this knowledg, the Law taketh no notice of:

But let him declare such his thoughts, judgement, or knowledge, by saying he is a Thief; these open words being prejudicial to the party whereof the words were spoken, make him liable to an Action; and if he proves it not, to repair him in damage: Sir John might without da­mage have kept his judgement to himself; but expressing it in such inso­lent and prejudicial language to the affairs of Parliament, he forfeited his Articles.

Which his deportment being reported to the House of Commons, they proceeded at that time no further against him in that Court; but having then consideration of the Articles of Exon, and to preserve the faith of their Armies from all colour of violation; they still reserved their mercy for him, if he had but then implored it.

But sir John continued in his averse resolution, out of a confidence of the late Kings restitution to his Power and Authority; and a designe [Page 44] thereby to receive his whole Estate gratis, with a great reward for his many sufferings in owning and justifying the late Kings Cause beyond a­ny of his party, being the only Subject of his, that refused to comply with the Parliament, when he might, and was earnestly invited thereun­to; which aim of his is apparent: For Mr. Iohn Ash doth tell us that he sent unto the late King at Hampton-Court, desiring him to take notice of the great sufferings he had undergone for his Majesties Cause, and did let him know the hopes he had of his Majesties great favour and reward for him, when he should be restored. And Mr. Iames Ash testifieth, that the Lady Stawell told him that sir Iohn did still flatter his hopes to have the King restored; and although there were daily less hopes, yet his faith continued strong; nay besides the testimony of these two per­sons of honour (and by the testimony of two witnesses, each truth ought to be tryed) if half an eye did but look into his carriage from his first coming before the Committee at Goldsmiths Hall, untill his tryal by the High-Court of Justice, it could be nothing but disownings, contempts, and opprobrious language of the present Government and Authority, de­riding of Compounders, and not the least claim of the benefit of his Ar­ticles, as long as his hopes of favour and singularity remained: For sir Iohn never pleaded, nor so much as ever pretended to those Articles, un­till some time after the late Kings death, although in the mean time there were brought and obtained against him divers Actions and Iudgements for acts by him done before those Articles, and relating to the wars; which 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; [Page 45] 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.

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 the Parliament [Page 47] 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

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.

[Page 49]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.

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; [Page 51] 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 [Page 52] 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.

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.

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 [Page 57] 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 [Page 58] 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

And passed an Act accordingly in these words.

Notwithstanding which reference, resolution, and Act of this second Parliament, in confirmation of the Act and proceedings of the former Parlia­ment, [Page 59] and sale of the Estate accordingly, Sir Iohn resteth not, but now pretendeth that the Committee for Petitions pursu [...]d not the intent of that Order of Reference; and draweth that pretence from these two Premises: The one, because Sir Iohn had the (extrajudicial) Judgment of the Court of Articles for part of his Estate, therefore this Committee did not pursue the intent of that Order.

Whereas (not to insist upon the consequence) the judgment and pro­ceedings of the Court of Articles against the Purchasers; being the very cause of their Complaint, and against which they desired relief from a superior Court, the Parliament thought fit upon a due consi­deration to establish the enjoyment of the Lands, and by consequence did lay aside that Judgment that would have disturbed it.

Sir John again saith, that in regard the Committee did think fit to confirm the Purchasers estates, therefore they did not pursue the in­tent of that Order touching the Purchasers relief. As if it were not the best and most sit relief to confirm their Estates, notwithstanding this Judgment, that would otherwise have taken them away.

Neither in the judgment of the Parliament it self had that Com­mittee not pursued their intent of Reference; for both by a Resolve and an Act they setled the Estate accordingly.

He saith, the Purchasers bargains and contracts could not be abso­lute and direct, in regard the said Clause of Limitation had debarred the Trustees themselves (from whom the Purchasers claim) in case of Articles from any such absolute Estate.

Suppose the Estate of the Trustees had been subject to such a trust in case of other men claiming Articles, yet in Sir Johns case (for the reasons aforesaid) there could be no such trust. State but his case, it will so appear.

