THE Lord Cravens Case Briefly Stated out of the REPORT: WITH OBSERVATIONS, UPON THE SEVERAL PARTS OF THE SAME.  
London: Printed by T.L. for T.H. in Covengarden. 1654:   


THE Lord Crauens Case, briefly Stated.  
THat the Lord craven in February, 1641. went out of England to his Charge in Holland by licence of the Lords assembled in Parliament.  
The 6. of February, 1650. the Council of State refer it to the Commissioners for Compounding, to examine certain witnesses against the Lord craven, to proceed against him according to the Act and Ordinances for Sequestration, and to give an account of their proceedings.  

OBSERVATIONS Vpon the several parts of the LORD CRAVENS CASE.  
THe examinations of Falconer was first framed, and then the Commissioners at Haberdashers-hall were sent for to give the said Falconer his oath at White-hall, there was no precedent Charge, or Accusation against the L. Craven, so as the wit●●ss must of himself be an informer.    

Thereupon two witnesses are examined at whitehall, whose depositions are mentioned in the report at large, and one at Haberdashers-Hall.  

Of the three witnesses there is but only Falconer that hath any thing of crime in his Deposition, who is convicted of perjury for the very matter of that Deposition; those Depositions are in the nature of Affidavids, and are no evidence to convince.    

The 15. of February, 1650. the Lord Crauens Agents desired a copy of his charge, to the end to make a defence, but could not obtain it.  

The constant ceurse was after information taken against any, to give them Copies of the Charge, to prepare themselves to answer, before any thing done against them: here was no Charge drawn up, whereto an answer might be made, neither before nor after the Depositions, neither in Parliament nor elsewhere.    

The 4. of March, 1650. the Commissioners for compounding certify the Examinations taken, and offer it as a doubt to the Council of State, Whether it were within the Act of Sequestration for any living beyond Seas to hold correspondency with, or to repair to the King of Scots ●hen beyond the Seas, and the Council or●er a Report thereof to be made to the parliament.  

There was just cause for the doubt, no Act or Ordinance imposing sequestration for any such crime, and neither of these doubts were at any time resolved by the Parliament, neither is it known upon which point they voted the confiscation.    

The 6. of March, 1650. upon the report resolved by the Parliament, that the Lord Craven is an Offender within the Declaration of the 24. of August, 1649. Declaring all persons who have served the Parliament of England in Ireland, and have betrayed their trust, or have, or shall adhere to, or aid and assist Charles Stuart, son of the late King, to be Traytors and Rebels, and that the Estate of the Lord Craven be confiscate accordingly: And that the Commissioners for Compounding be impowred and required to seize and sequester all the Estate real and personal of the Lord craven.  

The Vote of Confiscation passed the same day the information was reported to the Parliament there was then no Charge, Jmpeachment, or Indictment to which the Lord Craven might answer, or whercin his crime did appear.  
It is against the Law, and contrary to several Acts of Parliament, that any should forfeit his Estate without conviction upon a bare Vote without any Charge.  
It were unreasonable to expound this vote, that men should be adjudged Traytors and Rebels without legal trial, and it cannot be supposed that a parliament, which is to preserve the peoples liberty, should take it away, and deprive them of that security which common Law and Iustice gives them, being adjudged to lose life and fortune without trial or hearing; nor did the vote intend that an● insufficient evidence in Law should be valid and perfect in parliament, for that in this case were to expose the parliament to reproach, and take away all credit of their proceedings.  
The Declaration of the 24 of August 1649. within which the L. Craven is voted to be an offender, is but a bare vote not reduced into a Law, which ought not to confiscate any mans estate real or personal. It appears by the vote, that it was only intended for Ireland, no man within it, but those that had served the parliament of England in Ireland, and had betrayed their trust, or had or should adhere to the son of the late King, or any of the forces in Ireland against the parliament; and the same vote is ordered to be printed and published, and sent into Ireland to be put into execution there. But the Vote was most severely put in execution against the L. Craven, who resided all these times in Holland, and never served the parliament in Ireland.    

By Order of the 11. of March, 1650. from the Commissioners for compounding the Lord Cravens real and personal estate, was seized and sequestered.  

Upon the issuing of these Orders for Confiscation some Members of Parliament bought part of the L. Cravens personal estate▪ some of whom afterwards interested themselves in large purchases of his real estate.    

The Lrod craven by his Agents endeavoured the repeal of those Votes, and june 12 1651. upon the debate of the first Bill for Sale of Delinquents Estates upon the question, whether the Lord craven should be within that Bill? it was resolved in the Negative; which Vote the third of july 1651, was confirmed by a Summons, which was then directed for the Lord craven to appear the third of September following, which was to be published in Westminster-Hall, and at the Old Exehange.  

