AN ANSWER OF THE PURCHASERS Of the Lands, late of Sir JOHN STAWEL, By Act of Parliament, Exposed to Sale for his TREASON: To a Pamphlet, Entitled, The humble Remonstrance of Sir John Stawel: TOGETHER With the Answer of John Ashe Esquire, to divers Scandals mentioned in that Remonstrance. AS ALSO A Petition and several Reasons for establishment OF PUBLIC SALES; Tendered by Wil Laurence Esq One of the Judges in SCOTLAND.  
LONDON, Printed by Thomas Newcomb, dwelling in Thamestreet, over against Baynard's Castle, Anno Domini 1654.   

AN ANSWER OF The Purchasers of the Lands LATE OF Sir JOHN STAWEL; By ACT of PARLIAMENT, Exposed to Sale for his Treason, etc.  
IT is true, that Affliction and Calamities have attended Sir John Stawels late condition, not by any practice, misinformation, 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 tendered unto him by the Army; and which, others of his own judgement, and within his own Articles, timely embracing, did safely harbour, whilst himself remains split 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 than never.) But of what integrity, can such his Autumn-submission be, since it is tendered not till after the Fall of all hopes of a Contrariant, and is mixed with an endeavour to palliate, if not justify his former exorbitances.  
The particulars of which Remonstrance he doth avow upon the Faith of a Christian, and Honour of a Gentleman, though many of them be notorious untruths; and which Remonstrance he hath published to Vindicate (as he pretendeth) the Honour 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. choose Sir John Stawel to serve in Parliament as a Knight thereof, and thereby entrusted him with the protection of their Estates, and Liberties. Which high trust he undertook, and accordingly sat in that Parliament; but afterwards, contrary to that trust, he not only deserted that Parliament, but levied war against it, and the Public 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 than had of them, and both infringing their Country's 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 God's Word, faithful to the Parliament; and one that did, therefore, afterwards suffer under Sir John's Tyranny.  

October 22. 1650. Examinations taken upon Oath the day and year above written, by virtue of Directions from the Right Honourable The High Court of Justice, concerning certain High Crimes and Misdemeanours committed by Sir John Stawel, Knight of the Bath, for levying War against the Parliament of England.  
JOhn Daniel of Buckland-Mary, in the County of Somerset, Clerk, Aged Sixty years or thereabouts, being sworn and examined, saith, That Sir John Stawel, late of Higham in the County aforesaid, Knight of the Bath, did take up Arms against the Parliament of England; and, to his knowledge, listed many Soldiers, both Horse and Foot. And Anno Dom. 1642. the said Sir John Stawel was himself in person at a place in the said County, called Marshals-Elm; and then and there had many Soldiers under his command, both Horse and Foot, and did abet and encourage the said Soldiers to fight against those that were then near unto them; under the command (as I conceive) of Col. Pyne for the Parliament, and preservation of the Peace of the then Kingdom.  
And this Examinant further saith, That he being with the company that were for the Parliament, did adventure to ride up to the said place of Marshals-Elm by himself alone, of purpose to discern what Forces the said Sir John Stawel had. Before he came full to the top of the Hill, the said Sir john Stawel stayed him, and asked this Examinant, What he did there, and whether or no he was a Chaplain to the Army? To whom this Examinant replied, That he was not, but had some occasion of his own, at a place called Shapwick; which was about two Miles from that place of Marshals-Elm. And being demanded by the said Sir john Stawel, whether the Roundheads would come up the Hill, and fight them? This Examinant replied, That he believed that they intended not to fight; and thereupon this Examinant desired him to preserve the peace of the Kingdom. But the said Sir john being much enraged, swore, That if they would not come up to fight with them, the said Sir john, and his Company, would go down the Hill and fight with them; and thereupon drew his sword, and had also a Pistol, and brandishing his sword, said, Come up Blades, if you have a mind to it, and we are for you.  
And this Examinant further saith, That there were placed in Quar-Pits, thirty Musketeers or thereabouts, which had their light Matches, and their Muskets loaden, ready to fight; which were at that time encouraged by the said Sir john to be valiant.  
And this Examinant further saith, That at that time Mr. Robert Osborn (being for the Parliament) was there slain, and many others grievously hurt and wounded, and this Deponent with others taken prisoners by the said Sir john Stawel, and his Forces there with him.  
And this Examinant further saith, That one Captain Rosecareck (a Cornish man) six Months after, or thereabouts, came to Machelny, where this Examinant then lived, being sent by the said Sir john Stawel, and there searched this Examinants' house for Arms, and then carried away a Welsh-hook into the Castle of Taunton; and also divers other Arms from other his Neighbours. And the said Sir john Stawel (then calling in the Country upon Posse Comitatus) by Warrant, sent for this Examinant to appear before him, and there told him, That he was worthy to be drawn, hanged, and quartered for his siding with the Parliament against the late King.   
By which Deposition, the intention of Sir john and that Company, doth clearly appear to be otherwise then what by his Remonstrance is pretended. Sir john called the Parliament Forces Roundheads (a Nickname he lately learned at Court) swore those Roundheads should fight, and then drew and brandished his sword, inviting them to come up and fight, and encouraged his Musketeers in the Quar-pit.  
But (saith Sir john) 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, since, for a Thief to say, The Honestman first assaulted me, and therefore I rob him; or for a Traitor to affirm, The Parliaments Forces first shot at me, and therefore I killed, wounded, and imprisoned them; were never known to be any good Pleas, or so much as colourable excuses; And Sir john's being there in Arms against the Parliament, was a Treason of an high nature. Vain therefore are this and the rest of Sir john's 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.  

October 24. 1650. Examinations taken upon Oath, by virtue of Directions from the Right Honourable The High Court of Justice, concerning Treasons, Murders, and other high Crimes and Misdemeanours committed by Sir John Stawel, Knight of the Bath.  
NIcholas Ward of Chard, Cordwinder, Aged Thirty five years, or thereabouts, sworn and examined, saith, That about eight years since (he was then a Drummer under Lieutenant Colonel john Preston, of the County of Somerset; who raised Forces by Authority derived from the Parliament, for suppressing of Insurrections and Rebellions) This Examinant marched with divers other persons unto Marshals-Elm in the County of Somerset, where appeared Sir john Stawel, Knight of the Bath, with divers other Gentlemen in Arms against the Parliament, for the late King, when and where the Parliaments Forces were routed by an Ambuscado laid. And the said Sir john Stawel having his sword drawn, fell on this Examinant, and with his own hand gave him with his said sword twenty six wounds, leaving this Examinant for dead. This Examinant did then see the said Sir john Stawel ride after the Parliament Soldiers, and hacked and hewed them This Examinant further saith, That the said Sir john Stawel did often say in this Deponents hearing, That all those that did take up Arms for the Parliament were Rebels, Rogues, and Traitors, and should be all hanged one after another.   
By which Examination, the pretended civility of Sir john 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 john endeavours to wipe off by affirming, That Ward having once sworn and obtained a Judgement against him for 100 l. damages, finds 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 Ward inserting in his Petition to that Court of Articles, such Sir john's dealing with him, cannot be any scandal, except truth itself 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 john 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 tried 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 john's 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 john gives the title of Very Honourable, whereas Neighbourhood 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 intercourse between the Forces, Captain Preston and the Company offering to march up the Hill in two Bodies, the Company on the Hill (meaning Sir John's 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 john's Company made the first shot; and if so, where is the truth of Sir john's Plea of Self-defence. Thus far Mr. Sandys (and we must believe him, Sir john else will be angry) hath fixed the shameless untruth on Sir john himself, and then proceeds to certify, 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 john's Company, who had killed them, if not rescued by the now Lord Pawlet and Sir john Stawel. And these prisoners had that night fair Quarters; and for that the Soldiers had taken from them their money, Sir john Stawel, Gentlemanlike, delivered to Mr. Sandys Forty shillings, which Mr. Sandys took for a civil respect, and afterwards repaid him with thanks, for his favour and kind usage.  
This is the further effect of Mr. Sandys Certificate; by which it is observable, how soon Sir john Stawels Party had learned their Trade, first to rob, and afterwards to kill; which must speak aloud Sir john Stawels honour, in that he rescued the prisoners, and gave Mr. Sandys Forty shillings. Which (for aught appears) might be part of the moneys taken from him, or Captain Preston; and if so, Mr. Sandys is favoured with a Pig of his own Sow. But where is the Certificate of Captain Preston on this behalf? A person of valour, 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 john gave Master Sandys Forty shillings, and nothing to Captain Preston, seeing both were alike prisoners, alike rob? Was there no design in this partiality? did not Sir john 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 favour; 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 only means of the said Sir john 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 john 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 disterred 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 Neighbours) 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 Public 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 Country 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 judgement hath these Forty shillings wrought in Mr. Sandys in a few years!  
Sir john's 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 john 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. 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 not ways invalid Wards testimony, and much less the affirmative and positive testimony of the witnesses at the Trial and Verdict of the jury thereon, in regard these Depositions are in the negative, Did not stir 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 another's 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 john 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 john's company were by direction and order to, and did give the onset and charge, which argues Sir john's actions rather offensive then defensive, as Sir john pretendeth, and the first shot to be given by his party. The next endeavour of Sir john is, by his Remonstrance to extenuate his sending of William Cady and john 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 john 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 john committed him to the common Goal, and kept him there in chains for a year and more, and threatened to hang him, and said he was a Traitor against the King, and demanded 20 l. of him, and john England doth depose, that he tasted very deeply of Sir john's cruelty.  
The Transcriptions ensuing are full.  

October 22. 1650. Examinations taken upon Oath the day and year above written, by virtue of directions from the High Court of justice, concerning certain high crimes and misdemeanours committed by Sir john Stawell Knight of the Bath, for levying war against the Parliament of England.  
IOhn England of Taunton, Clothier, aged thirty years or thereabouts, sworn and examined, saith, That Sir John Stawell, when he was Governor of the Town of Taunton for the late King against the Parliament, did exercise much cruelty on some of the inhabitants that were real in their affections to the Parliament, by close imprisoning of them, putting by his command, Irons on them, and requiring great Fines from them, to advance the King's Interest to the great destruction of the Commonwealth; of which cruelty this Deponent tasted very deeply.   

November 5. 1650. An Examination taken at Dunster concerning certain high crimes and misdemeanours committed against the Parliament and Commonwealth of England, by Sir john Stawell Knight of the Bath.  
William Cady of Dunster Mercer, aged 49. years or thereabouts sworn and examined, saith, That the said Sir john Stawell did in the year 1644. raise Arms against the Parliament and Commonwealth of England, and in particular was in a hostile posture of war at a place called Marshal's Elm in this County, and there did fight, and there did draw blood; and so continued in arms in the said County against the Parliament, and raised great sums of money to assist the King against the Parliament; Committed this Examinant to the common Goal, and there kept him in prison, and in chains, by the space of one whole year and more, and threatened to hang this Examinant divers times, and said he was a Traitor against the King, and did demand sums of money of him, as he remembers 20 l. or more, and further saith, that he was carried from the Goal to the Assizes for this County, and there was indicted for High Treason, and the Bill then found against him. And this Examinant verily believeth, and to his best remembrance saith, That Sir John Stawell was then present at the same Assizes.  
Will. Cady.   
By which Depositions of William Cady, it is manifest that Sir john Stawell fought and drew blood at Marshal's Elm; yet Sir John Stawels honourable testimony would persuade, 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 desperation of life (found so by verdict) his hacking and hewing upon the pursuit (proved by Nicholas Ward) and his fight and drawing of blood (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 blood and cruelty as is mentioned in the Petition of Cady and Ward; as if 26 wounds draw little or no blood, and as if chains, irons, close imprisonment, exaction of great fines of well-affected persons, to advance the late King's interest, to the destruction of the Commonwealth (as the ensuing Depositions will plainly manifest) be less cruelty than is mentioned in their moderate Petition. We do pray that Sir John may no longer stand on public 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 pacify the restless proceed of them, who (as he scandalously pretendeth) hate him without a cause; but probably are the instruments of that Justice.  
Sir John's Remonstrance hath brought us to the year 1643. and to Marquis hartford's 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 satisfy the displeasure he had taken up against the Inhabitants thereof, upon the occasion abovesaid; upon which approach, these faithful 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 Movables (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 Mayor, 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 broke theirs. Now after this Plunder was made, than Sir john (as he saith) entreated 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 john (if not by his Vote) for he was then of the Council 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 cliff the Gaoler, Aldred Seaman, and others, Sir john's 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 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, gins 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 soldiers 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, threatened 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 until 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 enforce men by any means to raise sufficient to satisfy him. Neither will his allegation that the Town agreed with the Marquis to pay that fine, any way excuse him, in regard such Composition was contrary to their Articles, and made when a plundering 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 wife's attestation will declare, being as followeth, viz.  

