C018/Y01701.json

[
{"content": "William, Earl of Clanricard, before the late troubles in Ireland, settled and limited part of his estate to John Burke for life, with the remainder in tail to his eldest and every other son successively. John Burke was a colonel in the Irish army and was taken prisoner at the Battle of Aghrim. Yet, on the treaty for the surrender of Galway, upon application made by the now Earl of Clanricard, who was then the Earl's brother, constable and commander-in-chief in the town, and by the rest of the garrison, Earl of Athlone, then His Majesty's general there, promised that John Burke should have the benefit of the capitulations to be made for the town. John Burke's regiment being then garrisoned in the town, an express article was inserted in the capitulations that all absent officers belonging to any regiment then in Galway should enjoy the benefit of the capitulations.\nIf John Burke had submitted to His Majesty's Government and the Earl of Athlone gave assurances that Burke would receive the promised benefits despite being a prisoner of war, Burke was released, took the oath of allegiance, and remained loyal to the government. However, Burke could not receive an adjudication under the articles as the Commissioners for Claims were restricted by their commission and an Irish parliament act to follow the articles exactly, preventing them from granting Burke the benefit of Athlone's promise. When Burke learned that his estate was to be granted to Neale, in trust for the Earl of Albemarle, he traveled to England, appealed to Albemarle, and waived the grant in exchange for Albemarle's inducement.\nAnd for recommending John Burke to His Majesty for a grant of the same, he proposed educating his sons in the Protestant religion, selling his estate to Protestants, and providing further demonstrations of his willingness to contribute to the establishment of a Protestant interest in the country he lived in. He also proposed paying 7500 l. to be received from the profits of the estate as consideration for the Earl's waving the grant as proposed. The Earl having agreed to these terms, and His Majesty being informed of how much John Burke's compliance in the education of his children would contribute to the establishment of the Protestant interest and to the peace and safety of Ireland, and being satisfied with the promise given by the Earl of Athlone, and considering the many and great services performed by John Burke's ancestors to the Crown of England since the first conquest of Ireland.\nThe first instance of treason against the English monarchs by members of the Family was acknowledged by the monarch, who granted permission for John Burke's estate to be restored. Royal warrants have been issued in Ireland for pardoning John Burke and placing his estate in trust for his Protestant children's support. No grant or pardon has been passed yet, as the House of Commons appointed commissioners to inspect Irish forfeitures before any grant could be issued. John Burke has a wife, six sons, and two daughters. The eldest two sons are Protestant and attend Eaton College, while the rest will be sent abroad for education in the same faith once they reach the appropriate age. John has no other means to support himself and his family.\nIf his Estate has been disposed of, and he has been deprived of His Majesty's intended mercy and favor, the forfeiture of John Burke is found in the various counties where the Estate lies, to be only for his life. His sons are in remainder to the same. In pity for the said infants, who are the next males to the Estate and Earldom of Clanricard, and who will enjoy this Estate after their father's decease, and who at present must lack bread and education if the Estate is disposed of, and in regard to John Burke's right of being restored as stated, it is humbly hoped that this Honorable House will exempt the said Estate from the dispositions intended by the Bill relating to Irish Forfeitures. This House is requested to either restore the said John Burke to the same, or allow him to pass a grant pursuantant to the said warrant, as this House deems most proper. This is the more reasoned for, as in former acts of resumption.\nGrants forfeited were considered restitutions and therefore exempt; John Burke's grant not yet passed but waived out of respect to this honorable house, hoped it won't prejudice him. Irish Commissioners reported leasing estate to Protestants beneficial for Protestant interest, John Burke willing to lease accordingly. To prevent disappointments in restitution affecting his application, he humbly requests to inform this honorable house that these didn't stem from prejudice against John Burke, whose case and condition deserve compassion.\n) but by Reason of Objections some con\u2223ceived against the manner proposed for his Relief.", "creation_year": 1701, "creation_year_earliest": 1701, "creation_year_latest": 1701, "source_dataset": "EEBO", "source_dataset_detailed": "EEBO_Phase1"},
{"content": "Whose husband was barbarously murdered on March 26, 1687, by the Earl of Clancarty and his party, begging for his life at Mallo in the County of Cork; he was the first to suffer for the Protestant Religion.\n\nThat the said Katherine, late wife of the said William, was imprisoned, and in a notorious manner had all she had plundered, to the value of 3000 pounds, by the party of the said Earl of Clancarty.\n\nThat by petition to the late King James in Ireland, she obtained an order to Clancarty, that he would settle four plough-lands and a house, part of his estate, in consideration of her suffering; but being in great danger of her life, she and her family were forced to flee to England.\n\nThat the said Katherine, after coming to England, petitioned His Majesty King William and the late Queen, who granted to her during her life two of the said plough-lands and a house which was then let at 61 pounds per annum and now owes 800 pounds on the said lands.\nShe humbly prays for relief in the Resumption Bill, having lost her husband, three brothers, and 3000 pounds in the late wars in Ireland, and leaving her with seven children.", "creation_year": 1701, "creation_year_earliest": 1701, "creation_year_latest": 1701, "source_dataset": "EEBO", "source_dataset_detailed": "EEBO_Phase1"},
{"content": "IT is Ordained, That the Common Seal of this\nCorporation, shall be kept under Three Locks,\nby such Three of the Directors, as the Court of\nDirectors shall from time to time appoint; and\nthat the said Seal shall not be set to any Writing, or\nInstrument, but by an Order of the Court of Direct\u2223ors\nfirst had, and that in the Presence of the said Three\nDirectors, or any Two of them: And that the Di\u00a6rectors,\nwho have the Custody of the Seal, do cause\na particular Register of all Bonds for Money borrow\u2223ed\nat Interest, and another Register for all other\nBonds and Instruments of what kind soever, that\nshall pass under the Companies Seal, to be Entred\nand kept; And that they cause the said two Register\nBooks to be laid before the said Court of Directors\nevery Week. To the end the Court of Directors\nmay inform themselves of all things, that the Seal\nhath been Affixed to for the Week preceeding.\nItem, It is Ordain'd, That upon all Transfers to be\nmade of any Interest in the Stock, or Fund, of this\nItem: A fee of five shillings is payable by the transferor for each transfer to the Corporation.\nItem: A Court of Directors shall be summoned and held at least once a week.\nItem: An account of the money received and paid for the annuity shall be kept separate from the trade. The annuity is to be paid quarterly to interested parties at the four main feasts or as soon thereafter as possible.\nItem: In all cases where a director or any other officer of this Company engages in any dealing or business with the Company, either individually or in conjunction with others, for or in respect of buying for, selling to, or making any bargain or contract whatsoever with this Corporation, then in such cases, the director or officer must disclose this relationship.\nAny Director or Officer conducting business with this Corporation, as stated, must declare and publish to the Court of Directors at the time of negotiation or their presence, whether they are directly or indirectly involved in the goods proposed for sale or other matters being negotiated, or in any other matter where they have a direct or indirect interest or concern. In case of debate, the concerned person shall be heard first and then withdraw during the debate. When the question is put, this by-law shall not be construed to require any Director to declare if they are concerned in goods bought by themselves or others for them at a public sale by the company's candle. Furthermore, no Director shall cast their vote for any lot of goods bought at the company's candle or for making any allowance.\nDirectors or officers who buy goods involving company business are subject to this by-law. Any such individual found wittingly or willingly violating this by-law, as determined by a general court, shall be deemed incapable of holding or enjoying any director or other office within the company.\n\nItem, no director may accept any fee, present, or reward, directly or indirectly, concerning company business.\n\nItem, no officer or servant employed by the company may accept any fee, reward, or present, except those approved and established by the court of directors and listed in tables they provide for that purpose.\nItem 1: No officer or servant, holding the position of a broker, shall serve this Company.\nItem 2: The Court of Directors shall not invest any Company money or effects in shipping, except for small ships needed in the East-Indies, or in purchasing any part or share of the Capital or Additional Fund or Stock of this Company, without the consent of the General Court first obtained.\nItem 3: Micha\u00eblmas, which shall be in the Year of our Lord, 1709.\nItem 4: No ship or vessel shall be hired or freighted by the Court of Directors if any Director is directly or indirectly involved as an owner or part-owner.\nItem 5: All ships to be hired by this Company shall be taken up, and their respective voyages agreed upon in a Court of Directors by ballot, not otherwise.\nItem 6: The Court of Directors shall not.\nItem. It is ordained that all goods and merchandise whatsoever, which shall hereafter be licensed to be sent in any of the Company's ships to the East-Indies, by the Court of Directors or any committee empowered by them, shall be brought to a warehouse appointed for that purpose at the East India House, and be there viewed by the Committee of Shipping, in order to the tonnaging and registering of such goods. That all bullion which shall be so licensed, shall be brought to the Treasury Office, and there viewed, weighed, and packed up. That before any warrant or order shall be given for shipping such goods, merchandise, or bullion, the freight and other duties chargeable thereon shall be first paid to the Company's treasurer or cashier for the time being; for which he shall give a receipt, therein mentioning the sum and for what paid; which receipt shall be produced to the Committee or officers who sign the said warrant or order.\nThat the Companies Mark shall be put upon all goods, merchandise and bullion, either by burning or deep cutting in, if the package will bear it, or else by stamping, before they are removed from the warehouse or treasury, with such further additional marks or numbers as the parties concerned and the Committee of Shipping or of the Treasury shall direct.\n\nA due register shall be kept in books for that purpose of all the goods, merchandise and bullion to be licensed as aforesaid, together with the quantity and tonnage of the same. The husband at the waterside or his assistant shall, from time to time, within fourteen days after any ship or ships belonging to this Company are sailed from the Downes, transmit to the Court of Directors an account of all goods and merchandise shipped on such ship or ships respectively, together with the marks, numbers, and quantity of the tonnage of the same.\n\nAll goods, merchandise and bullion, which are to be licensed as aforesaid, shall be marked accordingly.\nAny goods found on board outward-bound ships that are not licensed and marked or stamped with the company mark shall be forfeited, according to the directions of the Act of Parliament. This applies except in cases where the Court of Directors, for the time being, deem it necessary to dispense with the examining and marking of such goods and declare them under the hands of thirteen or more of them.\n\nCommanders of all ships to be employed in the company's service are required to be notified in writing when they engage their ships. This is to prevent any goods being taken on board their respective ships that are not licensed and marked or do not have a particular order under the hands of thirteen or more of the Court of Directors for shipping as aforementioned.\n\nIt is ordained that in all charter-parties for the future, a clause be inserted whereby:\nThe Commander and owners shall lose and forfeit to the Company all their goods brought home in private trade that are not duly registered in India at the factory where such goods are taken on board. If goods are taken on board where the Company has no factors, they shall be registered in the supercargo's book, and where there is no supercargo, in the commander's book. All goods in private-trade (prohibited goods excepted) are to be immediately brought up from the water-side and lodged in a particular warehouse provided by the Court of Directors for that purpose, and not housed at the water-side on any pretense whatsoever, unless otherwise ordered by the Court of Directors.\n\nIt is ordained that when any director goes to reside beyond seas, it shall create a vacancy of his directorship. And that whenever there shall be a vacancy of the place of a director by death, or otherwise.\nItem: It is ordained that another shall be chosen in any vacant position within one month, and ten days' public notice shall be given of the day for making the choice.\n\nItem: No commander, owner, or part-owner of any ship freighted by the Court of Directors may sell any office of mate, purser, gunner, boatswain, or inferior office, or take any fee or reward for these offices or employments on board any such ship. Upon proof to the Court of Directors, the commander, mate, purser, gunner, boatswain, or other inferior officer involved shall be dismissed from the company's service.\n\nAny owner, part-owner, or commander of a ship freighted as mentioned above who sells an office as stated shall forfeit double the sum for each offense to the company.\nAny such office shall be sold. The cost shall be deducted from the freight and demurrage due for the ship. A proper clause should be included in all charter parties for this purpose. No commander, mate, or other officer of any ship freighted by the Court of Directors shall be allowed to take up or borrow, or become bound for any money on the goods on board or the bottom of any ship outward-bound to the East-Indies or other parts within the limits of the Company's charter. They shall not exceed their respective proportions of the indulgence granted by the Company to the commander, officers, and ship's company. This money, allowed, shall be taken up by the Company at such rates and values and on such security as the Court of Directors deem fit. Captains and officers shall give bond accordingly. Upon proof made to the Court of Directors of the breach of this by-law by any commander or other officer of any ship freighted as aforesaid, such commander or officer shall be dealt with accordingly.\nOfficer shall be forthwith discharged from the service of this Company, and made incapable, for ever after, of any employment on board any ship in the service of this Company.\n\nItem, it is ordained that the Court of Directors may make such allowance for prompt payment of money called in for trade as they shall think fit, provided at least ten days public notice is given of any such allowance and when it is to be made.\n\nItem, it is ordained that the books of this Company in England shall be balanced to Midsummer-day, which shall be in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ten, and annually thereafter to every Midsummer-day following. The balance shall be drawn out within thirty days after every Midsummer-day. Likewise, the books of this Company's affairs in India shall be balanced once every year in each of the said factories. Transcripts or copies thereof, signed by the chief and council of each factory, shall be sent to England by the first convenient opportunity.\nItem: Under the Penalty of dismissal from the Company's service, no one shall refuse or neglect to comply with the following:\n\nItem: All receipts and payments ordered by the Court of Directors must be made in a timely manner without preference. Any officer acting otherwise shall be dismissed from the Company's service.\n\nItem: At least fourteen days' public notice shall be given for the annual election of Directors. A printed list of qualified voters' names must be available for delivery at least seven days before the election day.\n\nItem: No note drawn by any Director, in any capacity, shall be accepted as payment to the Company.\n\nItem: Any person who is a member of this Company and trades within the limits of its charter, directly or indirectly, under any color or pretense, shall be subject to unspecified consequences.\nOther than in the Joint-Stock of the said Company, anyone who trades Money, Goods and Merchandizes other than this, shall forfeit and lose to the use of the said Company, the value of such excess. And the person offending in this manner shall be incapable of serving this Company in any office or place whatsoever.\n\nItem, No orders shall be sent by the Directors to, or obeyed by any of the Agents or Factors of this Company in India or any other parts, beyond the Cape of Good Hope or at St. Helena, unless signed by Thirteen or more of the Directors for the time being.