Sir John committed Treason, and then agreed to surrender Exon, and to enjoy his Estate after Composition made within a moneth: But Sir John did not make his Composition within four moneths, but refused to make it according to the Rules of Goldsmiths Hall, and re­fused to petition the Parliament to be admitted to compound at large. The Parliament afterwards (the four moneths expired, and five years past, no Composition made) upon consideration of the Articles, and Sir Iohns forfeiture of them, enacted the Lands to be sold.

Now the trust upon the rendition being determined with the four moneths, and Sir Iohns neglect of making his Composition within that time (nay, untill sale) cannot be annexed to the Act of Sale; neither is there any other trust of Articles in the case of Sir Iohn, other, then that (lost) trust at the rendition. And that the trust was deter­mined by his not making of his Composition within the four moneths, it doth appear by a Judgment of a Court-Martial given about two years after, and by that Army, that best knew how to interpret their own Articles. The Judgment is in these words.

Sir Johns Case being thus, may we ask him a question or two.

Since there was no Composition made within the four moneths, as by the Articles he ought, we would demand of him, For what cause it was not made? Who hindred it?

If he saith the Committee at Goldsmiths Hall; that cannot be; they would willingly have compounded with him, knowing the present want of money (as sir Anthony Irby sweareth) and offered him a Composition according to their Rules, and gave him longer time to that end.

If he saith the Parliament; They did not, they were ready, and expe­cted him five years; nay some Members undertook it, if he would have Petitioned to that purpose.

Neither could his imprisonment be his hindrance, for he was at liberty till the four moneths were expired; and when he was in prison, his friends would have procured it, if he would but have Petitioned or assented there­unto.

But certainly it was his own resolution to the contrary; that only hin­dred it, it was that staid him in the Country three moneths and a half of the four, that kept him from Petitioning the Committee at Goldsmiths Hall, untill after the four Moneths expired, or but six daies (as himself confesseth) before the expiration, and not to come there again till war­ranted. And this his resolution rendered the endeavours of his friends fruitless, and heightned his comportment to an insolency.

Again, since his actions in Taunton are by a cloud of witnesses proved destructive, illegal, and irreligious: we could in a second place demand of him, by what Authority he thus acted? If he saith by the late Kings ap­probation, then certainly would not that Kings real intentions or constan­cy (even in sir Iohns judgement) be for the establishment either of Reli­gion, Laws, or Peoples welfare (as sir Iohn pretendeth, Remonstrance page 75.) if he will say, by his own Authority, then did he abuse his King as grossely as his Country; for the people conceived those his exorbitan­ces to be warranted by the King himself: And then sir Iohn hath been faithless to King, Parliament, and his own Country.

To conclude, since sir Iohn hath been a depopulator at Cothelston, at Marshals Elm bloudy, a Traitor, a Murtherer, what not in Taunton? a breaker of Publick trust to his Country, of Articles to Dunscomb; in­gratefull scandalously to Mr. Iohn Ash, ruinously to Mr. Long (Et si in­gratum omnia) since he intrenched on the Priviledg of Parliament, when he [Page 61] went thence without their leave, and upon the Kings privat Letter only, and hath contemned the Authority thereof at their Barr, in their Com­mittee, Iudges, Great Seal, and Sollicitor General; sithence he hath scorned the mercy of the Army, otherwise then to use it in advance of his Malignant designe.

Can sir Iohn think that the Army would have Articled with him at Ex­on, if they had either known his former, or foreseen his future miscarria­ges; or that the Army in 1652. had in their Petition (mentioned Remon­strance page 72.) any respect for him, when they Petitioned to have Arti­cles of War made good, according to the intent of them, sithence sir John hath in not compounding, lost their benefit, both by their words and intent? or that the late Parliament did upon designed, passionate, or self-interested reports, pass their Acts or Resolutions abovesaid against him, when his former offences, his Articles, and after-neglects and mis­demeanors were then in their consideration?

Or can sir Iohn justly expect, that this present Parliament shall (when this his comportment shall appear before them) take the Lands from the Purchasers (persons innocent, of integrity, and friends to the Publick) and contrary to the Judgements and Acts of former Parliaments (who best knew his demerits) and against the Law of Publique Sales (which ought to be as firm as the Laws of the Medes and Persians, and which nature it self taught the very Heathen to deem inviolable) shall settle them on sir Iohn, who in Justice deserveth not the mercy of his life?