October 22 1650. Examinations taken upon Oath the day and year above written, by virtue of Directions from the right Honourable the High Court of Justice, concerning certain high Crimes and misdemeanours committed by Sir John Stawell Knight of the Bath, for Levying War against the Parliament of England.  
GEorge Powel of Taunton in the County of Somerset, Gentleman, aged 30 years, or thereabouts, sworn and examined saith, That in or about the fifth day of June, in the year 1643. Sir John Stawell Knight of the Bath, then in company with the Lord Marquis of Hartford, and others, entered the said Town of Taunton in an hostile way (having the day before summoned the said Town and Castle, for the use of the late King) which Town and Castle had then declared to be kept for the use of the King and Parliament; who after their entering (and so by force and power) seized on this Deponent with many others, and by one Davis their Marshal, kept him prisoner some days. This Deponent then being of Commission and justice of the Peace for and within the Town of Taunton. And also saith, That about the eight day of the same Month of june, the said Sir john Stawell, in company with john Syms Esquire, sent for, and commanded the said Davis, to bring this Deponent before them at the house of one Edward Cooper in the said Town; who told this Deponent that he was fined eight hundred pounds to the King, for his rebellion against the said King: and after many opprobrious speeches used, saying the Parliament and the said Town were a company of Rebels and Traitors against the late King, and deserved to be hanged, required the said Fine of 800 l.— of this deponent, and upon his refusal to pay the said Fine, committed this Deponent close prisoner to the Castle of Taunton, then in the hands and power of the said Sir john Stawell, as Governor of the said Garrison for the late King, who after divers week's imprisonment there, and several demands of the said Fine, by the said Sir john Stawell, and refusal of payment thereof by this Deponent; he this Deponent was afterwards by the said command transmitted to the Bridewell of Taunton, and there kept in Irons close Prisoner (with many others) not suffered humane necessaries, to the great weakening and impairing of the health of this Deponent; until at last, being often threatened by the said Sir john Stawell to be hanged; or to be sent to Oxford, then in the late King's power, to be tried for his life: through fear of which and terror, and for preservation of his life, he was constrained to Mortgage and Pawn that land & credit they had left him, for three hundred pounds or thereabouts; which he paid (then languishing in prison) unto the said Sir john Stawell; to redeem himself out of that cruel bondage, and inhuman usuage and imprisonment.  
This Deponent further saith, that during S. john Stawell's bearing power and government in the said Town; he exacted great sums of money from several persons for the late King & his armies use: Mustered Soulderies for the late King's service against the Parliament; and billeted and enforced on this Deponent, and divers of the said Town many Soulderies to free quarter. And during his Government there, a Soldier of his Regiment (the name of whom at present this Deponent remembreth not) was then hanged on the Gibbet or Gallows, set upon the Market place in the said Town; and by one Reeves his Major, declared that it was the command and pleasure of the Governor that he should be hanged; which being done, the said Reeves, did then further declare openly in the Market place, that it was a beginning, and precedent for the rest of the Rebels and Roundheads of the Town to look upon, and must look some of them to follow after shortly, or words to that effect, which was to the great terror and fear of the freeborn of this Nation.  

I Honour powel of Taunton, the relict of my late Husband, George powel Gent. am ready to make attestation, of what is under written  
In the time of the late miseries of this Land, it pleased God to make us of this Town, partakers in a great measure, of the calamities of the times, of the which my late husband (as is well known) had not the least share; being exposed to the most inhuman cruelties and outrages of the Enemy, when this Town was subdued by them, and afterwards made the mark of Sir john Stawels envy and hatred (as will more largely appear by what is under written) when he usurped that most Tyrannous government over this Town. First of all he imposed a Fine of eight hundred pounds on him (his house being before rifled and plundered by the Souldery) for the refusal to pay the said Fine, he was committed by the said Sir john Stawell prisoner to the Castle of Taunton; after he had lain there a long time, he was removed by his order to the Bridewell; where he was kept close prisoner, and lay night and day in Irons without the least favour; nay denying him that favour, which we give to horses; namely to have a bundle of clean straw to lie on; saying, that he would make him an ensample to all Rogues; and should look through a grate all days of his life: and saying at his committing to the Bridewell, that he would lay him neck and heels, until he paid his Fine, which words Mr. Maj. of Taunton which now is, can attest, being in the presence when they were spoken, and threatened at several other times that he would hang him: Afterwards, having paid a Fine of 300. l. of money besides what other goods were fetched from us by his order; he was then released of his imprisonment, being so weak, with lying on the ground, and in Irons; that he was scarce able to go along the street; afterwards being sick, for not hearing one of their malignant Priests, on their Monthly Fast, Sir john caused him to be brought before him, and fined him 10 l. and told him if he did not pay it forthwith, he would levy a greater fine on him, which was forthwith paid unto him; with many more of such like cruelties and threats, which now would be too tedious to recite.  
One act more of his cruelty, I cannot here in silence pass by; which is this, when he had clapped up my husband close prisoner in the Bridewell, putting him in the common prison, where Felons and other Rogues were kept; he would not suffer me; nor yet admit my children, to go unto my husband.    
And although Sir john Stawell, by his Remonstrance page 15. seems to excuse Mr. powel's 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. powel 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. jasper Chapline, who was then Maj. of that Town, and a person of about 70 years of age will next relate, Sir John's usuage of him, and the cause thereof. His certificate followeth, viz.  

Some particulats of Sir john Stawell's Remonstrance answered, by me Jasper Chaplin the 28 of Nou. 1653.  
When my Lord of Stanford first entered into the Town of Taunton, I being then Major, was commanded with others to seize the Castle into our hands, for the good and safety of the County, which was done accordingly: And some of the honourable Deputy Leiutenants of this County, authorised me to receive of divers Delinquents great sums of money, which I ceived, and paid according to order: but when the King's army entered this Town, I was wounded in the Knee, and sent to prison into the Castle; being an old man, and paid a hundred pound Fine; for which I have a receipt under Sir john Stawells hand. Whilst I was there in prison, divers of those of whom I received great sums of money, became suitors to Sir john Stawell to this effect as I remember; that they might be repaid out of my personal Estate, by whose importunity as I conceive, I was still kept in prison; but how long, I was so kept in prison, I remember not, it being about ten years since, and myself about 80 years of age: as also for that I had received of _____ Hellier of Exon 200 l. which was thus as I have since been informed; he came into this County, supposing to have remained here in some safety; but this being known unto the deputy Lieutenants, he was brought unto the Inn, called the Three Cups in Taunton; & as it seems gave bond for payment of 200. l. to be paid unto myself (I not knowing thereof until I saw the bond) but I received the 200 l. and it was thus employed, the Dep. Leiut. (before that time wanted 200 l. (which was procured by myself, Mr Searl, and others on our bonds, and repaid accordingly, as by our bonds appeareth. During my imprisonment, my house was plundered, and I not left worth ten shillings to my knowledge, more than the timber stuff, so that I lost 400 l. or thereabouts.  
And Sir john Stawell came himself to the Prison at my enlargement; but I never found such contentment in prison, as to desire the said Sir joh. Stawell, to send me back to prison again, as is alleged; so that for my suffering and losses, the said Sir john confessed me a judgement 313. l. as I was informed by my Attorney.  
By me Jasper Chaplin.   
And although Sir John in his Remonstrance, p. 20. seems to justify 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 courteous ends mentioned in that place of his Remonstrance, yet Sir john 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 john did first imprison Mr. Chaplin, and then return an Answer to the Prince; whereas, it had perhaps been more just, first to have endeavoured the Prince's satisfaction.  
Mr. Matthew Quash, Mr. William Milles, Mr. Christopher Taylor, Mr. John adam's, Mr. Evans, Mr. Andrew Pit, Mr. George Treagle, Mr. William Cady, Mr. john England, Mr. Alexand Kingsland, Mr. George Lyssant, and others of the chiefest Inhabitants suffered likewise under him; some of whom were so much weakened by their imprisonment, and ill-usage therein, that they were not well able to go out again: All which, these Oaths and Certificates will manifest.  
The Information of John adam's of Taunton, in the County of Somerset, Gentleman, taken upon Oath before Sir William Rowe, Knight, George Manby and William Weston, Esquires. A Committee of Examinations appointed by The High Court of Justice, the 12 day of December, 1650.  
Who saith,  
HE hath known Sir john Stawel, Knight of the Bath, by the space of sixteen years and upwards, last passed; and that in june in or about the 19 year of the Reign of the late King: He knoweth, That the said Stawel was in Taunton with Prince Maurice, and Marquis Hertford; and about a week after, he was in Taunton, and acted there as the Governor; and sent Summons to this Informant under his hand, to appear before him; where being come, the said Sir john Stawel commanded him to provide One hundred pounds for the late King's service; whereof one Fifty pounds he demanded in hand, and the other shortly after. Which said One hundred pounds was imposed on this Informant, as his part of Eight thousand pounds imposed as a Fine upon the said Town of Taunton, for their Rebellion (as the said Sir john Stawel termed it) against the said late King, by their adhering to the Parliament. Which Money, this Informant refused to pay, and was therefore committed prisoner, by Warrant under the Hand of the said Sir john Stawel, to the Castle of Taunton, where he remained about ten days, until his wife had borrowed Fifty pounds, and paid it to the said Stawel, and so procured his liberty. And shortly after, the said Sir john Stawel sent to this Informant for Twenty pounds as his part of Two thousand pounds; which the Messenger that came to him from the said Sir john Stawel, told him, was to be sent to the Garrison of Bristol, then held for the late King; which Messenger also told this Informant (as from the said Sir john Stawel) That in case the Money was not forthwith paid, he the said Sir john Stawel, would send this Informant to the Bridewell in Taunton; and would there keep him a prisoner, until he had paid full Two hundred pounds, to which his Fine was increased.  
And he further saith, That the said Sir john continued Governor of Taunton about one year; during which time, divers well affected persons to the Parliament, were by his command made prisoners, and put to fine, and ransom for their affection to the Parliament: As namely, Mr. Evans the School Master, Mr. jasper Chaplin, then Major of Taunton, Mr. George Powel, one of the Justices of the Peace for the Town, with divers others: And that during Sir john Stawels Government there, divers of the Parliament Officers and Soldiers were brought in there, and made prisoners, and there kept by his Command, until such time as they were discharged by Exchange, or let go upon their Parol.  
john adam's.  

October 22. 1650. Examinations taken upon Oath the day and year above written, by virtue of Directions from the Right Honourable The High Court of Justice, concerning certain High Crimes and Misdemeanours committed by Sir John Stawel, Knight of the Bath, for levying War against the Parliament of England.  
GEorge Treagel of Taunton, in the County of Somerset, Clothier, Aged Fifty years, or thereabouts, sworn and examined, saith, That he hath known Sir john Stawel, Knight of the Bath, for the space of Twenty years, or thereabouts; and that he knew that about seven years since, the said Sir john Stawel was Governor of the Town of Taunton, for the late King against the Parliament: And that the said Sir John, together with other of the King's Party, committed this Deponent as a prisoner into the Castle of Taunton, for the space of five weeks, or thereabouts, for his affection to the state: Part of which time he was kept in Irons. And further saith, That the said Sir john Stawel did raise Forces both of Horse and Foot for the late King, and levied War against the Parliament. And also saith, That he was fined by the said Sir John Stawel in the sum of Forty pounds, whereof upon the payment of Fifteen pounds he fled away.  
George Treagel.   
Alexander Kingsland did then likewise depose to this effect, That Anno 1643. Sir john 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 john 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.  

Some Particulars of the Remonstrance of Sir John Stawel, Knight; Answered by Christopher Taylor, the now Major of Taunton, November 28. 1653.  
NOtwithstanding the fair gloss that Sir John Stawel endeavoured by his Remonstrance to put upon the cruel deal with many of the Inhabitants of this Town, which were well affected to the Parliament, I do certify as followeth, That whereas Sir john sets forth that there were Eight thousand pounds imposed on this Town, in the pain of a Fine to prevent plundering, and his fair dealing with the Inhabitants thereof, as he was their Governor, I do certify, That there were great plunders committed by his Party here. And for my own part, I was put unto Three hundred pound Fine, whereof I paid One hundred and fifty pound; and for Fifty pound of it, was enforced to engage my Taunton-Dean Land Before the payment of which One hundred and fifty pounds, I was often threatened with imprisonment, if I did not pay it according to his Order. And that on the payment of my last Fifty pound, I being much unprovided at that time, I desired him, that he would accept of Twenty pounds' parcel thereof, for that time, and that the payment of Thirty pound residue, might be respited until the Thursday following, which he would not admit of; but by his command, I stood committed, for some time, and longer had continued in custody, had not Mr. John Syms engaged to see it paid. And afterwards, besides the extorting of the said One hundred and fifty pound from me, he commanded a house of mine to be pulled down near the Castle-gate, which I had not long before built, and erected; and at this time (if it stood) would have yielded Ten pound by the year. And as if the pulling it down had not been enough, he would not suffer me (though my Wife importuned him thereunto) to save the Tile-stones, which by computation were worth about Ten pound; but telling her he had nothing else to employ his Soldiers about. So they beat them down, and spoiled them, and carried away the whole stones, being about One hundred loads.  
And Sir john having, during his Government, commanded the Fast (appointed to be kept Wednesdays) to be kept Fridays, the Congregation on Sabbath-days and Fasting-days being very thin, by reason of the inability and disaffection of the Minister which Sir john assigned here to Preach; required two of the Company to go into every Street of the said Town, and learn who resorted to other places to hear the Word Preached. Whereupon Sir John once having had intelligence of many Women that went to other Congregations, he said in my hearing, That he would appoint a Party of Soldiers to meet them, who should strip them to their Smocks, and that, that act should not be taken as done by the Soldiers, but by himself.   