\n\nItem, In order to avoid mistakes or confusions in elections:\n\nFirst, if it should happen upon making the scrutiny for Directors, any two or more qualified persons have an equal number of votes, the election in such a case shall be determined in the General Court, in which such scrutiny shall be reported.\nSecondly, if two or more qualified persons have the same Christian and surnames, and are not distinguished by their additions, or if a wrong Christian name is placed to a surname, or literal mistakes are made in Christian or surnames, in each of these cases, the undistinguished, wrong, or mistaken name or names shall be kept and not rejected. The rest of the list shall be allowed. The persons appointed to take the scrutiny may determine the intended person or persons by such undistinguished, wrong, or mistaken name or names. Provided the majority agree in ascertaining the person or persons. In default, it shall be determined by the General Court, in which the scrutiny is reported.\n\nThirdly, no list shall be received for any election after the glass is finally sealed up.\nFourthly, any Member using or procuring the use of indirect means, through threats, promises, or collusive stock transfers, to obtain votes for self or another for Director election, and found guilty at a General Court, shall be incapable of future election to such Office.\n\nFifthly, the same method (as close as possible) is to be observed in all Committee elections by General Court, under the same Penalties.\n\nSixthly, the Third and Fourth Clauses of this By-Law are to be included at the end of every Printed List given out at or before the Annual Election, to guide Members in casting their Votes.\n\nIt is Ordained, the Corporation's Cash, consisting in Ready Money and Exchequer.\nBills or Goldsmiths Notes shall be kept under three locks by three of the Court of Directors' appointees, except for sums the court deems necessary to trust with their cashier. The Corporation's cash in the Bank of England shall be kept as the Court of Directors appoint. No person shall export or import money, goods, or merchandise in any Company ship without first obtaining a license from the Court of Directors, except for those they empower to grant such licenses. In a General Court, all questions, except for adjournment, shall be stated in writing by the Chairman before they are put to the court. The Chairman in a General Court,\nItem: At the next annual election of directors, which is between the 25th day of March and the 25th day of April, 1701, six or more of those who have been or shall during this year be chosen into and have served the office of a director shall be excluded from the directorship for one year. Lists containing more than eighteen names of this year's court of directors shall be deemed as no vote, and the list and all the names therein shall be totally rejected.\n\nSecondly, at the following annual election of directors, which will be in the year 1702, six or more of those who have been members of the court of directors the two preceding years shall be excluded in the same manner; and every list that shall contain the names of more than twelve persons who have served the office of a director for two years consecutively shall be deemed as no vote.\nAt the next Annual Election in 1703, six or more persons who have served as Members of the Court of Directors for three consecutive years shall be excluded. Any list containing more than six such names shall not be considered a valid vote, and shall be rejected entirely.\n\nAt the Annual Election in 1704 and thereafter, every person who has served as a Director for the past four consecutive years shall be excluded in the same manner. Any list containing the name of such an individual shall also be rejected.\n\nFifthly, (text missing)\n\nSixthly, after March 25, 1701, the Printed Lists delivered before each Annual Election should display the numbers 1, 2, 3, or 4. (Text missing)\nItem 1. Each Director's name shall be inserted, according to the years they have served, so that Members may conform their Lists to this By-Law.\nItem 2. A Committee of seven shall be chosen annually at the June General Court, of whom four shall constitute a quorum. They are authorized and empowered to inspect the By-Laws, make inquiries into their observance and execution, consider necessary alterations and additions, and report their opinions to the General Court.\nItem 3. One hundred and fifty pounds annually shall be allowed to each Director for attending to the Company's business.\nItem 4. No By-Laws or future By-Laws shall be repealed or suspended without the consent and approval of two General Courts convened for that purpose.\nItem: It is hereby ordained that if nine or more members are present at any general court of this company and demand a ballot for determining any proposed question, such question shall be put to a vote by ballot, and not otherwise.\n\nItem: It is ordained that anyone in the service of this company who wittingly breaches any by-law of this corporation and is so adjudged by a general court shall be incapable of any employment in this company.\n\nItem: It is ordained that these by-laws shall be read in the first court of directors and first general court after every annual election.", "creation_year": 1701, "creation_year_earliest": 1701, "creation_year_latest": 1701, "source_dataset": "EEBO", "source_dataset_detailed": "EEBO_Phase1"},
{"content": "A malicious Rich Man makes acceptable and pleasant reasons, and most people, for money, take the rich villain by the hand. Pray, whether it is money or no money, right or wrong, we should read this present case from the first to the last word attentively before giving our judgment. Order the speaker or chairman in a committee of a full or not full House to give the petitioner, at the bar, your answer to it before your honors between the hours of two and three in the afternoon.\n\nTo the Honorable the Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses in Parliament assembled,\n\nThe humble petition of Prince Butler, a woeful, persecuted, beaten, pushed, thumped, bruised, and sickly vagabond, who has spent 26 years lying in garrets more for cheapness than for ease. I have spent 14 years fluxing more in cold than hot weather, and have groaned, grunted, and sighed frightfully to the hearers near me for over three years.\nand doubts will last during life, day and night, in bed, in the streets, in the fields, and to great sorrow, and more trouble, very often in strange company, like a man stabbed and ready to die, and in cold windy weather, as if choked by smoke.\n\nIf he is a fool, the Pope and all the kings and councils in their council chambers and people in Europe are fools, except King William, and ill-persuaded, ill-designing, ignorant, or not people.\n\nThe case and matter of fact of Prince Butler, an account of what blood he lost in four years, by reason of unexpected beatings, kicks in the legs, pushes and thumps in the breast, as he can remember, besides long purging, dieting, exercising, and fasting, and not yet well cured, in all 497 ounces and a half of butcher's weight, besides what he must lose in cold weather, and for what may happen; it is better to lose offensive blood than life, all that blood, besides offensive pinches.\nshowers of greasy bones and other nastinesses thrown at him; hard bulls out of a trunk, canes blown at his head, many slaps, reflections, vexatious, scandalous reports, affronts, and aspersions, he lost and endured in London, to the great pleasure and content of them. I was ill-perceived, ill-intended, bribed or not, as a word may hinder or encourage it, without regard for the Petitioner's serious, sober, and earnest prayers to shoot him with a gun or pistol through the head. This is enough to weaken Samson, a stone-horse, or a town-bull, and much more your tame and innocent weak Petitioner, not yet out of pain and danger. I tremble daily from the bottom of the sky to the top of the ground, for fear any part or all of the said misfortunes may happen to me again, besides many troubles I endured out of England in 26 years of persecution, not yet, nor likely to be ended.\nif not assisted by your Honours and the King. I humbly pray your Honours to request, through his Majesty's Secretary or members of his Privy Council in your House, a general open letter to my Ambassadors abroad. The Ambassador upon arrival, with or without money, right or wrong, may desire the King or Prince, with his Secretary, to hear my petition at Vienna, the Emperor's Court. I will pray.", "creation_year": 1701, "creation_year_earliest": 1701, "creation_year_latest": 1701, "source_dataset": "EEBO", "source_dataset_detailed": "EEBO_Phase1"},
{"content": "You shall swear to be good and true to our Sovereign Lord, King William, and be obedient to the Master and Wardens of this Company in all lawful ways. You shall also keep secret all lawful counsel of this Fellowship, as well as all rules, impositions, and ordinances made for the good ordering of the said Fellowship. To your power, you shall be willing, helping, and furthering to the good government and wealth of the said Fellowship, and shall not be party or privy to any counsel or device that may be to the hurt or hindrance of the Company, or to the overthrowing and breaking of the good Laws and Ordinances of the same. Instead, you shall disclose such practices, counsels, and devices to the Master and Wardens of the said Company and labor to hinder and break them to the extent that you are able.\n\nSo help you God.", "creation_year": 1701, "creation_year_earliest": 1701, "creation_year_latest": 1701, "source_dataset": "EEBO", "source_dataset_detailed": "EEBO_Phase1"},
{"content": "It has been the known practice of F.B. in recent years not only to interrupt our applications to the Parliament with his abusive pamphlets but now strives to have us barred from the liberty of the press, so he may more easily misrepresent our Christian profession and calumniate us without detection. Therefore, the necessity that we (the said people) should not be barred from the press for our just defense, according to holy scripture, that we may not be defamed in our Christian reputation as seditious or blasphemous.\n\nAccording to his usual method, he begins with a perverted quotation upon our considerations. Instead of \"to limit religious books to a license, and so forth,\" he stumbles at the threshold and imposes on the reader. And as false it is that Quakers are guilty of printing and publishing seditious and blasphemous materials.\nScandalous pamphlets are criticized as unjustly implying a need for restriction. Regarding \"Of Kingly Government,\" the author provides abbreviated and fragmented quotations without specifying the dates of the mentioned papers. The general implication is that our Lord Jesus Christ is the ruler of true Christians' consciences and His spiritual kingdom, which is not of this world, rather than earthly or persecuting kings.\n\nRegarding \"Of Parliaments,\" the author does not fairly quote F. Howgill but instead misrepresents him by omitting his statements advocating the good intentions of parliaments. Should we respond for the Council of Officers' opinion against the House of Lords during the Commonwealth era, or for any individual's account of it? (See Truth and Innocency, p. 64.) Is it a valid argument that the corruption and poor lives of earthly kings and governments justify our stance?\nThe ends of those who wrote against oppressive kings and parliaments are recorded in history and sacred writ. Does this mean that all such history and writings, or citations from them, are seditious? Or because some have written against the oppression of former persecuting kings and parliaments, should the Quakers not have the liberty of the press to defend their religious persuasion, Christian profession, or innocence? Although quoting respect for persons and not equality in choosing members is cited as seditious, it is not a new thing. Undue and partial elections are not unknown to parliaments, who have attempted to reform the same.\n\nRegarding the Holy Trinity, this refers to the belief that, in the deity, there are three bearing witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, that is, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, which are one God, blessed.\nThe Scripture terms belonging to the Quakers are not questioned but acknowledged by us. Regarding disputes or reflections about unscriptural terms and distinctions, they were never intended or applied against the Divinity of the Father, Son, or Holy Ghost.\n\nConcerning Christ, our blessed Lord and the eternal Son or Word of God, His body that died is referred to in Scripture as the body of Jesus. He suffered and was put to death in the flesh, as stated in 1 Peter 3:18. This was William Penn's belief, as expressed in Truth and Innocency, pages 71 and 72. True Ministers do not preach Christ without the Human aspect, as he is in Heaven and above, but also as he is in people's hearts. The omission of the word \"only\" in one edition of William Smith's Primers is used as an accusation against us, as if we deny Jesus.\nTo be Christ, though the same Word be inserted in his Works in the same place. The adversary acts unfairly in this manner.\n\nRegarding the Holy Scriptures. We hope our preference for Christ as the Word and his Spirit over the letter of Scripture does not offend or render us incapable of the freedom of the press or our consciences. If someone argues against us in this way, they must cease writing or speaking, as some of their ancient writings have been perverted and misconstrued. This is not fairly argued, yet our adversary does not make better work against us using this argument.\n\nUnder the title of the Holy Scriptures, F.B. sets forth the letter as \"Death-Beastly Wares,\" as if Quakers so term the Holy Scriptures. This has been frequently charged against him.\nRefuted as a gross slander and forgery, not found applied to the Scriptures in his own quotation, though he persists in repeating the same, and in such foul aspersions as vilifying the Scripture, blaspheming the Blessed Trinity, and reproaching Christ's ministers. (But, did you do so, F.B., when a Quaker 25 years ago?) Boldly in print, tell the world, that such as turn from them and embrace the Christian faith are the worst of apostates, worse than Francis Spira and Julian the Apostate. Quoting John Whiting's book, [Judas and the Chief Priests], Preface and pages 5, 6. Wherein F.B. notoriously wrongs both the People called Quakers and J.W., who never told the world so. And to his charging the said J.W. with false stories of G. Keith, J.W. says, he has several certificates to prove the truth of what he related concerning G.K. in his Preface, under the hands of such as were witnesses of the same, ready to produce as occasion may offer.\nHis Story by the Fire side against Edward Dikes, Jr., of Bury St. Edmonds, and his Constructions on the Words We and You, are so Ridiculous that it is not worth insisting on. He again clamors out their blasphemies (against the Quakers) upon a passage alleged against our deceased friend Edward Burroughs, terming him as horrible an impostor as Mohammed, about the sufferings of the People of God; which yet (he says) he could never find any of them defend. Tho' the same is fully answered and explained in Vind. Verit. p. 206. F.B's Story of G.F hiring Two Jews for 80 l. we reject as his own forgery.\n\nBut no better treatment or manner of answering do we expect from a mercenary scribbler than repeated perversion, forgery, curtailing, and confusing quotations, whereby the best of people and books have been grossly misrepresented. Therefore, the more need of the liberty of the press for just vindication. Passing by several other abuses and falsehoods,\n1. Judgment Fixed. (Printed 1682)\n2. The Quakers Answer to a Scandalous Libel. (1690)\n3. Innocence against Envy. (1681)\n4. The Contentious Apostate, and his Blow Refelled. (1691)\n5. The Contentious Apostate Recharged.\n6. A Charitable Essay, in order to allay the Outrage of a Contentious Apostate.\n7. The Quakers Vindication against Francis Bugg's Calumnies. (1693)\n8. Innocency Triumphant over Insolency and Outrage. (1693)\n9. A Just Enquiry into the Libellers Abuse. (1693)\n10. The Counterfeit Convert, a Scandal to Christianity. (1694)\n11. An Answer to Fra. Bugg's Presumptuous Impeachment. (1695)\n12. A Sober Expostulation with some of the Clergy, against their Pretended Convert Francis Bugg's repeated gross Abuse of the People called Quakers.\n13. A Rambling Pilgrim, or Prophane Apostate Exposed. (Wherein he is Detected of gross Calumny, Forgery and Prophaneness.)\n14. A Just Censure of Francis Bugg's Address to the Parliament, against\nthe Quakers.\nFor the said Books Enquire of\nT. Sowle, Bookseller, in\nWhite-Hart-Court in Grace-Church-street,\nLondon.\nBy G. Whitehead,\nAnd others Concerned.\nA Brief ANSWER to Francis Bugg's Reply, to the \n Quaker's Conside\u2223rations Humbly Of\u2223fered.", "creation_year": 1701, "creation_year_earliest": 1701, "creation_year_latest": 1701, "source_dataset": "EEBO", "source_dataset_detailed": "EEBO_Phase1"},