All the Votes against the L. Craven were earried but b, one, two or three voices, nothing clearly carried against him at any time after a vote in Parliament was carried in the Negative, to have the same question reassume● was unparliamentary, and shows that some in power which afterwards made hast to possess his estate were desirous of it from the first.  
It is an unheard of course in Justice, that an estate should bee confiscate, and the party have a Summons afterwards, the judgement preceding the Summons.  
The Summons without a charge or impeachment against him was illegal and irregular, as to ground any forfeiture upon the not obeying of it, it ought to have been to his person, and then if there had been a charge against him, the penalty for disobeying had been but a seizure quo usque, no confiscation or other forfeiture for that. This is the Law of England.    

The Lord craven sends several Petitions, and others petitioned on his behalf, but could not prevail to be heard thereupon, and on june 22, 1652. upon the debate of an Additional Bill for Sale, the Parliament was informed by Petitions that Falconer( the onely witness that did depose any thing of crime against the Lord craven) was perjured, and their directions for examination thereof was thereupon desired.  
But that not being granted▪ july 12 1652▪ Falconer was indicted of perjury at Guild Hall, and the indictment found.  

Was it ever known before a person accused desired to be heard and it was declined? the truth of this appears by the petitions themselves remaining on record, in the hands of Mr, Scobel Clerk of the Parliament; Neither was Falconer ever heard viva voice before the Parliament, or any Committee of Parliament, without which course no man was ever before adjudged by parliament.    

The 20 of july, and 3 of Aug. 1652, upon debate of an Additional Bill of Sale, the Parliament were by petition informed, that the Indictment against Falconer was found, and that there were several other matters to impeach his testimony; notwithstanding the Lord craven was voted to be inserted in that Bill, which Vote was passed by a mayor number of two voices only.  
The 4 of August, 1652, the Lord craven is inserted into a Bill of sale, and thereby all his manors, Lands, Tenements and Hereditaments are Enacted and Declared to be forfeited.  
The Lord craven addresseth himself by petition to the Parliament to redeem his estate from sale, but could not prevail.  

The Members of that parliament, which passed votes concerning the Lord Craven, stepped in with the first to buy the Estate,( though it was absolutely contrary to what had been formerly settled by vote of Parliament, that the whole proceedings were unparliamentary and carried precipitately, as appears by the progress.) All means being shut up, whereby the secret contrivance of this deposition of Falconer, and the falsehood contrived in it, might be discovered; which is sufficient evidence that some did seek the profit of themselves by the ruin of another▪ and devouring the Lord Cravens Estate; ( though sometimes Rebels in Arms and open hostility have been esteemed convict by the notority of the fact, being publicly avowed by themselves, and the supreme power, assaulted by them openly,) yet it was never known, that where the fact was particular & not apparent, but that it was to be disovered by examinations before any person was condemned to suffer in life, liberty or estate; For it were against all the practise of State that ever had been, and against common Justice, and pernicious to human society, and for the prevention wheeeof, many Laws have been made in England; all which this course against the Lord Craven overthrows: And there is awide difference where a fact is denied, and where it is avowedly continued; and therefore, violence against a Magistrate draws on sometimes the death of the Acterby the wilfulness and resistance of Authority without judgement( as it often happens in Tumults) but extraordinary courses are never just where ordinary may be used, where a man may be proceeded against by the ordinary way of Indictment and legal accusation, it is unjust to fall upon him by an absolute power without the requesite circumstances of judic●ture.    

The 20 of May, 1653. Falconer upon a full hearing at the Upper Bench-Bar, is found guilty of Perjury for that Deposition only.  

At this trial there was as great an Auditory as hath been seen at any trial.  
Besides, as to the Infamous carriage of this perjured Witness, it was proved at the trial, that he drunk healths to the Devil on his knees: That he said our Saviour Christ was a Bastard, and the Vitgin Mary a Whore: That he gave a man 20. s. in gold to permit him to bugger him: And also was committed to Aelesbury Goal, and afterwards to New gaet upon suspicion of several Felonies.    

The supposed offences of the Lord Craven were fully pardonned by the Act of Oblivion, and claim made by him thereunto before the Commissioners at Habberdashers Hall before the passing of the Act of Sale for his Lands and he is debarred of the benefit of the Act only, by being put into a bill of Sale after the passing of the said Act of Oblivion.  
And therefore he humbly prayeth the repeal of the said Votes of the 6. of March, 1650. and of so much of the Act of Sale, as concerneth his estate, and that he may have such reparation for his unsufferble losses, as the Parliament in their Honors and Justice shall seem meet.