To set forth in part the cruel deal of Sir John Stawel towards us the Inhabitants of the Town of Taunton, in the time of the late Wars, I Matthew Quash of Taunton, do certify as followeth.  
AT the coming in of the King's Army into our Town of Taunton aforesaid, I had no sooner put off my Arms, but was extremely plundered, and my two Sons taken prisoners; and for one of them I must pay Twenty pound for his ransom, or else he must be hanged (Sir john Stawel being then Governor of this Town.) In a few days after, there was a Fine of Eight thousand pounds imposed on us the said Inhabitants; and thereupon, myself and others were called up together in the Marketplace, by the said Sir john Stawels command, where they demanded of us our Fines, which were very hard for us in our plundered condition; and on our refusal of payment thereof, I and the rest were presently committed by Sir john Stawel unto the Castle, where I was kept for the six first days without any bit of Victuals, unless I would come to their Ordinary of Fourteen shillings a week, which was too hard for me. And indeed, I was loath to strengthen then against my Friends, by any supply of money, as they desired; but my necessity compelled me to Petition to have such provision, as I could, of my own, or to have a Joiner to make me a Coffin: For in such a condition I could not long subsist; And thereupon liberty was granted me to have Victuals of my own. In a few weeks after this, we were removed from the Castle, and committed prisoners to the Bridewell, by Sir john Stawel; he saying (though our imprisonment was so grievous) That whilst these Townsmen have so much ease in the Castle, they will not go from their money. And in the said Bridewell, we were kept in Irons night and day, for a long while. Mr. William Mills now in London, was the man, whose Leg was fettered with Irons to my Leg, and he can witness it: No Petition could prevail with Sir John Stawel for my enlargement; for he said, That I was the basest Rogue in all the Town, and termed me a Tub-Preacher. But if need require, I could have One thousand hands for my own, and children's faithfulness to the Parliament; and that cause for which I have suffered much loss in my Estate.   
Which Testimonies fully declare Sir John's 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 Judgements upon full Evidence on both sides, and by Testimony satisfactory to a Foreign Jury, a Jury at the Guildhall, London. Neither were persons and Estates the bounds of Sir John Stawels rage: He breathed out threats, and persecution against their Consciences, styling them Puritan, Tub-Preachers: He fined Mr. Powel Ten pound for being absent from Sir John's Fasts, when sick: He forbade Mr. Mills, and his Fellow-prisoners, either to pray or sing Psalms in prison, telling them, If they did, he would be so near 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 threatened 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 Neighbourhood, he seized on the Estate of Colonel Ceely, whilst he was in the Parliaments service; the incivility of his Soldiers in the mean time hastening the death of the Colonel's Wife, and her child. And although Sir john is pleased in his Remonstrance (Pag. 19) to say, That there were taken from the Colonel by his Command, no more than seven or eight loads of Hay, in a time of necessity. These ensuing Certificates together with a Verdict given for Col. Ceely at the Guildhall, London, will show the contrary.  

WHereas Sir john Stawel in his late Remonstrance, amongst many other aggrievances there enumerated, is pleased to recount this one as not the least, viz. That Col. Ceely hath obtained a Judgement at Law against him of One hundred and fifty pound damages, for the carrying away only of eight loads of Hay, bearing himself much aggrieved at the injustice of that Trial and injury done him by the said Colonel.  
Let the Impartial read, and then judge of the Cause.  

It will be sufficiently proved by Testimony of divers (besides the Warrants under his own hand) that a Party of Sir john Stawels Horse plundered the House of all his Goods and Householdstuff, carried away divers of his Writings, and Living goods: That the Hay of Sixty Acres, and Two hundred pounds worth of Corn, growing on the Farm at Charlton, was carried away and seized on: So as his Wife was denied two Pecks a week for herself and children. That one Walton his Captain, by his command, with Troopers, entered the House and Chamber with Pistols and Swords drawn, where Col. Ceely his Wife was with her Midwife, and put her in such fear, that soon after she died of a Convulsion, then contracted, and her child likewise.  
Now if the Colonel received no more damage than the loss of eight loads of Hay, let all men judge.    
It is therefore wondered, That Sir john 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 Trial had and prosecuted.  

WHereas Sir john Stawel, Knight of the , in a late Pamphlet of his, entitled, His Remonstrance, and in the 19 Page there, hath averred, That only seven or eight load of Hay on Col. Ceelyes' Estate were taken away by his command. I William Ceely of the Middle-Temple, London, Esquire, do hereby certify to all whom it shall concern, That I did in or about the year of our Lord God, 1643. or 1644. cause to be carried from the Lands of the said Colonel, to my House at Huntham, in the County of Somerset, of the Hay of the said Colonel, to the number of fifty six loads, or near thereabouts. All which Hay (about ten loads only excepted) was by some Constables of those parts, and by colour of several Warrants under the proper hand-writing of the said Sir john Stawel (which I then saw, and well knew) taken away; and that the said Sir john Stawel did justify the taking away thereof, uttering these or the like words unto me, Your Brother (meaning the said Colonel) is a Traitor, and therefore I will have his Hay. And that afterwards myself being Subpenaed to give my Testimony in a Cause, then to be tried at the Guildhall, London, between the said Colonel and Sir john Stawel, for taking away the said Hay, I did appear and gave my Testimony to the effect aforesaid; and that there were produced at that trial by the said Colonel, three other Witnesses besides myself, viZ. Henry Hammond, Tho. Bridge, and William Chaple, whose testimony was as touching the taking away of that Hay, agreeing with mine in effect.  
Given under my hand this first day of November 1654.   
Mr. Henry Ceely of Northcurry, was likewise plundered and imprisoned, and Mr. Henry Myntern imprisoned by Sir John Stawell, but wherefore, and in what manner, their own Depositions hereunder transcribed will best declare.  

November 23, 1650. The Information of Captain Henry Mintern of Chesselborough in the County of Somerset, taken before Sir John Thorowgood Knight, john Hurst, and William Weston, Esquires, a Committee of the High Court of Justice for Examination.  
THis Informant saith, That being an Officer in Arms for the Parliament, he was taken Prisoner at Glastonbury about St. James' day, in the year 1643. and brought before Sir John Stawell, than Governor of Taunton and after some examination of him concerning the estate of our Army; the said Stawell by order committed this Informant to the Castle of Taunton, where he remained about six months, and from thence by the order of the said Stawell, was carried by twelve Dragoons to the common Gaol at Ivelchester, being carried in disgrace through three Market Towns in his passage to the said Gaol. And this Informant saith, that being a prisoner in Taunton Castle aforesaid, after four day's imprisonment, this Informant, and divers others were brought before a Council of War at the place where the Assizes are usually kept in Taunton, where Stawell sat as Governor of the Town, and Precedent of the said Council, where after examination this Informant was sent back to the Castle where he remained until the Assizes held at Wells about three weeks or a month before Christmas An. 1643. and was there Indicted for high Treason, and examined by Mr. Richard Newcourt, than Clerk to Sir John Stawell; and the day after he was brought before Sir John Stawell at Mr. Waldrons house in Wells where his said Examination was read to him, and Sir john Stawell forced this Informant to subscribe the same, and refused to take Bail for this Informant, although 1000 l. bail was offered. And Sir john Stawell further told this Informant, he was a Rebel and a Traitor, and should be tried for his life; after which he was remaunded back to prison until he was relieved by the Parliaments Forces.  
This Informant further saith, that being of the Grand jury in the year 1647. one Richard Cluff of Taunton (since deceased) came before this Informant and divers others of the Grand jury, and informed them that there was means made to Sir john Stawell for the reprieval of one Viccary a soldier of Captain Clarks, in the year 1643. or thereabouts, at which time the said Viccary was condemned by a Council of War in Taunton, and executed before the window where Sir john Stawell was to sup; and the said Cluff said further to the said Grand jury, that Sir john Stawell refused to reprieve him, and bid the Executioner do his Office: and accordingly he the said Viccary was executed.  
Henry Mintern.   

October 22. 1650. Examinations taken upon Oath the day and year above written, by virtue of Directions from the right Honourable the High Court of justice, concerning certain high crimes and misdemeanours committed by Sir john Stawell Knight of the Bath, for Levying War against the Parliament of England.  
HEnry Ceely of North- Curry in the County of Somerset Gentleman, aged 53 years or thereabouts, sworn and examined, saith, That Sir john Stawell Knight of the Bath, and Governor of Taunton in the year 1643, or 1644. about the first of February, sent a Troop of horse to the house of the said Ceely by night, by one Captain Walton, and plundered the house of the said Ceely, and carried him away prisoner to Taunton, and there kept him in cruel endurance so long as the said Sir john Stawell stayed there Governor, threatening him with hanging and death for adhering to the Parliament, and at his, the said Sir john Stawels departure from Taunton, sent the said Ceely to the prison of Bridgewater, then in the power of the late King, to the undoing of him the said Ceely and his Family. Also in the time of this Deponents imprisonment in Taunton, the said Sir john did cause to be hanged and put to death, one Viccarie, for refusing to go in Arms against a Town in the County of Dorset, named Lyme-Regit. And further saith, That the said Sir john Stawell did appear with many more in Arms in the County aforesaid at Marshal's Elm, to the intent and purpose to wound, kill, and slay those that adhered to the Parliament, as he the said Sir john confessed to this Deponent when he was in prison in Taunton aforesaid, and said, that all those that were at Marshal's Elm, deserved to be hanged as Traitors, for adhering to the Parliament. And this Deponent doth verily believe that the blood shed at Marshal's Elm, was the first blood shed in the West of England.  

I john Baker of Higham in the County of Somerset, Esquire, do humbly certify the unchristian deal of Sir john Stawell towards me, who having received a wound and maim at Launsdown fight (whereof I lay dangerously sick a long time) as soon as Sir john understood that there were hopes of life, granted his Warrant for the apprehending of me and my brother, threatening that if he took us, he would hang us. And indeed, his Tyranny was such, that we could expect no other, had not God preserved us out of his hands and fury, by letting of us have private notice of his design; upon which this Certificants friends conveyed me away by night, and hide me in several places to avoid his rage.  
john Barker.    
Sir john Stawell did also commit Mr. Martin 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, shortened his aged days. And to complete his cruelty, he caused to be hanged one Christopher Viccary, for refusing to fight against the Parliament and the dictates of his conscience, as appears by the precedent and following Depositions.  