{"content": "In the West of England, there was a famous gallant named Stukely, the son of a wealthy clothier. He performed wonders to secure a long and lasting praise. If I were to tell his story, Pride was his glory. He served a bishop in the west and accompanied the best, maintaining a gallant demeanor. Being esteemed and well regarded, he gained the favor of a London Dame, whose father was an alderman. She was called Curties. A suitor gallantly came to her, and when she saw his person, she could not deny him, such a brave gentleman he was to behold. She became his wife, to lead her life in wealth and leisure with him. Her father willingly agreed. They measured out many days together until cruel Death, with his regardless spight, bore old Curtis to the grave. This was a thing that Stukely wished for, so he might revel in gold so bright.\nHe was no sooner buried,\nbut Stukely presumed to spend a hundred pounds a day in waste;\nThe greatest gallants in the land had Stukely's purse at their command,\nthus merrily the time away he past.\nTaverns and ordinaries,\nwere his chief braveries,\ngolden angels there flew up and down;\nRiots were his best delight,\nWith stately feasting day and night,\nin court and city he won renown.\nThus wasting lands and living,\nBy this lawless giving,\nat length he sold the pavements of the yard,\nwhich were covered with blocks of tin,\nOld Curtis left the same to him,\nwhich he had recently consumed as you have heard.\nWhereat his wife sore grieved,\nDesiring to be relieved.\n\"Make much of me, dear husband, she did say.\n\"I'll make much more of thee (said he),\n\"I'll sell thy clothes, and so I'll go my way.\n\"Truly thus hard-hearted,\nAway from her he parted,\nand traveled into Italy with speed;\nThere he flourished many a day,\nIn his silks and rich array,\nand did the pleasures of a lady feed.\nIt was the Lady's pleasure to give him goods and treasure to maintain him in great pomp and fame. News came assuredly of a fought battle in Barbary. He would valiantly go see the same. Many a noble gallant sold both land and talent to Stukely in his famous fight. Three Kings in person adventurously showed themselves in the fight. Stukely and his followers, all of the King of Portugal, had entertainment like gentlemen. The King affected Stukely so that he knew all his secrets and bore his royal standard now and then.\n\nOn this day of honor, each man displayed his banner: Morocco and the King of Barbary; Portugal and all his train. They bravely glittered on the plain and gave the onset. The cannons they rebounded, thundering guns responded, \"Kill, kill,\" was then the soldiers' cry. Mangled men lay on the ground, and the earth was drowned in blood. The Sun likewise was darkened in the sky. Heaven was so displeased.\nAnd he would not be appeased, but tokens of God's wrath showed that he was angry at this war. A fearful blazing-star appeared, allowing the kings to know their misfortunes. The slaughter was bloody, or rather wilful murder, in which six thousand fighting men were slain. Three kings, forty dukes and earls died in this battle, a fate that would never be seen again. With woeful arms, Stukely stood beholding this bloody sacrifice of souls that day. He sang, 'I, a woeful wight, against my conscience fight here, and brought my followers unto decay.' Being thus molested and oppressed, those brave Italians, who had sold their lands to travel with Stukely, laid their murdering hands upon him. Wounded to death, his heart was overwhelmed with sorrow. He lamented, 'I have left my dear country to be so vilely murdered here, even in this place where I am not known.'\nMy wife, I have wronged you greatly,\nOf what was rightfully yours, I squandered in a meaningless life. What I had is now gone, and brings me only grief, therefore, forgive me, gentle wife. Life slips away, and death approaches, to transform my life anew. Yet, my greatest comfort lies in the fact that I lived and died in love of kings. And so, Stukely takes his leave of the world.\n\nAfter Stukely's death,\nHe was befriended by the dead,\nAnd given a soldier's burial, gallant and grand.\nNow stands upon his grave,\nA stately temple built in his honor,\nWith golden turrets reaching towards the sky.\n\nPrinted by C. B., Published by J. Walter, at the Hand and Pen in Holborn.", "creation_year": 1701, "creation_year_earliest": 1701, "creation_year_latest": 1701, "source_dataset": "EEBO", "source_dataset_detailed": "EEBO_Phase1"},
{"content": "In the west of England, a famous gallant was born, the son of a wealthy clothier. He performed wonders to secure a long and lasting fame. If I were to tell you his story, pride was all his glory. He was called Lusty Stukely in court and served a bishop in the West, accompanying the best and maintaining a gallant lifestyle. Being esteemed and well regarded, he gained the favor of a London dame, Curtis by name, to whom he gallantly proposed. When she saw his person, she could not deny him; such a gentleman he was to behold. She became his wife, and in wealth and pleasure, they lived many days. Until cruel death, with its regardless spite, bore old Curtis to the grave, a thing that Stukely wished for, so he might revel in gold so bright. He was no sooner tombed than Stukely presumed,\nThe greatest gallant in the land spent 100 pounds a day in waste. He had Stukely's purse at his command, and merrily he passed the time. Taverns and gardiniers were his chief braveries. Golden angels flew up and down. Riots were his best delight, with stately feasting day and night. In court and city, he won renown. Thus, he wasted lands and livings by his lawless giving. At length, he sold the pavement of the yard, which was covered with blocks of tin. Gur Curtis left the same to him. He consumed it recently. Whereat his wife sore grieved, desiring to be relieved. \"Make much of me, dear husband,\" she did say. \"I'll make much more of thee,\" he replied, \"I'll fell thy clothes and then go away.\" Cruelly, thus hard-hearted, he parted from her and traveled into Italy with speed. There he flourished many a day in his silks and rich array, feeding on the pleasures of a lady. It was the lady's pleasure to give him gold and treasure, maintaining him with great pomp and fame.\nAt last, news came assuredly of a Battle fought in Barbary. Stukely was eager to see it. Many a noble, gallant soldier had sold both land and talent to follow Stukely in the famous fight. Three kings, with courage bold, showed themselves in the battle. Stukely and his followers, all of the King of Portugal, received entertainment fit for gentlemen. The king was so taken with Stukely that he shared his secrets and bore his royal standard. On this day of honor, each man showed his mettle. Morocco and the King of Barbary, Portugal and his entire train, bravely glittered on the plain and gave the onset most valiantly. The cannons thundered and the guns roared. \"Kill, kill,\" was the soldiers' cry. Mangled men lay on the ground, and the earth was drenched in blood. The sun was likewise darkened in the sky. Heaven was displeased and would not be appeased, but showed tokens of God's wrath. The war displeased God.\nHe sent a fearful, blazing star,\nso the king might know his misfortune.\nIt was a bloody slaughter,\nor rather a cruel murder,\nwhere six thousand fighting men were slain.\nThree kings and forty lords and dukes died in this fight.\nWith woeful arms enfolding him,\nStukely stood beholding,\nthis cursed sacrifice of men that day.\nHe sighed and said, \"I, wicked wight,\nagainst my conscience, here to fight,\nand brought my followers unto decay.\nBeing thus sore vexed and oppressed,\nthese brave Italians, who sold their lands,\ncast their cursed hands upon me,\nwounded thus, my heart with sorrow swooned.\nTo them I made my moan,\n\"I have left my dear country,\nto be murdered here,\nin this place where I am not known.\nI have much wronged my wife,\nof what was hers I had consumed,\nin a wicked course of life.\nWhat I had is past I see.\"\nAnd brings me only grief, therefore, gentle wife, grant me pardon. Life consumes me, and death presumes, to change this life of mine into a new. Yet this brings me greatest comfort, I lived and died in love of kings. So bold Stukely bids the world farewell. Stukely's life ended, was befriended after death, and buried gallantly. Where now stands upon the grave a stately temple, brave with golden turrets piercing to the sky.\n\nLONDON: Printed and sold by L. How, in Petticoat-Lane.", "creation_year": 1701, "creation_year_earliest": 1701, "creation_year_latest": 1701, "source_dataset": "EEBO", "source_dataset_detailed": "EEBO_Phase1"},
{"content": "WE, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament Assembled, return our most humble thanks and acknowledgements to Your Majesty for Your concern expressed in Your gracious Speech for the Protestant Religion and Your care for its future preservation by recommending to Our Consideration a further provision for the Succession to the Crown in the Protestant line. We are highly sensible of the weight of those things Your Majesty is pleased to recommend to Our Consideration; therefore, humbly we desire You will be pleased to order all the treaties that have been made between Your Majesty and any other prince or state since the late war to be laid before Us, that We may be enabled to give Our mature advice when informed of all matters necessary to direct Our judgments.\nAnd we humbly request of Your Majesty that you enter into alliances with all those princes and states willing to unite for the preservation of the balance of Europe. We assure Your Majesty that we will readily concur in all methods that effectively contribute to the honor and safety of England, the preservation of the Protestant religion, and the peace of Europe.\n\nWe humbly return our further thanks to Your Majesty for the letter communicated to this house on the seventeenth of February. Having taken it into immediate consideration, we humbly request of Your Majesty to issue the necessary orders for seizing the horses and arms of the Papists and other disaffected persons, and for enforcing the laws for their removal from London. We also request directions for a search to be made for arms and other provisions of war reported to be ready.\nIn the meantime, humbly addressing Your Majesty, order be given for the swift fitting out of such a fleet as Your Majesty, in Your great wisdom, deems necessary in this present conjuncture, for the defense of Your Majesty and the kingdom.\n\nMy Lords,\nI thank you for this address and the concern you express in relation to our common security both at home and abroad. I shall give the necessary orders for the things you desire of me and take care for setting out such a fleet as may be necessary for our common defense in this conjuncture.\n\nFIN.", "creation_year": 1701, "creation_year_earliest": 1701, "creation_year_latest": 1701, "source_dataset": "EEBO", "source_dataset_detailed": "EEBO_Phase1"},
{"content": "The first tragic scene of their misery began when Mr. Foulkes prematurely appeared in arms to defend the government. He and several of his prominent relatives were taken prisoners and sentenced to be hanged, drawn, and quartered. Upon this sad sentence, his unfortunate family, filled with despair rather than hope for a remedy, sent their families and belongings to England before King James landed or anyone suffered in that kingdom. Their entire worldly substance was seized and taken from them as traitors' goods long before this. However, they were granted several reprieves while imprisoned in Galway and Dublin. After the breach of the Boyne, they were released by His Majesty. But upon Mr. Foulkes's recovery from a severe sickness caused by his prolonged confinement, he further demonstrated his loyalty and zeal.\nThe petitioner went with his nephew Colonel Foulkes to the Battle of Aghrim, where he and one of his brothers lost their lives. This added to the unfortunate loss of five brothers and a husband, along with their entire fortune. In addition, several other relatives were lost in the service. The aged mother of Eliz. Wandsford, overwhelmed by grief for the loss of so many sons, was faced with two dire choices: either burn in the house or be destroyed if she left. Unable to endure the flames any longer, she and her orphaned children were forced to expose themselves and their family to the mercy of the enemy. After being plundered and pillaged by them, they attempted to escape to Cork or wherever else their pitiful fortune led them. However, the enemy quickly pursued their unfortunate wandering lives.\nAnd with an unyielding cruelty, one of the petitioners brothers was barbarously murdered. However, the cruelty was more merciful to him than to the rest. For her aged mother, sister, and children, they were stripped even of their very shifts. With the terror and cold of which, her sister and child died the same night in the fields, and the hardships they endured shortened the lives of several of the petitioners own children also. The miserable survivors of them lay a considerable time in a very weak condition in a waste and desolate part of the country, having no friends left on this side of the grave, who would risk bringing them out of the enemies quarters, where during the war: the west being the seat of it, they suffered more than tongue and pen could express. Therefore, Her Majesty, upon the Lords Justices of Ireland's letters, in behalf of the petitioners, was graciously pleased, in compassion to their misfortunes.\nThe patent granted them a pension of 200 l. per year, as expressed in the patent, to be continued until His Majesty could make a more suitable provision for their sufferings, as indicated by the attached certificate. In order to fulfill Her promise of ever blessed memory, His Majesty, upon their surrender of their pension, granted them a Custodiam. Last spring, His letter was issued for leasing two hundred pounds per year for ninety-nine years from the forfeitures in Ireland. At the passing of this lease, the petitioners were in the process of revaluation of those lands to be reconsidered for a three-year loss of the income from their pension. The government's report, ready to be produced, states this. They have received no benefit from the Custodiam due to the encumbrance that appeared on those lands after they passed Custodiam for them. Upon solicitation, they may rightfully charge their ruin.\nHaving made eight voyages to the Kingdom to obtain, fix, and exchange grants, Toyl's petitioners have depleted the intended royal bounty and incurred more debt than the small grant's inheritance value. Due to previous troubles and heavy afflictions, they declined Her Majesty's promise of a more suitable provision than the \u00a3200 per annum for such a large and distressed family.\n\nElizabeth Wondesford, despite her straitened circumstances, was unable to witness her own human nature suffering in the persons of her near relatives. Consequently, she sent for her aged mother and several orphans left by her brothers.\nTo partake of what small fortune God Almighty had blessed her with, but her mother being too feeble and aged for such an undertaking, unfortunately broke her thigh in a fall on her journey to this kingdom, which must make the remaining of her life very miserable; but even more so, if deprived of the means that support her and the helpless family of children, whose entire dependence, under God, is upon this small estate, though it provides them with the sorrowfulest bread they have ever eaten, purchased with the lives of their nearest and dearest relations. The case therefore being so very hard and cruel, it is humbly hoped that, being both sufferers, and by giving up their pension purchasers, their case will not be looked upon as a common case, being in its several circumstances not to be paralleled in the whole kingdom, the consideration of which, together with the particular regard Her Majesty had for it, was the reason for the petition.\nThe petitioners, as stated in the attached certificate of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, humbly request that this honorable house establishes them in their grant or provides them with something equivalent to the \u00a3200 per annum and the three-year loss of their pension of \u00a3200 a year, according to His Majesty's directions and intentions towards them. Otherwise, the aged grandmother and her helpless family, whose sole dependence was on this small grant, will be exposed to all the misery imaginable and will forever lie wrapped in the ruins of their parents' fate, except for the mercy and goodness of this honorable house intervenes on their behalf. We hereby certify that Mrs. Foulkes applied herself to Her Majesty.\nAfter the loss of her husband and five brothers in the King's service, it was Her Majesty's desire and particular order that her pension of two hundred pounds a year be well paid and continued to her, despite any stops to other petitions. In compliance with Her Majesty's commands and to prevent any scruples or difficulties she may encounter in the future regarding this matter, we certify this to be Her Majesty's pleasure and express commands to us upon our coming into this Kingdom.\n\nGiven at Her Majesty's Castle of Dublin on the 30th of June, 1693.\n\nSydney\n\nThe original to be produced if required.\n\nThe case of Elizabeth Wandesford, widow and relic of Garret Foulkes, Esquire and others.", "creation_year": 1701, "creation_year_earliest": 1701, "creation_year_latest": 1701, "source_dataset": "EEBO", "source_dataset_detailed": "EEBO_Phase2"},
{"content": "The colonel Burke's six sons are brought up in the Protestant Religion. The two eldest are at Eaton-College. Since the king is aware of how their Protestant education would benefit the Protestant interest in Ireland and acts as their guardian, he has so far maintained them from their father's forfeited estate.\n\nHowever, the colonel Burke's forfeited estate is to be disposed of through the Irish Forfeitures Bill, and no provision has been made for the children's maintenance in it. They are now left in extreme want.\n\nIt is therefore humbly requested that the Honorable the House of Commons encourage the growth of the Protestant Religion by providing for the maintenance of the Protestant children of a great and noble family from their father's estate.\n\nThe case of the children of Colonel John Burke, commonly known as Lord Bophin.", "creation_year": 1701, "creation_year_earliest": 1701, "creation_year_latest": 1701, "source_dataset": "EEBO", "source_dataset_detailed": "EEBO_Phase2"},
{"content": "SUch is the restless and implacable Malice of a Fanacical Antimonarchiaecal party, consisting of the late Vil\u2223lanous Ministry and their Underspurleathers, and that it is hard for persons of Great Estates and Qualifi\u2223cations, who have been eminently Zealous for King William, and have Sacrificed all for rescuing their Country from Popery and Slavery, to escape their cursed Machinations. This will not only appear as clear as the Sun, by the Black Design, which is the Subject of our present Narative, but thereby also those Wret\u2223ches close Correspondence with the French King and his Emissaries, will be proved more manifestly than by their contriving and solliciting the Partition-Treaty, altho that was more than enough for the Satisfaction of all well disposed Loyalists.\nKnow therefore, Gentle Reader, that upon Tuesday the Twenty Third Day of this Instant September, be\u2223tween the Hours of Four and Five in the Afternoon, as that renowned Author Charles Davenant Dr\nA letter was delivered to Dr. Lows in his chambers at Greys Inn, while he was meditating on something to write for the House of Aust's Quarrel. The porter, out of breath, requested his immediate presence at the house of Mr. Paulet in the Hay-market, also known as the Blew Posts, to meet some brethren of the secret committee about matters of importance. After some consideration, Dr. Lows, approving the place and company, quit his writing dress and promised the porter sixpence for expedited delivery. During the short passage, his thoughts were employed for the good of his country, anticipating the downfall of at least a dozen modern Whigs as a necessary result of such a consultation. Upon arrival, a footman in mourning at the bottom of the steps received him without speaking and conducted him to a door, which opened after three knocks.\nThe Doctor was surprised at first to see only two Gentlemen, but upon turning to his right, he saw Anthony Hammond, Esquire, an eminent Patriot, entering the room just before him in response to a summons. Hammond had been sent for and had left an unfinished speech in the House, intending to argue that despite the unfavorable clause in the Succession Bill, certain individuals could vote themselves eligible for offices and pensions. The gentlemen exchanged the usual compliments before John Tredenham, Esquire, was introduced with the same ceremony. Tredenham apologized for his late arrival due to public business, specifically the collection of Guineas from friends for the printing of Sir Joseph's Speeches, along with an appendix of his own poems.\nEvery one of these worthy Members supposed the Strangers were known to each other and sat down together without distrust. One of the Strangers led them on in this error by showing he was acquainted with their characters. He first entertained Mr. Tredenham with tales of his uncle's great performances. None of the ancient heroes cut down giants with half the ease he destroyed chancellors. Clarendon fled swiftly before him when he deemed him unfit for measures he was then engaged in, which Clifford and Arlington could better carry on. Summers sank easily under him when it was time for carrying on again similar measures; and that despicable creature dared to saucily obstruct them. From this subject he changed his discourse to the praises of Mr.\nHammons grandfather urged him to keep the immortal glory of restoring an injured, banished prince before his eyes as a noble subject for emulation. He then turned to the doctor, praising his indefatigable industry in writing so many volumes on subjects thought wholly unknown to him. The world, upon seeing the books, was convinced of the contrary. Hammons grandfather attributed the downfall of the late \"Hellish Ministry,\" those public robbers, harpies, and bloodsuckers, friends of war, and disturbers of the peace of Christendom, to these works. He was studying the English language to read his works in the original and informed the company that, to his knowledge, the French Academy had orders from the greatest king in the universe to translate them into that language, so that all his subjects might be apprised of the author's merits.\nHe went on to tell the Doctor that Tuesday was one of his writing days, and that on those days he fasted until sunset to keep his head clear. After supper was over, and the doors were bolted again, everyone seemed more open-hearted. They spoke French. He criticized the Partition Treaty, no one better. He commended the French king's great moderation in accepting the Spanish monarchy. He praised the wisdom of those who were for acknowledging the Duke of Anjou early. He demonstrated that those who were for putting the preservation of European peace into a vote could mean nothing but war and desolation. He ingeniously offered that only an inveterate splenetic Whig could maintain that calling a young gentleman by his father's name was contrary to the Treaty of Ryswick.\nThe subjects were so well chosen and managed that the evening passed pleasantly, and they thought they were at the Fountain or the Vine. At last, this stranger, with a serious expression, informed the company of the French court's apprehension due to intelligence that the Doctor, forgetting all previous engagements, was treating with the House of Austria. This had caused more disturbance than any news from Italy. He proceeded to analyze the Emperor's manifesto to demonstrate the audacity of engaging on such a weak side in the quarrel and invited the Doctor to join the argument. The Doctor looked surly and ended the conversation by stating that his talent was writing, not speaking. However, he had taken note of what the gentleman said, and before the next session of Parliament, the world would see five hundred pages in response.\nThe Stranger cunningly asked for pardon if he had gone too far, but continued for some time with great insinuation to try and divert the Doctor from his intention, which was likely to prove fatal for France, by arguments of gratitude and past obligations. Finding him true to his character - for it is known in print that the Doctor is neither to be frightened nor allured - he begged of him, if he was finally determined to publish such a large volume against the House of Bourbon, he would at least bestow a qualifying postscript in favor of so great a family. He prayed the Doctor not to take this proposal ill, because this would not be the first time he had compassionately vouchsafed to let his book and postscript be of two sides. The Doctor, unwilling to engage hastily for a postscript of such consequence before company, without some more significant application, in a heat told him his discourse was improper, and that postscripts were not so cheap.\nThe stranger who had been quiet for the most part (and as you may understand, Gentle Reader, later identified as the Spanish agent, though unknown at the time) not understanding the doctor's true meaning and fearing it was a reflection, called out quickly, \"Monsieur Poussin!\" The three worthy men looked at one another wistfully and in unison demanded of the stranger, \"Who are you?\" He replied plainly, \"I am Poussin. I am the king's most Christian Majesty's agent. I have received orders today from the lords justices to leave the kingdom immediately, but I dare not see my master's face unless I first pay my respects to persons of their great consideration in the kingdom.\" These words were no sooner uttered when the doctor cried out in English, \"Oh Hammond, we are undone! Some cursed Whigs of the new Stamp have drawn us into this trap.\"\nAs he spoke, he rushed to the Door and ran down stairs, throwing himself into the first coach he saw. Unfortuneately, it was occupied by Sir Wi. Culpepper and some Masks, expecting Sir William. The Spanish Agent followed him, and with great effort, got him home, though in poor condition. Mr. Hammond also aimed for a chair and managed to get in, breaking both his shins. Being the only man remaining, Poussin seized him and told him not to be disheartened, as they both lodged in the same house and there were half a dozen of their friends waiting for them. This confounded him completely, and Poussin led him down stairs and took him to the White Posts in Duke street St. James's, to Mr\nPoussin's room was the next chamber to Mr. Tredenham's. Despite having lived in the same house for over six months, the gentleman did not recognize Poussin when they met at the Blue Posts. For two hours, he could not identify any of the people he encountered, despite them being his friends and daily companions. Poussin had never spoken to him or shown his face before this encounter.\n\nHaving provided you, gentle reader, with an accurate account of this incident, drawn up as an affidavit and signed by three reputable members, ready to be sworn before Sir James of the Peak's partner, I now invite you to consider the following observations:\n\n1. The undeniable innocence of these unbiased patriots.\nAnd firstly, to consider the Horrible Malice of the Hellish Conspirators who drew them into this Snare: And secondly, to Conclude who the Persons must be who could be guilty of such a wicked design.\n\nThe innocence of the three worthy Persons appears beyond all dispute. Mr. Hammond remained in bed for two days after the discovery. The Doctor was uncertain for three whole days whether it was a dream or not. During this time, the young gentleman declared himself ready to fight anyone who dared assert that a certain person had been in Poussin's company. However, at the end of this time, the Doctor, being convinced, ordered Harry to live in peace.\nThe innocence of the men in question is called into question due to their alleged meeting with Mounsieur Poussin in a public house after he was banned from the kingdom. This malicious scheme was not intended to trap them into a trivial mistake, but into committing a crime of the highest order. If any prince had ordered his ambassador to leave the French court without bidding farewell, and the master of Poussin had then commanded his minister to depart from his dominions within 24 hours, anyone who dared to engage in private conversation with him afterward would have faced the wheel. In Venice, such an offense would have resulted in being tied in a sack and thrown into the Adriatic Sea. At the very least, death would have been the consequence in any other country.\nIt is to be hoped that the law in England is not severe. Who can tell if that wicked party who were for making laws ex post facto against Sir J. Fenwick and Sir Charles Duncomb may not be nibbling at a similar thing again? This leads us, Gentle Reader, to the third consideration: who are the authors of this malicious contrivance? To answer this question, consider that these unbiased Patriots were all members of the Committee of Impeachments and were eminently active in that service to the nation. Two of them, as a reward for this great merit, were named Commissioners to serve their country for nothing in the Bill of Accounts, which unfortunately miscarried. Some or one at least of the impeached Lords was concerned in this bill.\nFrom this, it must be undeniable concluded that the impeached Lords must be guilty of this diabolical project. Persons of such great sagacity and integrity, unless under some enchantment, could never have been so grossly mistaken in order to cover their own close correspondence with France at this critical time of great friendship and intimacy between these true patriots and the dangerous French Popish minister. By making an appearance at this time, they intended to have it believed that the French king was a friend to these prosecutions, and perhaps that the persons who were to serve their country gratis in the Bill of Accounts were to be paid for their pains in this matter by another hand. Furthermore, there is the probability of making a breach between the Emperor and the Doctor by this artifice. Therefore, there can be no doubt that this detestable machination must be carried on by the late ministry and their underspurlers.\nDuring the five-hour conversation, these Friends to their Country and enemies to France did not discuss what was to be done at the next session, nor speak against war or in favor of peace. No words were exchanged about maintaining animosities or delaying supplies. Neither did they mention the pity due to King James II nor the hopes for King James III, nor make any jokes about the Bill of Succession.", "creation_year": 1701, "creation_year_earliest": 1701, "creation_year_latest": 1701, "source_dataset": "EEBO", "source_dataset_detailed": "EEBO_Phase2"},
{"content": "The Protestant purchasers of forfeited lands in Ireland acknowledge the Commons of England's clemency in allowing them a grant of 21,000 l. towards their purchase money. They respectfully present that, according to the Commissioners' report (Paragraph 83), the purchase money spent in Ireland does not exceed 63,000 l. despite the future well-being of many English families in the country depending on it.\nThat as the Bill is now altered, it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible for some of them to recover what is justly due to them from the Grantees. This is due to some of them residing in foreign parts and having no effects in these Dominions. Others may not have the money to repay, or if they do, may have already alienated their estates, or they may insist on their peerage, privilege of Parliament, &c.\n\nThe said Purchasers do not at all resent any mercy intended by the said Honorable House towards others of the said Kingdom, who are either restored by His Majesty's favor only, or who are confirmed in the benefit of any Articles by this Bill.\nBut they humbly hope that the Honorable House will also consider the services and sufferings of the Protestant Purchasers. They have been useful to England in the late revolutions and have always been far from doing anything intentionally, when they made their purchases, that might seem in contempt of the votes or proceedings of this Honorable House, to which they owe so much, and for whom they would again freely hazard all that is dear or near to them.\nThey hope, among other their unhappinesses, not to be so unfortunate as to have it thought that they desire more than their principal-money and interest. But what they humbly endeavor to incline the Honorable House to, is that they may, in charity to the many English Protestant families concerned, be considered as mortgagees for the money they bona fide paid, and as such, be accountable from the times of their respective purchases. In such a case, the purchasers will be allowed from the beginning but bare interest for their money.\n\nAnd although the purchasers will in such a case be considerably losers, yet their entire ruin will be prevented, and the public will reap the benefit of:\n\n1. What the purchasers expended in making out the title of the crown and evicting pretended titles.\n2. The benefit or advantage of all bargains where the purchasers bought off prior incumbrances at easy rates.\nThe Humble Representation of the Protestant Purchasers of Forfeited Lands in Ireland.\n\nPoint 3: The advantage of having such a large part of the country improved and inhabited, which was wasted and depopulated by the late long and destructive war, more than doubles the value of the lands compared to their former state.", "creation_year": 1701, "creation_year_earliest": 1699, "creation_year_latest": 1702, "source_dataset": "EEBO", "source_dataset_detailed": "EEBO_Phase2"},
{"content": "Wool-Combers in Suffolk and adjacent areas, known for producing false and defective yarn, have presented a petition to the Honourable House of Commons, printing a case detailing alleged hardships and unjust prosecutions by Weavers' Wardens and Assistants. Although most complaints are false, malicious, and unreasonable, delivered in abusive and scurrilous language with odious comparisons, we will provide a modest and truthful response to the significant parts of their petition.\nThe Weavers of Norwich and Norfolk obtained an Act of Parliament in the Fourteenth Year of King Charles II, granting them power to search and seize defective Worsted Yarn in public places of sale in Norwich and Norfolk. They were authorized to levy a fine on such yarn, not exceeding half its value. However, they have exceeded the law's intent by seizing and rifling through the wagons of common carriers and breaking into private chambers and warehouses. The Wardens, who serve as searchers, seizers, judges, and jurors, have misused their exactions on unnecessary charges or squandered them on riotous treats. To prevent this, the petitioners humbly propose:\nThat the Wool-Combers be empowered to punish the Spinsters with corporal infliction or penalty for making false yarns.\nIf any yarn is found defective, instead of laying a fine, it may be cut into pieces and so on.\nAnswer:\nThe Wool Company of Wardens and Assistants have always acted according to the powers granted to them by the Parliament Act, and have been more remiss than severe in prosecuting offenders.\nForty-two Wardens and Assistants are chosen annually. If any particular officer, through mistake, ignorance, or excessive zeal, seizes defective yarns in a place where, according to the law, they were not seizable, such actions have not been allowed by the Company. Therefore, they should not be charged as a crime.\nThat the Moneys arising by the Fines of defective Yarns, (which Yarns have not been condemned by the Wardens, as is falsly suggested) have not been consumed in unnecessary Charges, or riotously in Treats, but have been applied as the Law directs.\nThat many of the Wool-combers have used indirect means to avoid the Wardens search, by coming to Norwich sometimes upon the Sab\u2223bath day, sometimes in the Night, and by conveying their Yarn into private places, and there selling it to the great prejudice of all honest Traders: And therefore the Weavers, and all regular Wool-combers, have much greater reason to complain against such Practices, and pray that the Power of Search may be inlarged.\nAs to the inflicting a Corporal Punishment or Penalty upon the Spinster,\nIt's answered that the Weavers are content for a punishment or penalty to be imposed on the spinner who produces false yarn. They also believe it reasonable and necessary for a punishment or penalty to be imposed on the woolcomber who tolerates, knowingly allows, or suffers such behavior, which has been a common practice among them in recent years.