October 22. 1650. Examinations taken upon Oath, the day and year above written, by virtue of Directions from the right Honourable the High Court of justice, concerning certain high Crimes and misdemeanours committed by Sir john Stawel Knight of the Bath, for Levying War against the Parliament of England.  
GEorge Lyssant of Taunton in the County of Somerset, Woollen-draper, aged forty years or thereabouts, sworn and examined, saith, That he knew Sir john Stawell to be late Governor of Taunton, and that he in that time did raise Forces for the late King, both of horse and foot against the Parliament, and that the said Sir john did raise, and went with Forces from Taunton against the Town of Lyme, and that the said Sir john Stawell, together with others of the King's party, did fine the said Town of Taunton for their Rebellion against the late King, in the sum of 8000 l. for that they did adhere unto the Parliament. And further saith, that he saw one Reeves Major unto the said Sir john Stawell (upon the clamours and outcries of the people of the said Town) to go into the Quarters of the said Sir john, to seek to save the life of a Soldier, whose name was reported to be Christopher Viccary, who formerly lived at Norton, which said Reeves returning back again, said he could not prevail, but that the said Viccary must suffer; whereupon immediately after the said Viccary was hanged. And also saith, that he, this Deponent, was by the said Sir john, fined in the sum of 100 l. for his affection to the Parliament, the said Sir john saying, that this Deponent was a Rebel against the King.  
William Savage of Taunton in the County of Somerset, Lock-smith, aged fifty years, or thereabouts, sworn and examined, saith, That Sir john Stawell Knight of the Bath, was about seven years since Governor of the Town of Taunton for the late King, against the Parliament. And also saith, that one Christopher Viccary, who sometimes quartered in this Deponents house, being then a Soldier under the command of Captain Robert Clark in the late King's service, was by one Mayor Reeves, after he was condemned to suffer death, carried into the Castle of Taunton, and immediately after brought forth again, and hanged by the order and appointment of the said Sir john Stawell, the said Viccary being drunk at the time of his suffering. And further saith, That the said Sir john Stawell committed this Deponent unto Prison for his affection to the Parliament, and there detained him for the space of three or four days.  
George Deacon of the Parish of Norton-fitZ-Warren in the Coutty of Somerset, Husbandman, aged 28 years, or thereabouts, sworn and examined, saith, That he knew Sir john Stawell to be Governor of the Town of Taunton in the County of Somerset for the late King against the Parliament, in the years 1643, or 1644. And that the said Sir john did raise Forces both of foot and horse for the late King against the Parliament. And further saith, that he doth well remember one Christopher Viccary of Norton aforesaid, who was then a Soldier under the command of Captain Robert Clark for the King's service; which said Viccary being by the said Sir john Stawell and others, commanded to march from Taunton unto and against Lyme, which he the said Viccary refusing, was by one Major Reeve carried into the Castle of Taunton, and condemned to suffer death; which said Reeves upon the outcries of the people of the said Town, went unto the then Quarters of the said Sir john, to seek to save the life of the said Soldier; which said Reeves returning back again, said, he could not prevail, but that he, the said Viccary, must suffer; who immediately after was hanged on a Gibbet in the Market place of Taunton, by the order and appointment of the said Sir john Stawell, as this Deponent verily believeth, he, this Deponent being then a servant unto the said Captain Robert Clark.  
Henry West of Taunton in the County of Somerset, aged 42 years, or thereabouts, sworn and examined, saith, That Sir John Stawell, Knight of the Bath, in the years 1643, or 1644. was Governor of the Town of Taunton aforesaid for the late King, against the Parliament, and that he raised Forces both of horse and foot for the said late King against the Parliament. And this Examinant further saith, that he being a Captain for the Parliament, at and before the time of the enemy's entry into the said Town. The said Sir john imposed on this Deponent a fine of 500 l. whereof he paid the sum of 250 l. in money and goods. And further saith, that he knew there was a Soldier whose name he doth not now well remember, who was commanded with others to march from Taunton unto and against Lyme, who marching a little beyond this Deponents house in Silverstreet, did there first lay down his Arms, for which he was carried away, and afterwards hanged.  
He further saith, that one Mr. Anthony Pardee, late Minister of the said Town, told this Deponent, that the Lady Stawell did pitch down on her knees unto the said Sir john her husband, craving of him to save the said soldier's life, who in wrath denied her, and took her by the arm and thrust her forth of doors; which said Lady after employed the said Pardee to sue for the said soldiers pardon, who upon his motion was commanded to hold his peace. And after this Examinant saw the said soldier hanged.  
Philip Atherton of Hillforrence in the County of Somerset Gentleman, sworn and examined, saith, That he was Ensign unto Captain Robert Clark, in the time when Sir john Stawell Knight of the Bath, was Governor of the Town and Castle of Taunton for the late King against the Parliament, and was in the said Town when one Vicarry, a soldier to the said Captain Robert Clark was condemned to suffer death by a Council of War (as this Deponent conceiveth) who was then personally present, and heard the Debate of the said Council of War, and the sentence of death given by the said Sir john Stawell in these words, That the said Viccary should go from thence to the Castle of Taunton, and from thence to the Cornhill, and there to be hanged until he was dead, or words to the like effect.  
And further saith, that about four or five hours after of the same day, he, this Deponent, saw the said Viccary brought forth and hanged according to the order and appointment of the said Sir john, notwithstanding there were several means used by solicitation to the said sir john, by one Major Reeves, to save the said Viccary's life: And further saith, That when the said Viccary was commanded to march by the said sir john from Taunton unto and against Lyme (he, this Deponent verily believeth) the said Viccary was distempered with drink.  
By which Depositions it is evident, that Christopher Viccary (when he was drunk) was hanged by Sir John Stawels command, for refusing to march (as formerly he had refused) against the Parliament Garrison at Lyme, notwithstanding the importunate entreaties of the Lady Stawell (his own wife) Mr. Pardee a Minister, and Major Reeves (his own Major) to the contrary; which refusal, although Sir John endeavoureth to excuse by the aspersion of Mutiny, sometimes for pay, or advance money, and afterwards for want of Arms; yet in truth it was to satisfy the dictates of his conscience; for if want of pay and arms had been the cause of his pretended mutiny, the pay being satisfied, and the arms delivered to satisfaction (as Sir John confesseth they were) he would readily have marched; but he refused notwithstanding, and swore he would not go; so as the pay and the arms were but pretences; the conscience was the cause of the refusal: neither could this refusal be a mutiny within the King's Military Articles, for Sir John (as himself confesseth) receiving Orders from the late King to send a hundred men to the siege of Lyme, sends for an ancient Trained Band, under the command of Captain Robert Clark (whereof Viccary was one) in order to send them to Lyme; but because he was not formerly listed in that service, he now refused to march, and therefore was hanged; but by what Law or Justice he was either thus hanged, or a mutinier; let each man judge. Where are now those glorious expressions of Sir john in his Remonstrance; that he acted not beyond the moderate and sober limitations of a contrariant; that he was a lover of his Country, and a protector of every man in his property; that he was governed in all the course of his life, by that divine rule and principal in humanity; do, as you would be done unto: Hath not every one of these his acts exceeded the sober limitations of a Contrariant? can this man be said to be a lover of his Country, when he sought the destruction of the faithful thereof? or a protector of property, when each action of his entrenched on it? were not undeserved Imprisonment, Irons, Chains, swollen Legs, pinching hunger, weakened bodies, and exaction of moneys thereby, scandalous language, persecuted consciences, threats of death, and death itself the emblems of his love and moderation, and so proved? and by many more ready to be proved and certified. And yet this man dares to Remonstrance, would Sir john have been done unto, as he hath done unto others? certainly no, his frequent complaints of his late condition (though deserved) do witness the contrary.  
Sir john at length concludes his Government at Taunton with an act of humanity, shown to Mistress Treagle, touching Sir Samuel Roll his Estate; which (as he supposeth) did put an end to that his command. But whatsoever his civilities were to the Wife, he was very uncivil to the Husband, as his own Depositions doth evidence. And as one or two bad acts do not make a good man bad, so one or two good actions make not a bad man good; nor in any sort excuse or diminish his wickedness.  
And it hath been observed, That wicked men have sometimes ruined themselves in not being wicked enough, through a desire to be honest themselves. If Sir john had taken away this Plate, as he did the Goods of many others, and which he might have as justly, perhaps he had continued longer in his Command; but doing not the one, he lost the other, by the injustice of his friends, not the sword of an enemy.  
But now the Scene is altered, and Sir john, that formerly sat at Taunton triumphing over the lives and liberties of the well effected there, is now besieged in Exon, by the Parliaments forces, and enforced in order to his safety to Article with them for his life and liberty; and had been by reason of his high crimes aforesaid denied, if he had been known in that City; but lying there privately, and being comprised within the general words of those Articles; the than General, Sir Thomas Fairfax, gave him the pass mentioned in his Remonstrance pag. 22. In which pass, (grounded on the 22 Article) it is observable, that Sir john had the freedom of his person and personal estate, during the space of four Month's next after the ninth of April 1646. to make his composition with the Parliament, and if he could not make any such composition, then within the said four Months, he was to departed the Kingdom, if he though sit, or otherwise to stay in the Kingdom, but not in the quarters of the Parliament, but in some of the King's Garrisons, (there being then divers of them not reduced;) for certainly, it was never the intention of those Articles, that Sir john having made no Composition, should notwithstanding after the four Months continue in those quarters with freedom of person. The words of the twelfth Article (which composition being made, they shall have indemnity of their persons and enjoy their estates) do import so much. This being the scope of those Articles and Pass, the question will solely be, whether Sir john by any neglect or act of his since that rendition, hath so forfeited either by breach or not performance of those Articles (for both are alike penal unto him) as that the benefit of those Articles being by him thereby lost, the Parliament might justly for his offences, deprive him both of life, liberty, and estate, his pardon being conditional, so as he perform, what on his part, by these Articles ought to be performed.  
Now that Sir john hath of set purpose, and wilfully neglected the performace of his part of these Articles, and thereby forfeited the same, will evidently appear if it be premised; neither can it be denied, but that Sir john hath not as yet actually made his Composition with the Parlialiament, neither did he submit unto, or endeavour it from the 14 of April 1646. (when he obtained the General's pass) unto the 18 of july following (being the day he subscribed before the Commit of the Militia of the City of London, according to the order of the House of Commons of the 2 of july 1646) there being in that interval of time above thirteen weeks, and so much of the four Months limited for his Composition spent by his sole neglect: and yet such his subscription was no submission to Composition, without the 12 of those Articles, but a preparative thereunto only.  
Sir john informeth us in his Remonstrance, Page 22. that Mr. Ashe having the next day after Sir John's coming to London (which he saith, was on the 15 of July given him a friendly visit (as he then understood) Sir john did a day or two before he presented his Petition to the Committee of Goldsmith's Hall, wait upon Mr. Ashe at his brother's house in Fanchurch-street, and did acquaint him of his purpose to Petition, and prayed his furtherance therein. It was indeed a friendly visit of Mr. Ashe, and for Sir John's good, if he would so have understood it; for Sir john confesseth, that Mr. Ashe did thereupon acquaint him with the day that the Committee sat, at which time Mr. Ashe did promise not to fail to be there himself, and would in all friendly manner further his business. But Sir john doth not tell us, That Mr. Ashe did at the time of his visit, acquaint him, that he marvelled why Sir john stayed so long in the Country, seeing his time for compounding was almost expired, and wished him forthwith to come unto Goldsmiths Hall. And that at the time when Sir john came to Mr. Ashe, Sir john desired him to acquaint him with the manner of their proceed there; which Mr. Ashe did, together with the form of Petitions usually presented, and wherein either a delinquency, or some act equivalent must be expressed, and that Sir john must bring in a particular of his Estate. Which friendly advice of Mr. Ash, if Sir john had followed, he had long since rested under the peace of those Articles: But Sir john wilfully neglected both the time and manner of his Petitioning.   
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 months from the ninth of April, 1646. Which months being understood to consist of Eight and twenty days to each month, expired on the thirtieth day of july following, inclusive.  
Now although Sir john pretends, that his Petition was delivered on the Four and twentieth day of july, five days before the expiration of the four months, yet that could not be; for by an Order of that Committee, of the fourth of August following, Sir john was summoned to appear on the sixth, as one that had not then appeared; the words of which Order are,  
Goldsmith's Hall, London. At the Committee for Compounding, Die Martis, 4 Aug. 1646.  
Whereas by Ordinance of Parliament of the Thirteenth of November, there was a Committee appointed to enter the names of all such persons as should come out of the Enemy's Quarters, and to take an account of their condition and abode. And by the same Ordinance, all such persons were required to make their appearance before the said Committee accordingly. Now forasmuch as you have neglected to make your appearance to the said Committee, or to any other Committee of Parliament, notwithstanding the time allowed by the Articles of Exon, upon which you pretend you come in, are expired. These are to require you to attend this Committee, on Thursday next at four of the clock, there to answer your contempt, and give an account, what you have done in Obedience to the said Ordinance, or in pursuance of those Articles; and hereof you are not to fail at your peril.  
To Sir john Stawel, Knight.  
Again, Mr. Leech, the Clerk of that Committee did depose before the High Court of Justice, that he saw not Sir john there until after the fourth of August; and yet he frequently attended that Committee. Indeed Mr. john Ashe in his Deposition recited in the Remonstrance, Page 26. saith, That he doth not well remember the precise day of the month, when Sir john first appeared before the Committee at Goldsmith's Hall; but this he doth well remember, That it was about four days before the four months limited by the Articles of Exon expired, which was true, and yet he did not come in until after the fourth of August, if Mr. john Ashe be rightly understood; for Mr. Ashe meant Calendar months, 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 months: And that this was his meaning, doth plainly appear, by the subsequent words of his Oath, That when Sir john next appeared (and he did but twice appear) before that Committee, it was about three days after the four months limited 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 Goldsmith's Hall; for Mr. Stephen's 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 Calendar months) but could not be so after the thirtieth day of july, the day of the expiration of the four months after the rate of eight and twenty days to the month; which construction makes the Oath true in every particular, otherwise it will prove repugnant to itself. 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 Goldsmith's Hall did not refuse his pretended Petition; for that he came not in time, but because he observed not the Rules of that Committee; by which Oath, if sir john appeared on the four and twentieth of july, he could not be said not to come in time; but if on the sixth of August, than he came not in time, according to the rate of eight and twenty days to the month. And although that Committee out of favour to Sir john, in hopes of his future submission, took no advantage of time; yet sir john's coming to Goldsmith's 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, until the four months 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 john 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 acknowledgement or expression, was because the Ordinances that did enable this Committee to make Compositions, expressly 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 Goldsmith's Hall had not the absolute power of compounding, that remained still in the Parliament, but were limited and tied 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 july 1644. of the House of Commons, The Committee at Goldsmith's 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 month of july, at eight years' purchase for Lands at least, and six years' purchase for houses at least, at the rates they were let at before the wars began.  
By the Resolution of the fourth of October 1645. The Rule by which the Committees shall proceed with such as shall compound for their Delinquency, was to be according to the respective proportions set down in the Propositions of both Kingdoms, formerly sent to His Majesty for a safe and well-grounded Peace.  
By the Resolution of the Eight of December, 1645. such Delinquents as came to the Cities of London and Westminster, before the first of that month, were to compound with the Committee at Goldsmith's Hall before the first of January than next.  
The third of March, 1644. the Committee of Goldsmith's Hall, made their Proposition to the House of Commons, in these words following, That whereas now this Committee doth only take into consideration, such Delinquents as come recommended unto them by particular Orders; if this Honourable 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 Honourable 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 Goldsmith's 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 since the first of December.  
By which several Orders and Resolutions, the Committee at Goldsmith's Hall, were to compound with Delinquents alone (that word being only used for an expression) and according to certain Rules and Orders, and to conclude with no Delinquent, without certifying the composition itself to the house.  
This Committee then having power to compound with Delinquents only, 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 enable them to treat with him; for if a person had committed no offence worthy of Sequestration, and was notwithstanding sequestered; 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 only, to the end, That such writing should remain of Record for the future Indemnity of that Committee, and other the Reasons of Mr. Justice Laurence 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 Garrison, or not within Articles; yet did they Petition in that manner, although they were as zealous for their King, as Sir John Stawel, deeming it wisdom in them rather so to do, then to run the hazard of not performing their Articles, and thereby of the loss of their Liberty and Estate; and especially since such acknowledgement 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 Acknowledgement, 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 allegeth, That he did tell Mr. Ashe he had borne Arms for the late King, and by his command; unless for the Reason's 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 enable that Committee to compound only 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 john refused.  
Sir Henry Berkley (with others) came in upon the Articles of Exon, as well as Sir john, yet Sir Henry's Petition was in these words.  
To the Honourable  for Compounding with Delinquents; The humble Petition of Sir Henry Berkley, Knight.  
Shows,  
THat your Petitioner as formerly a Commissioner of the Army for His Majesty, and since did voluntarily contribute to the Forces raised against the Parliament, by means whereof, he is become under the notion of a Delinquent. That being in the City of Exeter upon the delivery thereof, humbly craves the benefit of the Articles of the same. And that he may be admitted to a  Composition for his offence, according to the value of his Estate, to the end, he may free the same from Sequestration. And he shall pray, etc.  
Subscribed Hen. Berkley.  
But Sir john having taken on a Resolution not to compound, took up all pretences to avoid the same.  
But Mr. Ashe asked him, as Sir john objecteth, whether he had taken the negative Oath and Covenant, to whom Sir john answering, no; and that his Articles did free him from taking any Oaths: Mr. Ashe replied, 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 enjoined them to tender that Covenant and negative Oath to all persons that came to compound, and to secure their persons upon refusal.  