\n\nRegarding the cutting of yarns into pieces, it's answered that this method was formerly used but found inconvenient. When the last Act was made, it was deemed wise by Parliament to turn it into a fine instead. For over thirty years, the method of fining defective yarns has been of great service and benefit to the Weaving Trade, which has seen significant growth in recent years, bringing great benefit and advantage to this Nation, particularly the clamorous Wool-combers.\nThat if any Wool-combers wish to have defective yarn cut into pieces, they may now do so, and it will most likely be done by them at their spinning-houses before the spinsters' faces. This may be a great means to deter them from making false yarn in the future.\n\nThe true reason why the petitioners are so eager to obtain such a destructive Act (as we have reason to believe) is the assurance they have that if the law is once made severe, and there is nothing allowed towards the defraying the necessary charges of prosecution, or so often as there is a great demand for yarn, the prosecution will in a great measure, if not entirely cease. Then they would be at liberty to make and sell their defective yarns unmolested, to the great prejudice, if not ruin, of so ancient and beneficial a trade as the Worstead-weaving Trade has been and is to this Nation. And should that trade fail, the wool-growers would soon feel the ill effects.\nWhereas it is objected that it would be to the ruin of the wool-combers, their wives and children, to stand a suit at law against the wardens when they seize their yarns contrary to law, it is answered that the wool-combers assert they are over 500 substantial traders who employ 150,000 families. It seems very strange that the prosecution of a warden or assistant, if he acts contrary to law, should be to their ruin. And whereas they say, as an aggravation, that where many of them pay one shilling tax toward the support of the government, they pay five to the wardens, it is answered that there has not been more than 120 pounds one year with another received for all the fines of defective yarns in the past eight years, which is a very inconsiderable sum, considering the vast quantity of yarns that must be made by 500 substantial traders who employ 150,000 families.\nThat according to a computation, the yarns used by the weavers fall short of their value, as directed by law, by at least \u00a325,000 annually. This is primarily due to the lack of a greater search power. It is therefore hoped that the search power will not be considered unreasonable to expand.\n\nAnd whereas it is said that some weavers would serve as wardens without costly treats, voluptuous banquets, or other private advantages,\n\nIt is answered that all wardens and assistants serve without any reward other than necessary and reasonable charges and expenses related to their position, which they account for exactly. This account is allowed by the justices of the peace.", "creation_year": 1701, "creation_year_earliest": 1701, "creation_year_latest": 1701, "source_dataset": "EEBO", "source_dataset_detailed": "EEBO_Phase2"},
{"content": "A Confirming of the present Company's establishment by regulation will imply the necessity of a valuation of their stock, in order to extend the trade and make it more national. It must be conceded that the greatest part of the present adventurers do not expect an establishment in England to carry on their trade. The next thing to be considered, I believe, will be how to value their stock.\nThis may be sufficient to pose anything under Omniscience, as a late author observed that their accounts given to the Parliament carried the highest suspicion of prevarication and fallacy. They look like accounts dressed up at Wanstead, without recourse to their accountant general, calculated to intrigue the world and serve a turn at this juncture. I shall not insist on this particular, as I am aware that the artifice and imposture practiced in this matter will be represented to the Parliament in such a clear light as to make it appear a great aggravation of their other miscarriages. I infer that the time spent in endeavoring to adjust the valuation of the present company's stock is in danger of being lost, and all attempts of that nature will be attended with difficulties insurmountable.\nSome men have responded to my arguments with a solution that would end the controversy if granted. They claim that with an act's assistance, they can conduct their trade without valuation or additional subscription. This argument has been explained and refuted so often that it requires no further discussion.\n\nLately, they have boasted with impudence and insolence that they have devised a scheme to carry the day despite their adversaries, but they are reluctant to reveal what they mean by this expression or the tactics they employ.\nTo conclude, I will only add that without the help of a Prophetic Impulse, I will not take it upon me to predict the outcome of the present Dispute. However, it is easy to foresee that if they are fortunate enough to have this great Oriental Trade settled exclusively on them and their Successors, without any regulation, there are three members of this Company who, in ten years of trade (calculating only after the rate of their acquisitions hitherto, and assuming they will continue to use the same conduct and management, which they have not yet forgotten), may value themselves at more than half a million of money each, rendering them formidable subjects. Save us from such a Triumvirate, Lord.", "creation_year": 1701, "creation_year_earliest": 1701, "creation_year_latest": 1701, "source_dataset": "EEBO", "source_dataset_detailed": "EEBO_Phase2"},
{"content": "An Account of a Pleasant Liquor, which Dissolves the STONE in the Bladder or Kidneys; and brings it away, as well as whatever Gravel may be generated in those Parts; also eases the Pain of the Colic; it being a mild Anodyne, presently alleviating, and soon taking away all these Pains, without the least Defect.\n\nPrepared by William Tipping. To be Sold by Mr. Benjamin James, in Passage in Three King Court in Lumbard Street, and by John Wakefield, in Watling Street, the Friday Street.\n\nThe Author does not make this Publication to get himself a Name, or to Amuse the World with a Fiction, of what has been thought Impossible; he relates only Matter of Fact, with such clear and sensible Evidence as is undeniable. He is no Physician, nor does he know anything of Physick, more than the Experience he has had by this Medicine, and by Providence discovered this rare Secret.\nAny person troubled with stones or gravel in the bladder or kidneys experiences immediate relief from associated pains after taking this medicine, unless the stone is located in the pelvis of the kidneys, at the neck of the bladder, or elsewhere, obstructing the urinary passages and unable to be removed without force or dissolved without time. In such cases, it may take 2 or 3 hours to loosen the stone, which it generally does effectively, and gradually alleviates the pain. Within a short time, according to the size of the stone, when taken as directed, makes a complete cure, and daily shows its effects by bringing away with the urine, the dissolved stone, which is clearly identifiable as such.\nIf left at the bottom of a vial and the water is gently poured off, the matter that remains will be a hard, concreted substance, similar to calculi or stones typically extracted by lithotomists. This can also be observed through filtering urine with a brown paper.\n\nThe author wishes to provide indisputable proof to those who may doubt this, and therefore invites any patient, who has been diagnosed with a stone, to try the medicine. They will quickly observe a dissolution of the same, followed by a cure in a short time.\n\nThe medicine is reliable, and where there is no such dissolution, it can be concluded that there is no stone. Some have mistakenly believed they had a stone when they did not.\n\nThe stone is usually of a light buff color, sometimes of a dark color leaning towards red, and sometimes of a blood red.\nBut this seldom appears as fine, white shining particles, resembling silver. At other times, it is similar to chalk. When the water is very foul, only a white or reddish sediment is visible, with some particles shining when dried. This white, foul appearance may be observed in the water of some individuals who have not taken this medicine.\n\nSome experience a plain dissolution of the stone, but this only occurs when the stone is soft after a fit. When this medicine is taken, it is expelled in greater quantities and never ceases to bring it away, more or less, every day.\n\nA large stone in the kidneys may be accompanied by a great black foulness in the urine, and in such cases, the dissolution of the stone may not be visible for some time.\nSome stones have taken this Medicine three months before it becomes noticeably effective. The dissolution may not be very visible where an ulcer is caused by a ragged stone irritating the area; however, the matter coming from the ulcer will have a changed color upon taking this Medicine, and sometimes large streaks of the stony substance will be visible.\n\nSome stones will be completely dissolved and expelled within a few days, while others, depending on their hardness and size, may take several months. However, no stone has ever been too hard or too large to be removed in due time, with the patient typically experiencing relief at the first administration of the Medicine and the satisfaction of seeing a quantity of the stone passing daily.\n\nIn all sudden fits of gravel without any other matter or cause, I have observed that five doses at most were sufficient to effect a cure, though some who had been afflicted for a considerable time, with crude matter mixed with gravel, and perhaps a stone.\nThe cholic's tormenting pain may take longer to subside if it originates from a stone or gravel. Many mistake cholic for other afflictions, and I have encountered numerous individuals suffering from this condition for several years. Though this liquid alleviates their pain temporarily, it often returns. Some refused to acknowledge it as a stone or gravel issue, but with my persuasion, they continued the treatment for their identified ailments. By clearing the passages, they were completely freed from this wretched condition. I am convinced that the obstruction of passages by stones or gravel is the primary cause of cholic. Additionally, those who frequently experience this condition must not only use it for immediate relief but also as directed for the stone, which if it is their underlying issue.\nPeople who drink this water will find relief in their stomachs and intestines. I am confident that many have endured these pains for years, and if this is heeded, thousands will be saved.\n\nRegarding rheumatism and gout, I cannot help but note the remarkable effect it has on providing immediate relief and restoring mobility to those who were previously helpless. I have not had extensive experience with these conditions, but I have observed several cures. Therefore, I recommend this to the world, as I believe it will be effective for many.\n\nThose suffering from kidney stones or gravel should take two spoonfuls every other morning on an empty stomach, or every morning in white wine if necessary. Those whose urine flow has completely stopped may take it every hour or once every two hours, with the same quantity each dose, except for children.\nFor those who wish to take a smaller quantity, within a few hours you will observe the effects in your water, either through the formation of perfect stones or a thick sediment (as some stones come away in no other way), or else reddish gravel, resembling brick dust. This often occurs in large quantities, and usually for the first time taking the medicine.\n\nFor other ailments, it may be taken alone.\n\nFor cholick, take two large spoonfuls during a fit, and if it does not subside within an hour, take two or three more spoonfuls; I have rarely seen it fail to work at first attempt.\n\nFor rheumatism, gout, or other pains in the limbs or bowels, take three spoonfuls each morning and evening, or more frequently if necessary.\n\nIn my previous discourse, I have provided a general account of the water's effects on the stone and other ailments. However, as there are various different causes in nature, the water will not have the same effect on all. I intend to discuss some of these variations.\nAnd some other things which I truly believe will be beneficial for the public. As I have mentioned, it provides relief for the stone at the initial taking, which it certainly does if the pains are caused by wind, which is typically the reason for fits. Some stones are not entirely effective, as they are placed or afflicted with the stone, lying up for some months or years, filled with crude matter and prone to vomiting. This remedy will eventually remove this illness and provide almost, if not complete, relief, and soon after a cure. For those afflicted in this way, it generally gives them two or three stools a day, their excrement being of an oily substance, which will continue until their ailment subsides. They will find their strength increasing in this case. This kind of laxative affects only those so afflicted. I have found several who have imagined they were cured and stopped using it; for this reason, it soon after stops working.\nThe inconvenience of using this water is that it sets into some stones. For stones or gravel, follow these hints as an addition. In some cases where the cause is violent, take it in the morning and evening, and more frequently if necessary. Some find it best to take it in the evening, although various incidents may occur. A specific direction for taking it cannot be given precisely; I recommend taking it according to how the person taking it finds it best to achieve their goal, in operating on the stone and so on. It has been found through experience that a dose will work on the stone for five or six hours before losing its effectiveness, though the stone particles may not come away immediately. In some cases, it may take three or four days for the particles to come away after the dose is taken. Those who take it during a fit to alleviate the fit.\nIf one chooses to do so, they may consume as much of it as they desire, depending on its effect on them. However, once this has been achieved, they may consume it in smaller quantities, as is typical. If white wine is too sharp or distasteful to someone, they may consume it with another liquid that does not cause windiness or bind the body. They should also avoid eating or drinking for an hour or two afterwards. Despite this, they may still engage in outdoor activities or remain at home as they please.\n\nFINIS.", "creation_year": 1701, "creation_year_earliest": 1701, "creation_year_latest": 1701, "source_dataset": "EEBO", "source_dataset_detailed": "EEBO_Phase2"},
{"content": "Every thing appears more visible when compared with what is most contrary to it. I humbly conceive it may be helpful to discover, in part, what is fit to be altered and relieved against in proceedings in Courts of Equity, by comparing the present practice with the primitive. This, I think, are very contrary to each other in many particulars, of which I shall mention a few.\n\nIn Rolls's Reports, 1st Part, Fol. 330 and 331. In the case of Vawdry and Pannell.\n\nThe old way of relief against mistaken decrees in Equity. It is said that in the 42nd and 43rd of Queen Elizabeth, it was resolved, by all the judges in England, that under a decree made in the High Court of Chancery, the Queen, upon petition to her, might refer it to justices (but not to any other) to examine and reverse the decree if there was cause, and that the then Lord Chancellor agreed to this resolution. And this, I think, a very good authority.\n\nIn Rolls's Reports, 2nd Part, Fol. 434. In the cause of Hudson against Midleton.\n\nIt is said:\nIn the past, the Chancellor would summon judges to determine when equity could override common law, as the common law should not be altered for every whim, and it was challenging to ascertain when equity would supersede common law. Those proficient in common law were suitable for rectifying the errors of equity courts. The common and statute laws serve as the primary guidelines for right and wrong; thus, when a dispute arises regarding the superiority of equity over common law, significant consideration should be given to the law's meaning and intent, rather than disregarding it entirely. Consequently, only those well-versed in the common law can effectively uphold it, resulting in a legal equity that is qualified by law, rather than the common, natural equity.\nAnd in judicature, law and equity are to be distinguished: Though judges of common law strictly adhere to legal rules when adjudicating in a course of law to prevent confusion, they are better suited to overrule or supplement the law with equity when given the freedom to do so. There are numerous references by Queen Elizabeth, King James I, and King Charles I to mistaken decrees during their reigns, which were considered good administrations of justice and free from complaints regarding equity proceedings, as far as I can tell. When monarchy was restored under King Charles II after a long hiatus, reviving this course was proposed, but it was then, and has since been said,\nA man cannot legally obtain such references from the King, as this matter would never be debated before him, nor since. If a man believes himself injured by a judgment in the King's Bench, Common Pleas, or Exchequer, he may find relief against erroneous judgments in the law proceedings, and may halt execution on such judgment by bringing a Writ of Error. In such a case, he is not liable to be displaced from the possession of his land or money by the judgment of any one of these courts without the agreement of another. This is not considered a reflection upon the judges of the court where the first judgment was rendered.