Sab. 1 Nou. 1645.  
ORdered by the Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled, That the Committee at Goldsmith's Hall shall have power to tender the Solemn League and Covenant to all persons that come out of the King's quarters to that Committee to compound, either upon Mr. Speakers Pass or otherwise, and to secure such as shall refuse to take the Covenant, until they shall conform thereunto.   

Sab. 5. April. 1645.  
BE it ordained by the Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled, That all and every person of what degree or quality soever, that hath lived or shall live within the King's quarters, or been aiding, assisting, or adhering unto the forces raised against the Parliament; and hath or shall come to inhabit or reside under the power and protection of the Parliament, shall swear upon the holy Evangelists in manner following. I A. B. do swear from my heart, that I will not directly, nor indirectly adhere unto, or willingly assist the King in the war; or in this cause against the Parliament, nor any forces raised without the consent of the two Houses in this cause or war. And I do likewise swear, that my coming and submitting myself under the power and Protection of the Parliament, is without any manner of design whatsoever to the prejudice of the proceed of the two Houses of Parliament; and without the direction, privity or advice of the King, or any of his Council or Officers, other then in what I have now made known, so help me God, and the contents of this book.  
And be it ordained by the Authority aforesaid, that the Commissioners for the keeping of the great Seal of England for the time being, shall have power, & are hereby authorised to tender & administer the said Oath, unto any Peer, or Wife, or Widow of any Peer, so coming to inhabit as aforesaid. And it shall be lawful to, and for the Committee of the House of Commons for Examinations, the Committee for the Militia in London, and all Committees of Parliament, in the several Counties & Cities of the Kingdom, to tender and administer the said Oath unto every other person so coming to inhabit a abovesaid: & if any person not being a member of or assistant unto, either of the Houses of the Parliament shall refuse or neglect to take the said Oath, so duly tendered unto him or her, as abovesaid; the said Commissioners and Committees respectively shall and may commit the same person to some prison, there to remain without bail or mainprize, until he shall conform thereunto.   
It is true that the Articles of Exon, do free all persons comprised therein, from all Oaths, Covenants, and Protestations: but it is likewise as true, that those Articles were not at the time of Sir John's being at Goldsmith's 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 Nou. 1647, above an year after Sir john's 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 john, 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 dispense 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 enjoined 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 tendering 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 limited, yet was not Sir john without his means of Composition, for he might have Petitioned the then Parliament, to admit him to Composition; who did, before the Committee of Goldsmith's Hall were enabled constantly to compound with Delinquents; which Sir john neglecting, or rather refusing to do, the nonperformance of his Articles lieth still on his account; for suppose Sir john 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 sat down, had not Sir john neglected the performance of his Articles, or was it any fault in that Court, that Sir john 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 Goldsmith's Hall had such a power, but limited to such rules: which Sir john refused, the primitive and original power of Composition remaining still in the Parliament, which Sir john neglected, nay refused to submit unto.  
It is observable, that notwithstanding sir john had denied to take those Oaths, or to acknowledge his Delinquencies; yet that Committee (our of a design 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 months) and finding that Committee was disabled (otherwise) to compound with him, he had not resorted to the Parliament itself, for his peace. Again, the House of Commons themselves had after their confirmation of those Articles, and before sir John came to compound, viZ.  

Die Martis, 2 Junii 1646. RESOLVED,  
THat all persons that have, or shall come and reside in the Parliament-Quarters, shall take the National League and Covenant, and the Negative Oath, notwithstanding any Articles that have been, or shall be made by the Soldiery.   
So as after this time, the Negative Oath and Covenant were to be taken by all Compounders, at Goldsmith's Hall, (though they were within Articles) and this by the command of both Houses. Neither can sir John object the Order following, viZ.  

Die Sabb. October 18 1645.  
ORdered, That all Compositions for the discharge of the Delinquencies of any persons, and for the taking off their Sequestrations, shall be made with the Committee of Goldsmith's Hall; and that no other Committee do compound with any Delinquent without the special directions of this House.  
JOHN BROWN Cler. Parl.   
Nor can sir john 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 john's address.  
For although they were to compound with all Delinquents yet not until after the taking of the Oaths; but sir john 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 centres it in the Committee of Goldsmith's Hall alone; but still reserving to themselves, either the power itself in cases extraordinary, or direction thereof. Sir john therefore finding the Committee of Goldsmith's Hall to be limited to Rules and Oaths, from which himself pretended an exemption by Articles, should have made his address to the Parliament to make his Composition with them, or from them to receive directions where else to make it, especially when the Articles do mention Compositions with the Parliament; and since his Composition made at Goldsmith's 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 Soldiery; and so by consequence not within the word (Soldiery) 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 Soldiery; especially when the words are, Articles that have been made by the Soldiery. Sir john 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 virtue being fixed in Jordan, which Naaman upon advise wisely performing was cleansed of his Leprosy. But Sir john not applying himself to the Parliament on whom the agreement rested, and in whom the compounding power remained, though importuned thereunto, continueth yet a Delinquent.  
Every Compounder at Goldsmith's Hall, was to deliver in a particular of his Estate, by these resolves following, viZ.  

Die Sab. 13 Dec. 1645.  
REsolved, That if any shall come in to compound, he shall present the particular of his Estate to the Committee of Goldsmith's Hall, and the true yearly value of it, as it was before these troubles began; and for that that is concealed or omitted, he shall have no advantage by his Composition, but shall pay four times the yearly value of what real estate is concealed; and for his personal estate concealed, he shall forfeit all.   
Such a particular Sir john 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 wisdom in Sir john 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 john 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 chargeable to the Commonwealth) compound according to the rates prescribed them; to avoid which charge, the Parliament ordered a particular.  
Sir john's having no notice of these Rules, hath been vainly objected; for when Mr. john Ashe gave him the visit, he was informed by him of the form of his Petition and of the particular; and when he first came to Goldsmith's Hall, the Committee gave him longer time (as himself confesseth) to consider of the Oath and Covenant; or (as Mr. john 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 enabling rule of that Committee only, if it had been, yet the very subscription carried with it a pardon of that subscription.  
So as in these four particulars, Sir john 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 Goldsmith's Hall, did admit him to composition, accoring to the Rules of Compositions, but he would not submit unto it; and since the Parliament hath performed, what their Armies promised in suffering Sir john quietly to enjoy his liberty, during the four Months, 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 john Stawell did appear at the Committee of Goldsmith's 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. john Ashe that the sense and substance of his words were, That the Parliament had seized and sequestered 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 money 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 judgement and affect, so although Sir David Watkins by forgetfulness or age, and Sir Anthony Irbie for some other respect seem now to excuse him, yet certainly his deportment then, both in the opinion of Sir David and Sir Anthony themselves, was very disrespective to the Government, and such, as the whole Committee, and especially Sir Anthony Irby being the most earnest, had thereupon resolved forthwith to have it reported to the House of Commons, had not Mr. john Ash desired them to give him some four or five days respite upon the hopes aforesaid, which the Committee did accordingly.  
Sir john having thus voluntarily refused the Army's mercy, in not making his Composition within the four months 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 misdemeanours (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 King's pleasure, that the Prisoners might make their peace with the Parliament, debated what to do therein, at which debate Sir john was present: And although the rest of the Prisoners did agree to make their. Composition with the Parliament, yet Sir john 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. john Ash hath sworn before the High Court of Justice) to this effect, viZ. That the opinion of that Committee was, That Sir john 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. james Ash. Upon which Report Sir john is sent for to the House of Commons: but being stayed some time in the Lobby, till the Debate of the House was ended, Mr. john Ash came unto him and advised him to acknowledge his miscarriage at Goldsmith's Hall, crave the pardon of the House, and desire admission to Compound. Which Sir john disliked, saying, That if he were willing, yet he was not able to pay the money for a Composition.  
Sir john being brought to the Bar of that House, and refusing to kneel, is committed to Newgate for High-Treason for levying war against the Parliament; the Transcripts of which Order and Mittimus are inserted in the Remonstrance, fol. 29. Where he continued for some years; Neglecting, refusing, passionately disdaining to Petition to be admitted to a Composition, or any way to comply with the Parliament in that behalf, although entreated and importuned thereunto by his wife and friends, that desired to preserve him and his Estate, and by others that stood deeply engaged as Sureties for his Debts.  
His wife hath upon her bared knees, and with many tears, desired him, if not for her sake, yet for the sake of the children of his body (to use her words) that he would submit and Petition the Parliament for a Composition; which notwithstanding he slighted, as the poor Lady herself, with grief, affirmed to divers Gentlemen of worth; and hath complained of his wilfulness, amongst the rest, unto Mr. james Ash, whose testimony lately given to the Committee of Parliament, to whom sir john's Petition is referred, followeth, viZ.  