\n\nSimilarly, a man may appeal from decrees and sentences in the Ecclesiastical Courts and the Court of Admiralty, and unless the court to which an appeal is made consents, this is permissible.\n doth concur with the Court that made the Decree or Sentence complain'd of, such Decree or Sentence is of no effect; And therefore I humbly conceive there should be an immediate Appeal in the Intervals of Parliament from the Courts of Equity as to Equity, as there is from other Courts of Law as to Law, indeed it may be that Writs of Error and Appeals may be brought oftentimes for delay; but that delay is Recompenc'd with Costs of Suit, if the Judgment or Sentence be affirmed and it is evi\u2223dent, that. That Course keeps things in so good Order in those Courts, where Writs of Error and Appeals do lie, that we rarely meet with a Judgment of any of those Courts Reversed in Parliament in point of Judgment only.\nThe having of an Appeal to Parliament from a Decree in Equity, may often happen too late:\nAppeals to Parlia\u2223ment, not to be always had when Occasion Re\u2223quires. For if a Man be forc'd to obey a mistaken Decree in the Interval of Parliament, when a Parliament comes\nA person who has been forced to relinquish their weapons and money to an adversary and is unsure how to obtain more, may find that the party who gained the money through the decree has died or gone out of reach before the mistaken decree is reversed. Although parliaments have sat frequently of late, they may not do so as often during times of peace. Some argue that there is less need for an immediate appeal to a court of equity during parliamentary intervals, as a man, if he believes himself injured by a decree in equity, may have a rehearing, followed by a bill of review. However, I respond that while rehearings may be granted in courts of equity, they are a matter of favor, not right, and I have known some cases to be reheard multiple times.\nAnd other causes that I believed deserved a rehearing could not obtain that favor after the decree was regularly signed and rolled, though it be ever so erroneous or mistaken. A rehearing is not to be had after this point, even if it is erroneous or mistaken. Therefore, if a rehearing is granted at all, it is typically before the parties that made the supposed mistaken decree. Although it cannot be denied that a man may change his opinion upon a rehearing, it was once the opinion of the Commons in Parliament, as stated in the Roll (21 E. 3. Nu. 26, according to Cotten's Abridgment), that a man is unlikely to have a good opinion against his own opinion. This was given as a reason by the Commons in their petition that erroneous judgments in the Exchequer should be redressed in the King's Bench, as the Court of Exchequer previously made an attempt to rectify its own errors. The King's answer to this petition was:\nThat he would grant commissions to examine and correct Exchequer errors, but this was not satisfactory. After several attempts, it was enacted by 31 E 3. cap. 12., that the Chancellor and Treasurer, with such judges and sages of the law as they thought fit, should correct Exchequer errors. This was without limitation, applying to judgments given before the statute as well as after, despite a writ of error from Exchequer judgments to Parliament.\n\nRegarding bills of review in former times, as Roll's Abridgment in the Chancery title, fo. 182, states, if a Chancellor erred in conscience on the matter of fact proven before him \u2013 that is, if he issued a decree contrary to the proofs in the case or without sufficient proofs \u2013 there could be a re-review of the matter of fact. This was possible because no new examinations were required; instead, it could be reviewed based on the initial depositions, which was a common practice.\nas there is said: I have seen some depositions being read in Presidents, during hearings on the Bill of Review, based on the depositions taken in the original cause. However, since the practice has changed and depositions in the original cause are no longer allowed to be considered in a Bill of Review, and this has been the case unless it has been recently altered: If a decree is made that goes against the proofs in the case or without any proofs at all, there is no remedy against such a decree through a Bill of Review, as all Bills of Review are now limited to correcting errors in law, as they appear on the face of the decree, disregarding the proofs. Furthermore, a Bill of Review cannot be admitted before the decree is performed, if it is for the payment of money, unless the party responsible for payment swears they are unable to pay or surrenders to prison.\nUntil the cause is determined in review, and bringing a Bill of Review is costly for the client as it must recite all the first bill, answer, pleadings, and orders in the cause:\n\nProposal 1: I humbly propose, first, that instead of rehearings and Bills of Review in the same court where the supposed mistaken decree was made, a man, if he believes himself injured by any decree or decretal order to be made or where the proofs and merits of the cause have been denied a fair hearing or consideration on a Bill of Review, the judges of the King's Bench and Common Pleas, or such other persons as Parliament deems fit, may hear the cause once and no more, on the full merits and depositions, notwithstanding any inrollment of such decree or any proceedings thereon had.\n\nProposal 2: Furthermore, as it provides a great opportunity for revenge.\nAnd it is a great encouragement to vexatious men to commence causeless suits or suits upon slight grounds in equity, and to withstand just demands by all the delays and devices imaginable that courts of equity do not always give to the prevailing party his reasonable and necessary costs, and often award no costs at all. Therefore, I humbly propose that it be enacted:\n\nHe who is in the wrong in an equity cause should pay the other party his full, reasonable and necessary costs. Men would be very careful upon what grounds they would commence suits in equity and never do it but when they thought they had good cause. In all cases, both sides would be desirous to come to a speedy determination to avoid the great costs that a tedious suit might occasion, as they would know it would all fall on one or the other in the end.\nThe third proposal: In equity courts, the party in the wrong in all suits shall pay the other side their full, reasonable and necessary costs, which they cannot afford to prosecute or defend without.\n\nIn equity proceedings, it is useful to compel discovery through sworn answers of concealed matters. It often happens that concealment of such matters may make it appear that the right to an estate is with the concealing party. In such cases, the party who appears to have the right may file a bill in equity to compel the real but concealed and undiscovered right holder to release it. The concealing party, in response, may file a cross bill for discovery. If the concealing party provides an imperfect or evasive answer.\nAnd by the negligence or fraud of an Agent or Solicitor, exceptions are not taken to such an answer, the concealed matter remains undiscovered until after a decree passes, otherwise than it might or should have done, if the concealed matter had been discovered. In such cases, according to the opinion of some judges in equity, the party with the right to such discovery has no remedy, either by a new bill or otherwise, to compel the party guilty of such concealment and answering imperfectly, to make a perfect answer, or to be relieved against such concealment. This, if it were so, since most men in such matters depend upon agents and solicitors: It may be in many cases within the power of a solicitor, by confederating against his client, and not taking exceptions to such insufficient answers, to sell away any man's right, which may be a thing of general mischief. Wherefore, I humbly propose further, that it may be declared by Act of Parliament:\n\n(Note: The text appears to be in old English, but it is still readable and does not require translation. No OCR errors were detected in the text.)\nIf any person is aggrieved by an imperfect answer or concealment in the cases mentioned, they may find relief in courts of equity through a new bill, despite any previous decree or forced obedience.\n\nIt has been objected that if relief is to be provided in the aforementioned cases, it should only extend to decrees yet to be made, not those already made.\n\nTo this, I reply:\n\nWhether the proposed remedy should extend to any previously made decrees. I believe it reasonable to provide parliamentary relief against past injuries, especially in cases where an old law or equity course has been denied. If it was a regular practice for a subject injured by a decree in Chancery or other court of equity to have the proofs and merits of the original cause reexamined upon a bill of review, as has been historically practiced and denied to some, I humbly submit that this is consistent with equity and justice.\nSuch should be provided for by Act of Parliament. The Statute of 31 E. 3 cap. 12 grants the Chancellor, Treasurer, and others named power to rectify erroneous judgments in the Exchequer. This remedy, though new and not reviving an old one, extends to all judgments in the Exchequer, whether before or after the statute, without any time limitation. I see no reason why past mistaken decrees in Courts of Equity should be more favored than past mistaken judgments in Courts of Law; and I hope they will not be. By the Year-Book, 27 H. 8 fo. 15, it is recorded as a rule that a decree in Chancery does not bind the right, as it is merely an order made by the court for the present, which may be altered upon showing good cause. This rule is without time limitation, as good cause may be shown at any time.\nA decree that is mistaken should be altered. An argument against following this old rule is that if a decree in equity were not final, there would be no end to suits. But a man may try his title as often as he will through ejectment at common law; yet controversies at law come to an end. If there were no hope that erroneous decrees in equity would be final, there would not be much struggling to obtain them, and perhaps there would not be as many suits as there are.", "creation_year": 1701, "creation_year_earliest": 1701, "creation_year_latest": 1701, "source_dataset": "EEBO", "source_dataset_detailed": "EEBO_Phase2"},
{"content": "Title: Bateman's Tragedy: OR, The Perjured Bride Justly Rewarded: Being the History of German's Wife and Young Bateman\n\nLondon: Printed by and for C. Brown and T. Norris, and sold by the Booksellers of Pye-corner and London-Bridge.\n\nSolemn vows and promises are of great weight and strictly binding, as God has severely punished those who have violated them, dishonoring His name. I shall provide an instance of God's anger in this regard, a dreadful example that has been heard with admiration and left England astonished.\n\nJames Bateman, son of a gentleman from Nottinghamshire, was well-educated.\nbut, due to his Father's excessive generosity, of not great fortune, riding one day through Clifton-Town, a few miles from Nottingham, happened to cast his eyes on a very comely maiden, who was standing at the door of a seemly house. Her innocent looks and pretty features took him by surprise, and he could not help but bring his horse to a full stop to gaze at her. The maiden, upon noticing his earnest gaze, blushed modestly and retreated, as surprised by his handsome appearance as he was by her beauty. However, this being their first encounter, he lacked the courage to make any advances and continued on his way to a town fifteen miles beyond, leaving his heart behind with his fair mistress.\n\nAll the way he rode, his thoughts were strangely confused, and he labored to compose them.\nHe found, to his dismay, that his mocking of love and derision of those who declared their passions had left him ensnared in the very same net he had persuaded others to break. The more he struggled, the more entangled he became. The business he had been about was of little importance, and his sighs and restlessness led his friends to believe him in great disorder. Cunningly concealing the true cause from them, they suspected instead that the decay of his fortune was the source of his sudden alteration. In order to lift his spirits, they offered him their assistance and service in whatever he commanded. While these events transpired, he was eager to return home and inquired along the way who this sad maid could be.\nAnd she was the daughter of a covetous old rich farmer, who had refused several suitable matches in hopes of raising her social status through her beauty and the large dowries he intended to bestow upon her. He kept a strict watch over her to prevent her from being stolen away. This filled him with despair, yet he resolved to act, but was unsure how to proceed with his love affair without risking his future happiness. Leaving him to consider his next move, we will now turn our attention to Isabella, the sickly maiden attended by humans and an angel.\n\nThis beautiful maiden, despite being frequently courted, had remained unyielding to the sighs, tears, and entreaties of many handsome young bachelors.\nShe now found herself in need of pity, as Bateman's image was so firmly fixed in her mind that she believed she saw him whether sleeping or awake. She made inquiries based on her description of him, but none she spoke to could satisfy her in this regard, some guessing at one person and some at another, according to their whims. Love continued to fan the hidden flame within her, causing her to disregard domestic affairs, which her father and mother had entrusted to her. Her appetite waned, and eventually she fell ill with a lingering disease, causing great distress in the household.\n\nPhysicians were summoned to offer their advice, but their skills proved ineffective, as the old proverb held true:\n\nWhere love is involved,\nThe doctor is a fool.\n\nFearing the loss of their only daughter, whom they deeply doted upon and prized above all worldly possessions, her father and mother were at a loss.\nA sighing Maiden, concealing an inward flame that consumed her health and wasted her spirits, wept bitterly while her father, Mr. Gifford, and others wringed their hands in despair. In this pitiful state, a man in the habit of a physician rode up on a stately steed to the gate and asked to speak with Mr. Gifford. The old man, with a heavy countenance and tears on his aged cheeks, demanded to know why he had come to such a sorrowful place and what he required. \"Sir,\" he replied, \"I have come out of compassion for your family's affliction. Having heard at an inn in town that your daughter, your only delight and darling, was sick, and whose death might bring you untimely to your grave, I have tried various physicians, but their skills have been in vain. If you will accept my advice and she is willing to follow it, I have no doubt but by God's blessing, she will recover.\"\nThe angel, whom he believed to be sent by divine providence, restrained himself from kneeling or speaking due to his joy. After recovering, he invited the angel into his chamber and asked everyone else to leave. The love-sick maid recognized him upon seeing him and fainted. He revived her with some cordials he had brought, and upon regaining consciousness, her blushes overshadowed her paleness, resulting in a strange transformation in her countenance. Having suspected and now certain of the cause of her affliction, he revealed the reason for his disguise, urging her to take heart and expressing his passionate love for her through tears. They eventually came to understand each other's thoughts, and he visited her for several days.\nAnd he ordered her things to restore her decayed nature, her health returned, and the roses flourished in her cheeks, to the wonder and admission of all; at which, the father, overjoyed, embraced this seeming physician, and offered him a handful of gold; but he refused, only desiring leave to visit him whenever he passed by his house. Young Bateman, having made what he believed to be a thorough step towards his future happiness, went home filled with joy, but did not delay long to revisit his lovely patient in the same habit. After dinner, he took the opportunity to walk with her in the garden. They began to talk of love and the last adventure, devouring each other with their eager looks, kissing and using all the modest freedom that lovers, whose hearts were so united and enflamed.\ncould wish or desire; and after some interrupting sighs had passed, clasping his arm about her snowy neck: \"Ah, lovely Isabella,\" he cries, \"how blessed am I to have this opportunity, to tell you how much and how dearly I love you; you are the only jewel in nature that I prize; and could I but be possessed of your lovely self, I should think myself the happiest of all mankind.\"\n\nAt this, turning her eyes with loveliness upon him and blushing with a virgin-grace, she told him, \"Since you have been so kind to come timely and save my life, I thought I could do no less than recompense you in any lawful and reasonable way you could desire; for though many courted me, I was engaged to none.\"\n\nUpon this encouragement, he pressing her further and vowing eternal love and constancy, she not only seemed by her kind glances and suffering him with willingness to lay his head in her bosom to give her consent to a speedy marriage, but likewise told him so.\nThat being the first time he asked her to present herself to him, it was reasonable for virgin modesty and compliance with custom that he allow her some time to consider such a significant matter, which would in no way harm him; for, she assured him, my obedience to my parents, which I have never disobeyed, must be continued, and they must be informed of your intentions. Several wealthy and eligible men are courting me at present, but fear not my favor. This delighted young Bateman, and he immediately wished to ask for her hand from her parents and make her his, whose precious life they could not but conclude he had saved and continued to protect. But she opposed this, saying she would prepare the way herself, and therefore the next visit he paid, it would be new to them and therefore more welcome. So, rising from their seats, they went into the house where a splendid feast was prepared.\nAnd they sat opposite each other at the Table, feeding on love with their eyes more contentedly than on the dainties. But, supper ended, and night coming on, Bateman took his leave. The old farmer invited him to a public entertainment at his house three days following, which he accepted, and so they parted.\n\nI shall not trouble you with the thoughts and impatience of the young lovers during the interval, but tell you this feast was made primarily to entertain a gentleman. His grandfather, a little before dying, had left him a great estate, and his affections were strongly placed on the fair virgin. He had courted her long, but she seemed little to regard his addresses. However, the father and mother, charmed by the prospect of a rich match for their daughter, listened to his suitors and had often persuaded and commanded her compliance, but she with as much tenderness and resistance as she could muster.\nAnd beseeching, as often excused, the day being come, the guest met, and young Bateman, resolving now to push on his suit, came bravely attired in the habit of a gentleman. The entertainment was very splendid; sea, earth, and air contributed their stores to furnish out the table with all manner of dainties: fish, flesh, fowl, fruits, and so on. Nor was music or anything requisite wanting. But that which dashed part of the merriment was, that fair Isabella placed herself over against Bateman, the other lover, whose name was German. By his years and observations in love intrigues, understanding the language of their eyes in their frequent gazings, the blushes coming and going in his mistress's face, and many other signs that Cupid had lively painted perspicuous to lovers, his fancy hit upon the truth: that they were deeply in love with each other. Whereupon his countenance changed to a sullen and melancholy one, and, throwing by what was before him.\nThe man suddenly rose from the table, instructing his servant to prepare his horse for departure. Alarmed, the father and mother followed him into a private room to understand the reason for his sudden change, a man who had declared his love for their daughter and intended to marry her. In the room, the father learned that German had suggested the man should consider another woman. The daughter, who had been listening, spoke up, explaining that she felt obligated to return the gentleman's life-saving act with her love and would marry him if she ever wed. The father was further shocked, and Bateman, entering the room during this conversation, admitted his love for the daughter upon being questioned by the father.\nAnd he sought the old man's consent to marry his daughter.\n\"How!\" said the old man, \"You, a stranger, make love to my daughter without my knowledge? You may, for all your fine jewels, be a beggar; I intend to give her a great fortune, and therefore resolve to marry her to one who can provide a suitable dowry. What is your estate?\"\n\"Truly, replied Bateman, I am rich in love towards her, but for estate I cannot boast much; I was born a gentleman, but without the fortune to maintain it; my parents were unfortunate and left me little, yet I hope that little, with your blessing and our love, will persuade Providence to be kind to our endeavors and make us happy. With your permission, I would take her hand and seal my love with a kiss.\"\nHowever, the old man stepped between them in an angry manner, crying, \"Poh, poh; stand off, Sir; a gentleman without an estate.\"\nA pudding without fat, you have indeed done my daughter a kindness in restoring her health, but I must beg your pardon, for making her your wife, she is meat for your betters. Bateman's anger began to rise into slight reproaches, but while he was upbraiding his expected father with ingratitude, in rushes German, who had heard in the next room what had passed, with his drawn sword, and made a full pass at him; but he nimbly put it aside, and drawing his own weapon, wounded him in the breast, whereupon he fell dead to the ground; and thereupon Bateman was forced to make his escape, to gain time for further consideration of what was to be done.\n\nFair Isabella, upon this unexpected accident, being left all in tears as well as the rest of the family in fear and confusion, surgeons were sent for. They gave hopes of their patient's recovery. However, Bateman, fearing the worst, absented himself from his dwelling, and one evening.\nA traveling peddler, for a good reward, delivered a letter to his mistress, disguising it as a visit to her father's house to sell his wares. She read it and, resolving to grant his request, escaped in the disguise of a milkmaid. They met and, overjoyed, she informed him of all that had happened and of German's likely recovery. But they did not linger long on this topic before turning to love, renewing their vows of eternal love and constancy, and sealing it with a broken piece of gold, giving her half.\nand he kept the other to himself; then, with tears and tender kisses, they parted. She, at the farewell which proved sad, begged him to travel a few weeks and give her notice where he was secretly, and she would send him word about the recovery or danger of her rival. He consented with much alacrity.\n\nThe beautiful virgin, during her absence, having been missed at home and much inquired about due to the unseasonableness of the time, was suspected of what had happened. And although she modestly denied it, upon her return, she was confined to her chamber, and an old nurse was set upon her as a guard. Thus, Bateman's letters were intercepted, and she lost the opportunity to write to him. In the meantime, German recovered, and admired her, courting her persistently. For a long time, she resisted his advances. But, oh, the inconstancy of women! Despite her vows to be Bateman, alive or dead, and many other protestations, the allure of the miser's gold eventually won her over.\nThe Persuasions and Threats of her father, and her mother's tears, along with fine treats and rich presentations, prevailed upon her to change her mind. By the instigation of these three, she wrote a letter to Bateman, in which she detested his love. However, she could not do this without blotting the paper with tears and great reluctance of mind. This letter found him many miles away hunting; but upon reading it, his spirits were dashed, and a chill struck to his heart. However, though he knew her handwriting, he flattered himself into believing it was to punish him for his long absence or that she was compelled to do it. Fearing the worst, he hastened the next morning to Clifton, and hearing the bells ringing merrily, his heart misgave him. However, he had the courage to inquire the cause, which proved to be a fatal one.\n\nThat morning, he was informed she had married his rival. In a rage, he began to curse his stars.\nAnd all mankind; oft he considered falling on his sword, but then the desire for revenge intervened, not to fall alone, but to sacrifice the bridegroom and then himself. After his mind had calmed somewhat, he resolved to cause grief to his mistress, yet to let her know his resentments, he sent her a letter containing half a gold piece, which she found at dinner, causing her to be taken away sick from the table. However, she was comforted with cordials, the joy of a bridal night, riding in a coach, and great estate, which she passed over, and they went to bed when night came.\n\nBateman received no answer and took it as a further slight. Therefore, entering on a desperate resolve, he stole into the house privately, knowing the way, and hid himself in a closet by the bridal chamber door. He hanged himself before the door, where he was found, to their great horror and amazement, upon opening the door the next morning, with this distich on his breast:\n\nFalse woman, of thy vows and oaths beware.\nFor thou art mine, alive or dead. Above, Bateman hanging on the other side of the door from the bride and groom; below, a spirit carrying off the bride from her childbed. This not only discomposed the mirth of the wedding and made the bride exceedingly melancholic, but the ensuing night was filled with dreadful cries and screeks, as if Hell had been broken loose. Blazing lights often flashed in the eyes of the newlyweds as they lay entwined in each other's arms, followed by a dreadful cry: \"Thou art mine, dead or alive.\" This made them hastily remove to the husband's house some miles distant, but the same hunting pursued them. Wherever she went, she thought the spirit of Bateman appeared to her, holding the broken gold in a string, and upbraiding her with her breach of faith. The curtains were often drawn violently when they were in bed, and the former cry continued until at last, she, proving with child, the spirit came in a more furious manner to bid her prepare to go with him.\nas soon as she was delivered; at which, weary of her life, she stretched out her arms and cried, \"I am thine by right, and I am ready to go with thee.\"\n\n\"No,\" he replied, \"the innocent baby in thy womb protects thee. I cannot have thee till thou art delivered.\"\n\nThus she continued in sorrow and fear, having many divines to pray with her, but it availed not. For the time of her delivery being come, which she desired might be prolonged, though in pain, her mother and divers other women watched with her. She earnestly begged them not to fall asleep. However, a sudden drowsiness about midnight, despite all they could do, overcame them, till wakened with a dreadful cry. They found the candles out and feeling for the childbed-woman, she was missing. The casement being burst in pieces, and a strong smell of sulfur left in the room: The townspeople affirmed they heard great cries and screeches in the air, accompanied by a clap of thunder.\nAnd she was struck by a Clap of Lightning at that moment; however, she was never heard from again, though much sought for.\n\nTo the tune of \"The Lady's Fall,\" and so forth.\n\nAbove, Bateman hanging on the other side of the door from the bride and groom; below, a spirit carrying off the bride from the childbed.\n\nYou dainty Dames so finely formed,\nOf Beauty's chiefest mold,\nAnd you who dance and prance around,\nLike lambs in Cupid's fold,\nHere is a lesson to be learned,\nA lesson in my mind,\nFor those who prove false in love,\nAnd bear a faithless mind:\n\nNot far from Nottingham of late,\nIn Clifton, as I hear,\nThere dwelt a fair and comely Dame,\nWhose beauty was without peer;\nHer cheeks were like the crimson rose,\nYet, as you may perceive,\nThe fairest face conceals the falsest heart,\nAnd soonest will deceive.\n\nThis gallant Dame was beloved\nOf many in that place,\nAnd many sought her in marriage bed\nTo embrace her body:\nAt last, a proper, handsome Youth,\nYoung Bateman was his name,\nIn hopes to make a married wife,\nHe came to this Maiden.\n\nSuch love and liking were found there.\nHe had stolen away the Maiden's heart from all the others, and she loved him best. They exchanged secret promises, vowing that nothing but death could part them. He broke a piece of gold in half, giving her one part as a pledge, declaring, \"Dear heart, I will have you.\" If he broke his vow while she lived, she vowed that nothing she touched would prosper.\n\nTwo months passed, and the Maiden began to develop feelings for another man: a Widower named Jerman. Her recent vows and promises to Bateman she denied, defying him in spite.\n\n\"If it is so that you will leave me for another man,\" Bateman said, \"and take him as your husband:\n\nYou shall not live one quiet hour. I will have you, either alive or dead.\"\nWhen I am laid in the grave,\nYour faithless mind you shall repent,\nTherefore be assured,\nWhen for your sake you hear report,\nWhat torments I endured.\nBut mark how Bateman died for love,\nAnd finished up his life,\nThat very day she married was,\nAnd made Old Jerman's Wife;\nFor with a strangling cord, God wot,\nGreat moan was made therefore,\nHe hanged himself in desperate sort,\nBefore the Bride's own door.\nWhereat such forrow pierced her heart,\nAnd troubled sore her mind,\nThat she could never after that,\nOne day of comfort find;\nAnd wherever she did go,\nHer fancy did surmise,\nYoung Bateman's pale and ghastly Ghost\nAppeared before her eyes.\n\nWhen she in bed at night did lie,\nBetwixt her Husband's arms,\nIn hope thereby to sleep and rest,\nIn safety without harms;\nGreat cries, & grievous groans she heard,\nA voice that sometimes said,\nO thou art she that I must have,\nAnd will not be deny'd.\nBut she being big with child,\nWas for the Infant's sake.\nPreserved by the Spirit's power,\nno vengeance could it take:\nThe unborn Baby was safely kept,\nas God had decreed,\nProtecting His Mother's body from the Fiend,\nwho sought to overthrow her.\nBut once her labor had eased,\nand she was safely delivered,\nHer care and grief began anew,\nand further sorrow ensued:\nShe begged her Friends to stay,\ndesiring them to remain,\n\"Out of the bed, I shall be born away tonight,\" she said,\n\"I am the Spirit of my Love's,\nalive or dead, by right,\nAnd He will surely have me,\nin spite of me and the entire world,\nWhat I have promised Him.\"\n\"Watch with me this night, I pray,\" she implored,\n\"and ensure you do not sleep,\nMy body can only be kept awake for so long,\nas long as you remain vigilant.\"\nThey all promised to do their best,\nyet nothing was sufficient,\nIn the middle of the night, to keep watch,\nUnknown to them, the Child's nurse\nwas taken away from there,\nAnd no creature knew to which place\nthe Child was born.\nAs strange a thing as ever befell in any age, no one can tell. You maidens who desire to love and choose good husbands, do not refuse the one you vow to love. For God who hears all secret oaths will take dreadful vengeance on those who make light of a solemn vow.\n\nFinis.\n\nThere is now published: Aesop's Fables, with his Life, Morals and Remarks; suitable for the least capable. Price: 1s.\nThe Unfortunate Lovers: or, The History of Argalus and his Love; containing their amours, misfortunes, happy, but short enjoyment of each other; with the manner of their deaths. Price: 1s. bound.\nThe most pleasant and delightful History of Reynard the Fox, and Reynardine his Son. In two parts: With morals to each chapter, explaining what appears doubtful or allegorical: And every chapter illustrated with a curious device or picture. To which is added.\n[The History of Cawood the Rook: or, The Assembly of Birds: With the several Speeches they made to the Eagles in hopes to have the Government in his Absence; and how the Rook was Banish'd. Reasons why Crasty Fellows are called Rooks, along with Morals and Expositions on every Chapter. Twelfth Edition. Price: 1s.\n\nThe Famous and Pleasant History of Parismus, Prince of Bohemia: In Three Parts.\n\nPart I. Containing Parismus's Triumphant Battles against the Persians, his Love for Laurana, the beauteous Princess, the great Dangers he faced on the Island of Rocks, and his strange Adventures on the Desolate Island.\n\nPart II. Containing the Adventures, Travels, and noble Chivalry of Arismenos, Knight of Fame, with his Love for the fair Princess Angelica, the Lady of the Golden Tower.\n\nPart III. Containing the admirable Adventures and truly heroic Achievements of Parismenidas, Knight of the Golden Star, with his Love for the fair Astrea, Princess of Austracia.]\n[The Famous and Renown History of Guy, Earl of Warwick: Containing a full and true Account of his many Famous and Valiant Actions, Remarkable and Brave Exploits, and Noble and Renowned Victories. Price: 1s.]\n\nThe Famous and Renowned History of Guy, Earl of Warwick: A full account of his famous and valiant actions, remarkable exploits, and noble victories. (Price: 1s)", "creation_year": 1701, "creation_year_earliest": 1701, "creation_year_latest": 1701, "source_dataset": "EEBO", "source_dataset_detailed": "EEBO_Phase2"},