Decemb. 15. 1654. The Information of James Ash Esq (a Member of Parliament) given to the Committee of Parliament to whom the Petition of Sir John Stawel is referred, in the Case of the said Sir John Stawel.  
WHo saith, That he was present at Goldsmiths-Hall, when Sir John Stawell came thither, who delivered a paper which he called a Petition. The Committee, upon receipt and reading that paper, were all of opinion, It was not a Petition to compound. The said Committee thereupon called in Sir John Stawell, and asked him some questions (some of them the Informant hath forgot, but these he remembers.) Being demanded why he came thither, if not to compound? and they telling him they were a Committee to compound with Delinquents: He said, that he came to have his Estate that was taken from him; and did endeavour in his speech to take off the Delinquency from himself, and to cast it upon the Parliament and Committee. The particular expressions he cannot now remember, nor doth he remember the title of the said Petition; but saith, the substance of it was, to have his Estate. Sir John Stawell being withdrawn, the Committee fell into a debate whether his ill carriage there should be reported to the House. But afterwards a Gentleman (Mr. John Ash) moving that he might have three or four days to amend his Petition, and bring in a Particular to Compound, (which also he was told of by the Committee) He this Informant heard no more of him, till the Report made to the Parliament by Mr. John Stephens of his miscarriage and ill behaviour: which the Parliament highly resented, and did order him to be sent for as a Delinquent. Whereupon being brought to the bar of the Parliament, and commanded by the Speaker to kneel; He this Informant sitting very near Sir john Stawel, heard him mutter these words, I desire to know my offence or crime. Upon which being ordered to withdraw, the Parliament made an Order for his commitment to Newgate (as this Informant remembers.) Afterwards being by Order of Parliament referred to be tried for Treason, and Report being made to the Parliament of his high carriage, and disowning their Authority and the Judges that sat thereby, they were yet more incensed against him. And afterwards, upon the news given to the Parliament of one Mr. Anthony Ascams' death, (the Parliament having before declared to bring some Delinquents to punishment who were excepted from pardon) did refer Sir john Stawell (amongst others) to be tried at the High Court of Justice. That during all the Debates when the Parliament gave any Judgement against him, consideration was still had of his Articles; and yet in those Judgements there were hardly any Negatives, but the Question passed clear. That afterwards the Report being made from the High Court of Justice, who did not proceed to give sentence of death against him, in regard of the Articles of Exeter; many Gentlemen (Members of Parliament in the House) did much wonder thereat; but in regard of the opinion of the said High Court, they did not again refer him to be tried for his life; but did (as he remembers) eo instanti pass a Vote, That his Estate should be confiscate to the Commonwealth: and afterwards past the Act for Sale of his Lands. That to this Informants knowledge for many years together, after the first appearance of sir john Stawell at Goldsmith's Hall, there were many endeavours used for to have drawn him to compound, and to have had the benefit of his Articles; but he would never be persuaded thereunto. Now the reason of this his knowledge is, because he was privy to the actings on his behalf; and having discourse several times with the Lady Stawell concerning those endeavours which had been used to persuade him to compound: And this Informant saying to her, Can there be no way found out whereby he may be preserved and have the benefit of his Articles? She answered this Informant in these words, Sir, you know what endeavours have been used, and how we would have persuaded him to have suffered his son, Ned Stawell (meaning him called sir Edward Stawell) to have compounded for his Estate; but he would not give his consent thereunto, but did threaten him, if he endeavoured any such thing. For (saith she) he doth still flatter himself with vain hopes of seeing the King restored: and although there be every day more unlikelihood than other, yet his faith continues strong.  
That having some discourse with one Michael Tidcomb (a Gentleman in Wiltshire, as he remembers) upon reading of the Act passed by the late little Convention, or Parliament, for the confirmation of the sale of sir john Stawels Lands, The said Gentleman spoke these words; I wonder (said he) that sir john Stawell should now pretend to the Articles of Exeter, since to my knowledge, he did refuse to have the benefit of them: For (said he) when I was a prisoner in Ely House with the said sir john Stawell, some intimation we had from the then King, that we should submit to the Parliament, and compound for our Estates. Upon which we had a Debate amongst ourselves, and sir john Stawell was present; and it was the opinion of most of them, they should submit to compound; but sir john Stawell did declare against it, and laughed at them that had compounded, or did intent it.  
And this Informant further saith, That sir john Stawell came to Goldsmith's Hall in the afternoon (as he now remembers) and that this Informant was then a Member of Parliament, but not of that Committee: And this Informant saith that sir john Stawell said these words, I am no Delinquent (which words he, this Informant remembers positively) but the Parliament and you, who contrary to your Oaths of Allegiance, have fought against the King: Or words to that effect. Being cross interrogated by sir john Stawels Council, He saith,  
That it is the custom of the Parliament, when a Delinquent is brought to the Bar, that the Delinquent do first kneel before he receive any Charge: And saith that upon the Debates in Parliament it was alleged, That sir john Stawell had forfeited his Articles; and it was clearly the opinion of the House, that he had forfeited his Articles. And that was one ground of their judgement; there was no Vote passed to that purpose, that he knows of; but it was taken as a thing clear and indisputable. And further saith, That M. john Ash was to have the benefit of sir john Stawels Composition by Order of the House of the 20 of july 1646. (as he takes it) which was to be towards the satisfaction of debts and disbursments to the value of ten thousand pounds, which had been entered into by the said Mr. Ash, Col. Popham, Col. Fines, etc. in Somersetshire, for the service of the Parliament; which being satisfied, the overplus was to go to Mr. Ash, towards his losses and sufferings; but for certainty, this Informant refers to the said Order itself.   
This Informant further saith, That Mr. Stephens did report to the House, the high and insolent behaviour of sir John Stawell, who came to Goldsmith's 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 john 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. john Ash did make application to sir john Stawell to buy Aubery, nor did ever hear of any such thing, until sir john Stawell told the story at the High-Court of justice, six years after the business of his Composition.  
The Information of Michael Herring Esquire, taken the same time in the same Cause,  
Who saith,  
THat he was one of the Committee at Goldsmith's Hall, and present when sir john Stawell came and presented himself to compound, as he understood it; who was very high in his language and in carriage; but this Informant remembers not the words: He refused to take the Negative Oath and Covenant, and to subscribe his Petition, to acknowledge himself a Delinquent, as all men did: For my Estate (said he) do what you will; but I would keep my conscience to myself. And this Informant refers to his old Examination at the High Court. And further saith, That he conceives sir john Stawell came to compound, because he came there and presented himself; but doth not remember that he desired to compound. There was a Paper presented, but sir john Stawell would not put his hand to it; This Informant did not read it, nor can he remember that the Committee read it, nor that they called it a Remonstrance; this Informant understood it as a Petition, and doth not remember the particular reason why sir john Stawell did not subscribe the Paper, nor did he subscribe any Paper to the Committee, that this Informant knows: And this Informant conceives the said Paper was brought in by sir john Stawels Solicitor, who acted for him.  
This is a true Copy, Examined by T. PAUNCEFOOT.  
Hitherto sir john 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. john 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 Goldsmith's 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 Lady's affirmation to a Justice of Peace in the County of Somerset, whose Certificate followeth, viZ.  
I have several times (being in discourse with the Lady Stawell) heard her to say that Mr. Ash hath been a very good friend to her husband, notwithstanding all those calumnies he hath cast on the said Mr. Ash, for his endeavouring to save the said sir john's Estate. And about a quarter of a year since, being in the company of the said Lady at Ham, I acquainted her that Mr. john Ash had not long before that, acquainted me with the passage of his visiting the said sir john at Newgate late at night upon the earnest importunity of the said Lady, and on assurance from her that her husband had then a real mind and will to submit to a composition: But when he came there, he found the said sir john to take him up with needless and impertinent discourses, wholly waving his business of compounding; so that the said Lady was enforced to say, Sir john, is it not sufficient for you to abuse me, but must you also abuse your good friend Mr. Ash, who hath at such an unseasonable time, and at such a place, come unto you, and by your direction, for the good of you and yours, or words to that effect. All which the said Lady at the time aforesaid consented unto, alleging that it was the truth which I had made relation of. In witness whereof I have set my hand this 14 day of December 1654.,  
John Barker.  
In which stubborness he continued for the space of four years, and could not be persuaded to a composition, notwithstanding the many endeavours of his friends, as Mr. James Ashe hath attested upon his knowledge. Mr. john Ashe doth (Answer page the 2) affirm that when the Lady Stawell (his wife) and Sir Edward Stawell his son (than in France) did earnestly solicit him, that they might Petition the Parliament to be admitted to compound for the Estate, since he refused it, Sir john denied to give his consent thereunto, threatening 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 Long 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 Long Gent. doth certify 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 Long to go at several times to the Gaol at Newgate, to entreat 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 Long being prosecuted on his said engagements for Sir john Stawell, made again his request unto the said Sir john, 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 Long, 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 only undo his own family, but also this Certificant and his. Which courtesy of the said George Long, the said Sir john Stawell repaid with disdainful scorn and pride; telling him that he had better Councillors than the said George Long: 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 john's 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 Long went again to Sir john Stawell, in regard of his the said George's sad condition, to entreat and persuade him; and having made some relation of his thoughts, did acquaint Sir john, that he was come the third time to draw a Petition unto his Highness (than Lord General) that he would intercede to the House in his behalf, that he might be admitted to a Composition; wherein the said George Long (being so nearly concerned) did promise unto him, if he would cause his Petition to be drawn, and therein humbly state his case, he the said George would find some means of procuring his Petition to be answered: In which the said George Long could not prevail with the said Sir john Stawell; at which this Certificant stood amazed to see Sir john Stawell and himself so near undone; and the said George Long so sensible, and Sir john no way regardful of his condition, and so took a sorrowful farewell. George Long.  
Was not this an apparent wilfulness in Sr. john, that rather than he would Petition the Parliament for his admittance to Composition, he would hazard the ruin 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 john 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 john (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 secret his resolution not to compound; for Mr. john Ashe (Ans. page 13.) saith, that the Petition which (after many amendments and obliterations of the high language therein) Mr. john Ashe was to deliver (as then it was) Mr. john Ashe upon his going into the Country, did by Sir john's appointment deliver to Mr. DenZil Hollis, who refused to deliver it, because it desired his removal 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. john Ashe, but one of a later birth. Thus his resolution not to compound continueth still upon him, notwithstanding his now endeavours to persuade 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 jury consisting of nineteen Esquires and Gentlemen (some whereof have been since, and now are in the Commission of the Peace) four whereof only were of Taunton, (viZ. Mr. Richard Bovet, Mr. Samuel Whetcomb, Mr. Philip Lyssant, and Mr. George Powel) the rest living in several places in that County; and but two of these four (viZ. Mr. Richard Bovet and Mr. Powel) had then obtained judgements against Sir john, and yet those legally and upon evidence, and defence made: The one for Sir john's taking away unjustly 1200 l. worth of Mr. Bovets estate; the other for his cruelty towards Mr. Powel as aforesaid; and Mr. Bovet (only) hath since chased a parcel of Sir john's Estate.  
But do all or any of these allegations invalid those Verdicts found by fifteen more, besides those four of Taunton? Because Sir john 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 juror 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 judgement of the High Court of justice, upon Sir john 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 proceed of that Court in the Remonstrance.  
Sir john 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 justice, 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 disowning of the present Authority greater than at any time before: And so far was Sir john 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. justice Bacon from Mr. justice Roll, owned the first, as one sitting by the King's 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 justice.  
And as Mr. john 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 Goldsmith's Hall to pick my purse, and give my consent to pay a sum of money for the redemption of my Estate which is unjustly taken from me. Which speeches, if they had fallen from one formerly innocent, had been an offence of an high nature; but being spoken by sir john, a person guilty (and so found by several Grand juries, 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 judicatures 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 Exeter Articles, and to sir john's Engagement and subscription at the Guild Hall, and was doubtless a breach of his Articles.  
And although perhaps these insolences 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? Truly 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 knowledge, 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 King's restitution to his Power and Authority; and a design thereby to receive his whole Estate gratis, with a great reward for his many sufferings in owning and justifying the late King's 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. john 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 Majesty's Cause, and did let him know the hopes he had of his Majesty's great favour and reward for him, when he should be restored. And Mr. james Ash testifieth, that the Lady Stawell told him that sir john 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 tried) if half an eye did but look into his carriage from his first coming before the Committee at Goldsmith's Hall, until his trial by the High-Court of Justice, it could be nothing but disowning, 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 john never pleaded, nor so much as ever pretended to those Articles, until some time after the late King's death, although in the mean time there were brought and obtained against him divers Actions and judgements 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 judgement 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 assign him Council for that purpose; but what that special Plea was, or intended to be, whether touching his Articles, or any other matter, sir john is not pleased to acquaint us; hour, during this time sir john's deportment was full of disdain towards the Authority of Parliament: High it was at his first coming to Goldsmith's 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 King's death his hopes began to sink, and were absolutely lost by the King of Scots (the late King's pretended successor) his taking the Covenant, and thereby engaging against sir john, his Cause and Interest; then, and not before, he abated the height of his insolences; how mild then he grew! witness his carriage (sunk even to a dejection) before the High-Court of justice; and how fearful! his endeavour to escape out of Newgate (being thither committed for High-Treason) doth testify. 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 Indemnity; 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 precious as the apple of the eye; which Faith, which Honour, sir john had once engaged for his Indemnity; but such an Indemnity only, that he might the freelier make his Composition with the Parliament. But when Sir john 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 justice, and in their very House, he hath abused the end for which this faith was given, the Army's faith is disengaged, 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 design 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, than 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 disengaged without the least breach of his honour, or faith unviolated: Therefore doth the faith of the Army remain, notwithstanding sir john his imprisonment, Trials, and sale of his Estate, and the rather for that he that now layeth such hold on the Articles of Exon, broke his own with the Town of Taunton, and committed Dunscomb to rot in the Gaol, although his person was indemnified by the Articles of Bristol.  
Sir john after a recital in his Remonstrance of these transactions against him, mentioneth the erection of the Court of Articles (in time, 18 june 1649.) and his Petition thereunto, to be relieved upon these Articles; upon which Petition (he saith, Remonst. pag. 35.) not proceed were made by that Court; but tells 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 john's relief, seeing he was particularly committed by the House of Commons for High-Treason, and thereby implicitly adjudged to have either broken, or neglected the performance of his Articles.  
Painted Chamber, Westminster, Die Veneris, 13 July 1644. By the Committee appointed for Relief upon ARTICLES of WAR.  
THe Petition of Sir John Stawell Knight, was this day read, and the Council on the Petitioners behalf heard: And it was moved that Bail might be taken for the said Sir John, or that a Keeper might attend him to his Council, for the clearing and dispatch of his business. Hereupon it was urged by the Council for the Commonwealth, That the Parliament, who were the Supreme Authority, and from whom all other Courts were derivative, had (as was confessed in sir John's Petition) committed him for High-Treason, and levying War against the Parliament, and commanded that he should be detained Prisoner until they gave further Order: So that no consideration was to be had by any other Power under them, as to his Bail, or enlargement without their leave: But his Council was informed, that if they had any thing further to move on the Petitioners behalf, they should be heard; whereupon they desired time to advise: Which was accordingly granted until Wednesday.  
A true Copy. JOHN WILSON, Dep. Regist.  
Now from the time that sir John was arraigned at the Upper-Bench-Bar (which) as himself saith, was in May 1649. there did efflux 13 months, until the time that the Parliament passed their Act for sir john's Trial by the High-Court of justice, which passed 9 july 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 john was not admitted to compound.  
And therefore, when in the trial of Sir john Stawell, for Treason and other offences (amongst which the kill of Robert Osborne at Marshal's Elm, 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 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 proceed of that Court, touching those Articles and Plea thereof, are void and extrajudicial; and Sir john 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 Gild 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 june 1651.) resented the same, yet by reason thereof spared his life, but passed an Act of the 16 of june 1651. (a month thereafter) whereby they adjudge sir john to have forfeited his Estate for Treason, and thereupon vested the actual possession of that Estate in certain trusties 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 john Stawell being in that Act first named, and before others of higher degree: Which Act and judgement, being the Act and judgement of all the People of England inclusively; and the same judgement being since fully executed, and the Estate of sir john 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 judgement cannot be examined or questioned out of the House itself: Whether they passed that their judgement 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 misdemeanours abovesaid? or whether they adjudged those misdemeanours either jointly 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 judgement against him? It will therefore seem very unreasonable, and be of dangerous consequence, if the Purchasers (mediate or immediate) 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 mere strangers thereunto. 2. That all the Examinations and other proceed, and very judgement of the Court of Articles (on the said judgement of Parliament) (although an Act of Parliament erected it after that judgement given) were extrajudicial, against the fundamental Laws of this Commonwealth, and of bad example.  
Coram non judice; When that Court (under pretence of a general Act of Relief upon Articles) did intermeddle with the Case of sir john Stawel, touching his person and Estate, his Estate being already adjudged by Act of Parliament to be forfeited; and the imprisonment of his person remaining indiscussed in that very House, especially after the Parliament had  
Thursday, Febr. 24. 1652. Resolved,  
THat the Cause of Sir John Stawel upon his pretence of Title to Articles, be resumed to the consideration and determination of the Parliament; and that the Commissioners for giving relief to persons upon Articles, do forbear to proceed any further therein, until the Parliament take further order.  
Hen. Scobell, Cler. Parl.  
Which Resolves (amounting unto an explanation of that Act of Reviver) determined not with the dissolution of the Parliament, but doth remain annexed to it (as a Codicil) taking away the jurisdiction of that Court in the Case of Sir john.  
2. These proceed were coram non judice, 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 Judgement 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 Judgement 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 seizures whatsoever, and shall enjoy the same without any claim, demand, impediment or molestation of the said trusties, or of the Survivors or Survivor of them, they or any of their heirs.  
These are the words of that Judgement, as it is recited in the Remonstrance, pag. 71. Which Judgement in respect of this Estate, is no otherwise then an annihilation of that Act of Parliament by this subordinate Court, under pretence of a power transmitted unto them by the general words of the Act of Reviver, when as a special Act could not give any such power of annihilation.  
The Legislative power by the fundamental laws remaineth solely and undoubtedly in the Parliament, and cannot be transferred to any inferior Judicature whatsoever. Of which power, the Abrogation or Repeal of former Laws, is a branch or part.  
But this Judgement of the Court of Articles (in respect of the Estate of Sir john) 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 john 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 forbore to give Sir john 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 judgement of the House, although their Act was particular, and the Act of Reviving the Court of Articles in general words. And the example is heighthened, after that the Parliament-Votes had prohibited them any further intermeddling, to resume the cognisance of the Cause, and to proceed to judgement, and by that judgement (in respect of the Estate) to entrench upon the privilege of Parliament, in reversing the Judgements 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, Judgement, and Proceed of that Court being coram non Judice, and against Fundamentals, are merely void in Law, especially when that Judgement 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, etc. any Law, Order or Ordinance to the contrary notwithstanding; yet hath not that Court such sole and supreme power or jurisdiction, as to control 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, judgements and Proceed 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 aught to be presumed, that Sir john by some or all of the misdemeanours and neglects aforesaid, or by other acts of his best known to that Parliament, had in the judgement thereof forfeited and lost the benefit of his Articles.  
Sir John, by way of objection, (Remonstrance, p. 74.) reciteth a Clause in that Act of Sale, in these words, viZ.  Nevertheless upon trust and confidence that the said William Skinner and others the persons abovenamed, or any five or more of them, shall have, hold and enjoy all and every the premises, and every of them subject unto such trusts and uses, as by this Act, or in and by authority of Parliament shall be hereafter further directed and appointed, and shall dispose of the same accordingly. 
And from thence would infer,  
1. That this power of limiting the trusts of those Lands, was reserved by the Parliament in relation to the Articles of War, by them confirmed; that in regard they had ratified divers of them, and eminently bound themselves in Faith, Honour, and Justice to make good, and could not take notice of such as had right or claim to the same; they thereof provided, according to this reserved power, that the trusties 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 only, 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 john 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 john 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 john hath mistaken the Act; the words are not, that the Court of Articles should relieve the party within Articles, any Law to the contrary; but that the Certificate of that Court should be binding to all inferior 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 settled according to that Declaration; and therefore the Patliament cannot by virtue 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 virtue of that Act of sale; especially when, as hath been shown, Sir john is a party— excepted out of that Act.  
After which Act of Sale, and not before, Sir john doth pretend to Petition the Parliament, for admission to composition; which Petition (as he allegeth by his Remonstrance page 39) he delivered unto Mr. Garland; but whether Mr. Garland did, or thought fit to present it to the Parliament, in regard of Sir john's former actions is not declared, and perhaps the Parliament refused it and justly: for God's vice-gerents do often Act like God himself; who when after a long forbearance on his part, and an obstinate continuance in evil on man's 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 john's slightning of their mercy, and the necessity of their Justice urging them to it. Sir john 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, altar, or make void any Resolutions, Votes or Judgements 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 always, and be it further enacted and declared, That no real or personal Estate, which hath been settled, conveyed, or assured to any person or persons, by virtue 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 virtue 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 settled, conveyed, or assured, but invalue to be satisfied by such other Lands or Revenue, 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 relief 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 john, to intimate any reason or grounds of the refusal of those Prouisoes, 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 proceed intended so much in the case of Sir john Stawell; though perhaps they would not have such a general proviso inserted, either because their was no Judgement, Vote, or Resolution of that Parliament touching Articles; but in the Case of Sir john Stawell, or because they presumed, as well they might; that their inferior (deiurative) Court of Articles would not call inquestion any of their proceed; but as soon as they did find that, that Court had proceeded in the Case of Sir john Stawell, they forthwith by their Resolution of the 24 of Febr. abovesaid, prohibited them any further proceed, especially when that Court began to proceed to sentence contrary to their judgement, until that time wisely forbearing their prohibition, in expectation of that subordinate Courts submission to their Declaration of Sir john's not admittance to compound, and their disposition of his Estate.  
There is likewise a Proviso in that Act of reviver, which in effect is the same with the recited Proviso, and is in these words, viZ.  Provided, That such person or persons, claiming benefit of Articles as aforesaid, have not forfeited the same by breach or nonperformance of what is, or was on their part, to be performed since those Articles were so granted. 
And there cannot be a more supreme Declaration or Judgement, then that of the Parliament itself; that Sir john had forfeited the benefit of his Artitles: and therefore the Case of Sir john Stawell, the only 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 relieve 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, etc.  
That Proviso speaks no more than 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 john such good service, by his said Letter; Sir john hath produced him as a Witness, before the present Committee of Parliament, where his examination was in these words, viZ.  

The Examination of Anthony Irby, Knight, taken the 16 of November 1654. before the Committee of Parliament to whom the Lord Cravens Petition is referred; being produced as a Witness on the behalf of Sir John Stawel, whose Petition is referred by the Parliament to this Committee.  
Who saith, That he was one of the Committee for Compounding sitting at Goldsmith's Hall, and was present there when Sir john Stawel did prefer his Petition to compound: And saith that the same was so preferred within the time limited by the Articles of Exeter, as appeared by the Pass of Sir Thomas Fairfax. And saith that the said Petition was read at the board, but something therein was disliked; for Sir john Stawel did not acknowledge his Delinquency, nor would he take the Covenant and Negative Oath. And further saith, that Sir john Stawel did not behave himself misbecomingly, as this Deponent conceiveth, only did insist upon the Articles of Exeter, and said that by them he was to be admitted to Composition; and he this Examinant took no exceptions at his carriage. And saith, that in those times there was want of money, and it was his opinion that Sir john Stawel ought to compound.  
And further saith, That at that time this Examinant did not know of any body that was about to buy any part of Sir john Stawels Estate: but saith, That about two or three years ago (as he remembreth) he was at Sir Abraham Williams his house, being about the time of Sir john Stawels Trial for his life, or presently after, as he remembreth; and there he met Sir Edward Baynton, and enquired of him the reason of the prosecution of Sir john Stawell. And Sir Edward Baynton then told this Examinant, That there was a Gentleman who would have bought a Manor of Sir john Stawell, in Somersetshire or Wiltshire, (he cannot tell whether) and that he the said Sir Edward Baynton had some interest in part of it, and had offered, if Sir john Stawell would sell his part, he also would sell his other part; but said, that afterwards he was sorry for that offer, because he conceived that was the original of Sir john Stawels troubles.  
And this Examinant further saith, That Sir john Stawell came punctually within the time limited by his Articles; for that the Committee for compounding gave him a time to appear after the date of the time given by the said Articles, on purpose that the Committee might show him no favour when the time given by the Articles was out. And saith, That Sir Edward Baynton told him this Examinant, that the person who would buy the said Manor, was Mr. john Ash.  
And this Examinant further saith, That one of the Members of that Committee, being the Chairman, told the Committee that Sir john Stawell was without with a Petition, but said the same was failing in many circumstances. And saith, That after the Case then in debate was ended, (which was one Berkleys, as this Deponent now remembers) Sir john Stawell was called in. And this Examinant being now demanded whether Sir john Stawell had subscribed not to bear arms against the Parliament, as was required by his Articles: This Examinate saith, that there was a Committee who sat in Goldsmith's Hall to take Subscriptions, without which, as he remembreth, Delinquents were not to stay within the Lines of Communication; but saith, that he doth not remember that ever he saw any Certificate that Sir john Stawel had subscribed not to bear arms, nor did he ever see the Certificate of any other person to that purpose that came to compound. And this Examinant further saith, That the Committee had an Order of Parliament not to compound with any that did not take the Covenant and Negative oath, which latter the Committee had power to administer, and the same was tendered to Sir john Stawel, but he refused to take it, and said he was excused by his Articles. And this Examinant further faith, That it was not then objected against Sir john Stawel, that he had not subscribed the Engagement not to bear arms against the Parliament.  
Being Cross-examined on the behalf of the Commonwealth, He saith,  
That he doth not remember that Sir john Stawel said, the Committee were Traitors or Delinquents. That to his remembrance, they had no Order of Parliament that persons should acknowledge their Delinquency before they were admitted to compound; but the Committee made such an agreement amongst themselves: And saith, that some of the Committee did say, that Sir john Stawels Petition was rather a Remonstrance then a Petition. And saith, that there was no Particular of his Estate annexed to his Petition, nor was it ordinary so to do, but the Particular was usually delivered after admission to a Composition. And saith, that Sir john Stawel did refuse the Covenant and Negative oath upon account of his Articles; and that the subscription not to bear Arms, was not to be made before them, but in another place before they came to them. And saith, That he was near Sir john Stawel when he was with the Committee, but did not hear any particular ill language given by him to the Committee, as he remembreth; but saith that his carriage was then as it was usually, not very pleasant or Courtly.   

Sir David Watkins examined at the same time on Sir John Stawels part,  
Saith,  
THat he was of the Committee for Compounding, and was there when Sir john Stawel came and presented his Petition to the Committee, which was within four months from the 8. of April. And saith, that he came in a civil manner, but did not acknowledge his Delinquency, nor would take the Negative oath, and was refused to be admitted upon that account. And saith, that he doth not remember any Order of Parliament that did forbid them to Compound with persons that did not acknowledge themselves Delinquents, but such as had not taken the Oath and Covenant. And saith that he saw the Lord Fairfax his Pass dated in April, and that he doth account four months after the rate of 28 days to a month. And saith, that he doth not know that any Certificate was brought to them touching Subscription not to bear Arms, either in this or any case of persons compounding upon those Articles; and saith, that Sir john Stawels not subscribing, was not objected against him at that time.  
Being Cross-examined on the behalf of the Commonwealth, He saith,  
That some did say, That Sir john Stawels Petition was rather a Remonstrance then a Petition; but the title was A Petition. But he had not acknowledged his Delinquency, nor taken the Negative Oath and Covenant; and for that reason he conceives it was called a Remonstrance. That the Committee were informed he had subscribed not to bear Arms against the Parliament.  
Sir Anthony Irby being called in after the Company were withdrawn, and asked whether there were any private discourse at the Committee to Sir John Stawels prejudice,  
HE saith, that Sir john Stawell being without the door, the Chairman went out, and on his return told this Examinant, That Sir john Stawel was a great Enemy, had raised Arms against the Parliament, drew the first blood in the West of England; that his Petition was not valid, he acknowledged no Delinquency, had not taken the Negative Oath; and saith that the Committee pressed him to it, and upon refusal gave him time till his Articles were out, because than they knew how to deal with him; and saith that the Committee did not meddle with subscription, for that was to be done by particular Committees separated from them, because that concerned Delinquents stay in Town: but only to see that they did take the Negative Oath and Covenant. And further saith, that the second day that Sir john Stawell appeared, Mr. Stephens was in the Chair, as he remembers.  
Of both which, to make some observations: Sir Anthony saith in his Letter, That he knoweth sir John delivered his Petition within the time, according to Articles. And in his Examination, that the same was so preferred within the time limited by the Articles of Exon, as appeareth by the Pass of Sir Thomas Fairfax: But in neither hath he explained himself what he meaneth by (the time limited) for if he intendeth thereby Calendar time, it is then true; for sir John appearing first on the sixth of August, came within the time limited: But than it cannot be true, what Mr. Michael Herring hath both sworn, and affirmed upon his examination, that the Committee refused him not for not coming in time. And so Gens contra Gentem. But if sir Anthony reckoneth but 28 days to the Month, sir John must first appear before the 30 of July, when the time according to that Act expired; but then the suggestions of sir Anthony's own Warrant of the Committee (whereof sir Anthony was one, and present) of the fourth of August, cannot be true; for that surmiseth, that sir John had not then appeared before any Committee. And by this construction, there is sir Anthony Irby the Commissioner, against sir Anthony Irby the Witness.  
He saith upon his Examination, The Petition was read, but something therein was disliked, because sir john did not acknwledge his Delinquency, neither would he take the Covenant and Negative Oath. As touching the refusal of the Oaths, that could be no cause of disliking his Petition; it might be of refusing his Composition, the Oaths being collateral to the Petition. As touching his acknowledgement of Delinquency, it is strange that it is now grown with sir Anthony, a finding of fault (or an occasion to pick a quarrel) with one that deserved no favour, by reason of a Character given him of the violentest and earliest enemy (which was indeed true, let whomsoever give that Character) when as it was the constant rule by which that Committee, and sir Anthony himself did walk; neither was there any person whatsoever that did compound without it, let him deserve favour or not.   
But if sir Anthony intended to show him no favour, why did sir Anthony (for he sweareth that We did) give him time for eight or ten days, 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 merciful; neither can he be excused of casting snares in sir john's way, to satisfy 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. james Ash, that time was given unto sir john Stawell upon the entreaty of Mr. john Ash, and in hope to draw sir john in the interval unto a submission. Sir Anthony's testimony touching sir john's carriage at that Committee, hath been before sufficiently confuted; his opinion that sir john ought to compound (as his expression was upon his Examination) and his desire to have had sir john admitted to composition, as he ought by his Articles, is granted; for sir john ought by his Articles to have been admitted to a Composition; but sir john would not compound in such manner as that Committee could compound with him; and therefore he was justly denied such an admission thereunto; but according to their Rules he was admitted, and might have compounded. As concerning sir Anthony's relation touching the sale of a Manor of sir john 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 john to the House, wherein sir Anthony now sweareth he then saw no incivility; if he did not, where was sir Anthony's Justice, when himself voted that Report.  
The same answer respectively may be given to sir David Watkins' 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 days to the month, when he saith that sir john Stawell came and presented his Petition to the Committee within four months 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 Calendar months.  
The Remonstrance page 62. doth surmise, that the 15. of August 1653. the cause of Sir john, 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 dissolved, Sir john Stawel took advantage thereof, and by his importunity obtained from that Court of Articles, a further, though most extrajudicial proceeding therein, even to judgement.  
The trusties of Drury house and Purchasers cannot be blamed, if to preserve the honour and credit of Acts of Parliament, they did Petition the then Commit; 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 sense of the Committee: that the Purchasers ought to enjoy their Purchases, and Sir john have satisfaction if found within, and aught to have the benefit of Articles; which report made accordingly, and the than 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 Friday following. After the resumption whereof, and during its debate by the Parliament, that Court of Articles took the boldness to give that judgement; for Sir john Stawell at large set forth in the Remonstrance, pag. 65. thereby breaking through Resolves, Judgements, and Acts of Parliament to the contrary; and therefore Sir john could not probably conceive that any other besides himself would rest on, or that the then Parliament would suffer their proceed, or the Judgements or Resolutions of their Predecessors to be questioned and annulled by an inferior jurisdiction; and therefore it was justly done by the trusties and Purchasers, to endeavour to render those illegal proceed successless; and for the Parliament, in vindication of their supreme power to resume the debate, touching the trusties representation and Purchasers Petition, the sooner to declare their resentment of those proceed; 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 relief; 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 plead and proceed passed in that case, thought fit to report that the Purchasers ought to enjoy the same Estate, which report the then Parliament was pleased to confirm, and  
Teusd. the 15 of Septemb. 1653. Resolved,  
That this House do agree with this Report of the Committee, that the Purchasers of Sir john Stawel's Estate shall quietly possess and enjoy the same, according to their several contracts made with the trusties.  
Henry Scobel Clerk of the Parliament.  
And passed an Act accordingly in these words.  
Thursd. the 13. of Octob. 1653 An Act for confirmation of the sale, of the Lands and Estate of Sir john Stawell, Knight of the Bath.  
Be it enacted and deccared by Authority of Parliament, that all sales made of any Estate, Lands, Tenements, Hereditaments, Goods or Chattels of Sir John Stawell Knight of the Bath, by virtue or appointment of any Act or Acts of Parliament, are hereby confirmed and established; and accordingly all Purchasers and Buyers of the same, shall and may have, hold, and quietly enjoy the same to them, their Heirs and Assigns, according to the Rules, Conditions and Limitations prescribed in the said Acts, any Law or Judgement to the contrary notwithstanding.  
Hen. Scobell Clerk of the Parliament.  
Notwithstanding which reference, resolution, and Act of this second Parliament, in confirmation of the Act and proceed of the former Parliament, and sale of the Estate accordingly, Sir john resteth not, but now pretendeth that the Committee for Petitions pursued not the intent of that Order of Reference; and draweth that pretence from these two Premises: The one, because Sir john had the (extrajudicial) Judgement 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 judgement and proceed 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 Judgement 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 Judgement, that would otherwise have taken them away.  
Neither in the judgement of the Parliament itself had that Committee not pursued their intent of Reference; for both by a Resolve and an Act they settled 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 trusties themselves (from whom the Purchasers claim) in case of Articles from any such absolute Estate.  
Suppose the Estate of the trusties had been subject to such a trust in case of other men claiming Articles, yet in Sir John's 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 month: But Sir John did not make his Composition within four months, but refused to make it according to the Rules of Goldsmith's Hall, and refused to petition the Parliament to be admitted to compound at large. The Parliament afterwards (the four months expired, and five years past, no Composition made) upon consideration of the Articles, and Sir john's forfeiture of them, enacted the Lands to be sold.  
Now the trust upon the rendition being determined with the four months, and Sir john's neglect of making his Composition within that time (nay, until sale) cannot be annexed to the Act of Sale; neither is there any other trust of Articles in the case of Sir john, other, then that (lost) trust at the rendition. And that the trust was determined by his not making of his Composition within the four months, it doth appear by a Judgement of a Court-Martial given about two years after, and by that Army, that best knew how to interpret their own Articles. The Judgement is in these words.  
At a Court-Martial of his Excellency Sir Thomas Fairfax Knight, Captain-General, etc. Held for the Headquarters at White-Hall the 24 of February 1648.  
Upon the Question, Whether Robert Barcroft not compounding, sc. within four months after the Rendition of Exon, hath lost the benefit of the Articles of Exon, as to his Indemnity against Richards?  
It was Resolved in the affirmative.  
HEN. whaley judge-advocate.  
Sir John's Case being thus, may we ask him a question or two.  
Since there was no Composition made within the four months, as by the Articles he ought, we would demand of him, For what cause it was not made? Who hindered it?  
If he saith the Committee at Goldsmith's 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 months 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 hindered it, it was that stayed him in the Country three months and a half of the four, that kept him from Petitioning the Committee at Goldsmith's Hall, until after the four Months expired, or but six days (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 heightened 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 King's approbation, then certainly would not that King's real intentions or constancy (even in sir john's judgement) be for the establishment either of Religion, Laws, or People's welfare (as sir john pretendeth, Remonstrance page 75.) if he will say, by his own Authority, than did he abuse his King as grossly as his Country; for the people conceived those his exorbitances to be warranted by the King himself: And then sir john hath been faithless to King, Parliament, and his own Country.  
To conclude, since sir john hath been a depopulator at Cothelston, at Marshal's Elm bloody, a Traitor, a Murderer, what not in Taunton? a breaker of Public trust to his Country, of Articles to Dunscomb; ingrateful scandalously to Mr. john Ash, ruinously to Mr. Long (Et si ingratum omnia) since he entrenched on the Privilege of Parliament, when he went thence without their leave, and upon the King's private Letter only, and hath contemned the Authority thereof at their Bar, in their Committee, judges, Great Seal, and Solicitor General; since he hath scorned the mercy of the Army, otherwise then to use it in advance of his Malignant design.  
Can sir john 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, since 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 misdemeanours were then in their consideration?  
Or can sir john 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 Public) and contrary to the Judgements and Acts of former Parliaments (who best knew his demerits) and against the Law of Public Sales (which ought to be as firm as the Laws of the Medes and Persians, and which nature itself taught the very Heathen to deem inviolable) shall settle them on sir john, who in Justice deserveth not the mercy of his life?  
FINIS.   

ERRATA.  
Pag. 5. l. 1. for Ward read Wards. p. 6. l. 11. Baker, r. Barker. p. 24. l. 15. to be honest, r to honest. p, 25, l. 11. without, r. within. p. 27. l. 33. any Act, r. some Act. p. 29. l. 36. as, r. was. p. 31. l. 38. r. constantly compound; p. 32. l. 3. for design, r. desire; p. 34. l: 9 for over, r. overt; l. 17. r. to their rules; l. 48 or; Judgement and Sir David; p. 39 l. 23. r. annexed, pag. 11. p. 41. l. 28. r. admission; p 42. l. 6. for chased, r. purchased; l. 19 r. be foreseen; p. 45. l. 18. for greater, r. great; p. 47. l. 30. for be, r. by; l. 40. for or, r. against; p. 49 l. 13. r. heightened, for them, after that, etc. p. 57 l. 25. r. award; l. 34. for received, r. rejected; p. 54. l. 4. for Goldsmiths-hall, r. Guildhall; p. 56. l. 13. for Act r. Account; l. 14. r. Sir Anthony's own warrant, the warrant of the Committee.