{"content": "It is known that all who are cited by the King in his Parliamentary Writs, not the lower clergy, are subject to the jurisdiction of archbishops and bishops in Convocation. Dr. A. devised a late artifice to exempt the lower clergy from this jurisdiction. He first argued that they were cited by the King in Parliamentary Writs. Later, he asserted that the provincial writ was a like immediate summons by the King, which the archbishop merely executes as a proper officer. His role in convening his clergy was no longer authoritative but purely ministerial. This directly contradicts the following form, where all the clergy are explicitly said to be cited by the authority of the Most Reverend the Archbishop, to appear before him in the Capitol of the Cathedral Church of St. Paul in London on the twelfth day of January next, and to be present and prepare for the Advent of the said Most Reverend Archbishop in the same Cathedral Church.\nPaul, from More, used to descend to the land of Paul's Wharf around the eighth hour before midday on that day, where he would encounter Preachers and Procurators of the Court of Canterbury, as well as certain Reverend Generous and Virgin Members of the Convocation. They would direct their course towards St. Catherine's Church in London and enter the choir there. Once he had been placed in the Decan's stall and offered prayers, the other Bishops present at the Convocation, dressed in togas, would sit on opposite sides of the choir in their stalls and soon began to pray.\n\nFor the Synod's use, the Archbishop alone drew up and prescribed the Form of Prayers in both Convocation houses.\nAccording to this Prerogative of the Archbishop at the head of his province, this Ancient Form has received some Alterations and Additions, with new occasional Hymns and Collects, at the discretion of our successive Archbishops, without any express Consent or active concern of the Lower Clergy, who submitted to the Judgment and Authority of the Archbishop. Where the Holy Spirit is invoked, and Communion follows. And at the Offertory, the Reverendissimus, as well as other Suffragan Bishops, should proceed in order to offer the Sacred Oblation.\nThe Archbishop, in accordance with the Rubric in the Form of Prayers for Convocation, directs that the sermon be delivered in the Upper House by the Junior Bishop, and in the Lower House by the Prolocutor. The ordering and appointment of the preacher has always been the sole power of the Archbishop, who assigns the office to any of his suffragans or other inferior clergy as he deems fit and proper. The Archbishop then addresses the assembled clergy in Latin: After this, His Reverence immediately proceeds to the Chapel House of the said church; following the bishops and the entire clergy.\nWhen entering and exiting, bishops, in their designated seats, were always present before the Archbishop and other bishops, as well as the rest of the clergy. The Archbishop was always seated at the tribunal and sometimes on his throne. Bishops were described as confident and seated with the Archbishop. However, the Prolocutor and lower clergy were always found in the upper house or the Archbishop and bishops' presence, standing and surrounding them. Dr. A. considered this decorum an innovation, as he described the old provincial synods with presbyters always sitting with the bishops, and deacons and people only standing. (Rights, Powers, &c. p. 5)\nThe figure of synods in question was not that of provincial assemblies, but rather of diocesan synods, where priests served as co-assessors with their bishops. In his writings, there is no instance provided where the presence of presbyters was allowed in any English provincial synod during the bishop's sitting. The Reverend Lord Bishop of London, in his Mandatum (Power of the Lower-House, &c. p. 3. c. 1), makes a shameful assertion. These certificates or returns to the archbishop are not made in virtue of the king's writ of summons, which they should recite, but only in virtue of the archbishop's mandate, to the extent that it executes this writ.\nWhen in truth, all the Returns from the Dean of the Province and from other Suffragans regularly made do not recite the King's Writ, as they execute only the Archbishop's Mandate. Or when they do recite the King's Writ, it is only as they find it included in the Mandate, and so they recite it as a part of that Mandate. But it is not at all in virtue of the King's Writ that the Dean citeth the Suffragans, or those Suffragans cite their Clergy. Instead, it is a pure Ecclesiastical Summons, and a canonical execution of the Archbishop's Mandatory Letters. Therefore, at the opening of a Convocation, the Archbishop orders the King's Writ to be solemnly read to justify his calling and holding of it by virtue of the King's license and command directed to him.\nThe Bishop of London does not refer to the Royal Writ at all, but only to the Archiepiscopal mandate, which he introduces and certifies the execution of, without any return to the King or respect to any Royal Writ. He is required to introduce the mandate and the necessary certificate of execution, as well as present and deliver it with due reverence to the same Reverendissimo, upon reading the certificate, a schedule is immediately presented to him, by which all those who do not appear at the same hour and place are pronounced to be in disturbance of our Convocations and destruction of their very being. Dr. A. has advanced a notion to disturb our Convocations and destroy their being, that the members are accountable for their absence to the House, and not to the President.\nAccording to the King's Writ, Bishops and Clergy were required to meet before the Archbishop. Failure to appear before him, or withdrawing without his leave, was considered contumacy or obstinate defiance of his authority. The Archbishop was the proper judge for imposing the canonical punishment or censure for such contumacy, and he reserved the right to determine the timing of its infliction to his own discretion: \"contumacies, reserving the punishment for their contumacy to some suitable day at the pleasure of the Most Reverend [Archbishop]\"\nThe Reverendissimus addressed the Bishops and clergy present in English or Latin, regarding the matter of his arrival and the commencement of the Convocation. Another notion of Independence has emerged, suggesting that at the opening of every Parliament, the Lower Clergy should be prepared to conduct business. They should then be able to choose their own business, engage in debates, and even reach resolutions, without any preceding advice or directions from the President and Bishops. However, this liberty had never been assumed prior to this. The Lower Clergy did not consider themselves absolute judges in synodical affairs, empowered to take the initial steps in them.\nThey waited for the Archbishop and bishops and were content to follow the hints and instructions given by their superiors. This established a custom for the Archbishop to open the Synod with a speech setting forth the causes of his coming there to meet his brethren and the rest of the clergy, and the reason for forming themselves into a synodical assembly. He explains the reason for this convening and the praiseworthy and ancient custom of the same convention being divided into two houses, the Upper and Lower, which have the same common head of the whole body, the Archbishop. Another daring notion has been raised that the Lower House is a distinct body from the Upper, separate upon essential rights of its own, with all the powers and privileges of a house, in the parliamentary sense of the word \"house.\" However, here the same body, the Convocation, is divided into two members, the Upper and Lower House, which members have the same common head of the whole body, the Archbishop.\nThough the author of the Power of the Lower House has unjustly degraded the Archbishop into a Chair-Man or Moderator of the Whole Assembly, when the two Houses are together; or when the Upper House is by itself, then the Archbishop must not be President (though it be his title in the very Act of Uniformity) but a chief member at most, or the proper person to introduce or notify the Act of the Bishops, p. 15. c. 2. p. 18. c. 1. While the Prolocutor is made much the greater man, Nothing singular in the notion of representing the Prolocutor as Head p. 9. c. 2. The House is divided into Superior and Inferior, Therefore the Reverend and other Co-Bishops make the Superior House; The Inferior House, however, is constituted of Deans of Churches, Archdeacons, Masters and Wardens of Colleges, and Procurators of Cathedrals, as well as clergy of any diocese.\nEt quoniam si in rerum tractandarum serie unoquisque ex inferiore Domo suam ipse sententiam quoties visum esset diceret, aut si omnes aut plumes simul loquerentur, confusio resultaret. Ita semper observatum est, unusquisque doctus et disertus ex gremio dictae inferioris Domus in eorum omnium locum ad hoc munus assumi.\n\nAccording to this notion of coordinated Houses and a Supreme Presidency: It has been proposed that the Lower Clergy, by inherent right, have always had a Prolocutor as an original President over them. However, there was a time when A.B. Bishops and Clergy constituted but one House; when the Lower Clergy had no right to withdraw from the Bishops without Order or Leave of the President. Thus, withdrawing and debating a matter referred to them, they were but a select company or committee of the Archbishops' Appointment. One was taken as a Chairman to manage their separate debates, and report their sense to the Archbishop and his Brethren.\nWhen the Lower Clergy were formed into a more settled state of separation from their lordships, the Archbishop allowed them a distinct apartment, which soon came to be their regular meeting place, and a fixed Prolocutor to be chosen at the beginning and continue to the end of every Convocation or Synod. However, this ministerial officer in the Lower House did not exempt the Clergy from their canonical subjection to the Archbishop, who now had greater jurisdiction. For he prevented confusion in the Lower House by prescribing this method of peace and order: he asserted his own authority by not allowing them to choose without his leave and admonition; he took care that the elect should be presented to him for his consent and approval; and when actually in office, he was required to be subservient to him, whether both houses were together or the Lower House was in a separate place.\nThe Office of Prolocutor and the name of Referendary come from their role as the common mouth and organ of the lower clergy, speaking with one voice and presenting their joint requests and resolutions to the most Reverend, while the others remain silent. The Reverendissimus himself is accustomed to admonish them from the lower house, which is the Synod in this place.\nTo the Archbishop and his Suffragans, as co-adjutors, in the same place where they, along with the bishops, were continued and prorogued. The president usually accepts the attendance of the prolocutor and two or three principal members as equivalent to the entire house. It is further observed that while the lower clergy are attending the Archbishop and bishops, they are never found to be at their own will, but are dismissed from the common place of assembling with leave to retire to their own apartment at the president's monition.\nThe registers of the Upper House show that when the Lower Clergy had elected a Prolocutor in his absence, they returned to the archbishop and bishops and reported the names of the persons they had chosen for the Prolocutor and his Presenter. They obtained His Grace's approval before he prorogued them to a day for the formal presentation of the Prolocutor. However, in recent times, Parliament, opening on the same day as the Convocation, has summoned their Lordships to Westminster before a report of this election could be made. They all descended into the Lower House for the aforementioned purpose.\nTaking their seats is the first privilege of the lower clergy in their separate room from the bishops. For the presbyters of England, not admitted at first into the provincial council of the metropolitan and his suffragans, they were admitted by degrees as assistants and never joined as co-assessors. Therefore, when their advice or consent was asked in a matter that required longer consideration than could be taken on the spot, it was an ease and relief to them to withdraw to some distinct adjacent place, where they might debate and determine the subject referred to them in greater rest and freedom. If any of these are consularians or royal sacellans, and the superior seats are occupied, one of them, on account of their dignity and reverence, or in their absence, is the dean of St.\nPaul's, if the King's Chaplain, has a right to preside within his own church, with the archbishop's leave, over his brethren the clergy, assembled to choose a prolocutor. The Ecclesiae Cath' D. Pauli London or Archdeacon of London's president. The name of president was applied to any person who presided or moderated or took the chair in any ecclesiastical or scholastic meeting. Therefore, it is an affected error in the author of The Power of the L.H. to Adjourn, etc., to say that whenever the word is employed in convocations, it constantly signifies one who presides in the stead of, and by an authority derived from some other. p. 18, c. 1. It is hard to make this definition of a president agree with this title here given to the Dean of St. Paul's. It is more absurd in that author to affirm that the title of president, as applied to the archbishop, is wholly new\u2014and implies a diminution of his authority.\nFor the archbishop at the head of his province could have no greater title than that of his ordinary style Reverendissimus, appropriated to the archbishop and not capable of presiding over the whole synod, and frequently said Praeses and Praesidens, from which he might well have the name as he had the office of presiding and presiding officer. But because the archbishop had the power to assign this office to a deputy or representative commissioned by him, therefore any one of his suffragans so delegated also had the name along with the dignity of presiding, and is often said loco Reverendissimi praesidere. And again, because in the vacancy of the see of Canterbury, the dean and chapter commit the care of presiding to the dean of the province, the bishop of London; therefore his lordship is then properly the president of convocation. Not that he presides in place of the dean and chapter, for they have no such power of presiding.\nBut observe, when the title of President is ascribed to the Grace's Delegate or to the Bishop of London, it is still a borrowed title, derived from the Archbishop's original power of presiding, and imputed to them only as they fill the place of the standing president of a province, the metropolitan, in such an election.\nAtque primum jubet nomina omnium citatorum et qui tunc interesse tenebantur before the Clerico dictae Inferioris Domus recitari et praeconizari - this Preconization or calling over the names of the clergy, as ordered by the inferior President before they form a House, or afterwards by the Prolocutor when they do become a proper House, is not by any inherent power in either person or assembly, but is done by the authority and for the service of the Archbishop. He alone has the power to judge of the reasonable cause of their absence and canonically to punish those he finds to be contumacious absentees. Noting the absentees, he addresses the present and inquires about the election of a suitable procurator.\nUpon convening, the Clergy chose a Prolocutor with ease and expedience, as they only needed to consider which among them fit the character recommended by the Archbishop: a learned, pious, and faithful man, in agreement with their superiors and able to maintain the fair correspondence and happy union between the Archbishop, Bishops, and Clergy. In the establishment's early days, they consistently chose the Archbishop's official or another minister, respecting their metropolitan and hoping for greater negotiation success. In later times, when the Archbishop's official was not a permanent member, they usually chose the Bishop of St. Paul's or whoever was president at the time of election. The first recorded divisions regarding the choice of a Prolocutor occurred in 1689.\nThe Archbishop had reserved to himself the express authority of approving and confirming the choice of a Prolocutor. When the majority were for a person to serve a particular design of not acting and indeed of not sitting, and he had finished this without any business, they convened among themselves about two eminent men of higher order. One of these, when the day arrived, was required to present the Prolocutor with the necessary reverence and solemnity. The same presented man was also to have a similar speech prepared for the Reverend Father and prelates and others present. Once this was finished, the Reverend Father, after praising both the electors and the presented man and the presented man himself in a Latin speech, finally confirmed the election with his archbishopal authority.\nAnd if he never rejected the presented Person, it proves the Clergy of this Province always agreed on an acceptable candidate for the Archbishop and bishops. He would expressly confirm and approve. The Reverend [person] would then present the grievances and reforms to be considered by the lower clergy and report them to the Archbishop. These grievances primarily concerned their civil rights. Such complaints relating to their properties and persons, which they had previously complained to the King for redress when he required their subsidies and taxes. And like the Temporal Commons, they often insisted on redress of grievances as a condition for granting aid and benevolence.\nThis taught the Clergy in Convocation a method for presenting ecclesiastical oppressions from inferior courts and officers to the Archbishop and Bishops. However, these grievances were never resolved or condemned in censures and remonstrances, but were always delivered in articles of request and petition or address, in a humble manner. The drafting of grievances in a declaratory style with a sort of judicial condemnation of Hortando Clerum, ut de rebus communibus quae Reformatione indigent, consultent & referant die (This passage was applied by Dr. K. to prove the continuance and intermission of sittings in the Lower House, as depending initially on the Metropolitan, and ultimately on the Prince. Occas. Letter p. 54. but the Author of P.L.H)\n applies it to a Meaning directly opposite, and makes it an express Argument, that the Consultations of the Lower House were to be held on Intermediate days as they saw best; But the Report of 'em was to be made above, on the day appointed for the common Sitting of Both Houses. p. 12. c. 2. So the Narrative in the Appendix p. xiii. would have these Words ca\u2223pable of being fairly \u01b2nderstood of the free Li\u2223berty of so \u01b2sing the Intervals of Sessions, i. e. of holding intermediate Sessions, so as die Statuto (the next Session) must be joined with Referant, and the Consultent be left at large. But there is Force as well as Art in detorting these Words to apply 'em to the New Pretences of Inter\u2223mediate Sessions. The Author of P. L. H. is first driven upon dividing consultent & referant that he may make the die Statuto refer to the latter only; and therefore he puts a stop after Consultent, which is not in the Manu\u2223script, nor in the two Copies Printed (before the thoughts of such a turn) by Dr\nAtterbury himself in the two several Editions of his Rights, Powers, &c, and in all the Books and Papers I have yet seen, excepting that of P. L. H, the words are joined as the conjunction requires: consult and refuse in statuto. So their consulting and reflecting may well belong to the same appointed day, which, in the sense of those writers, is the next session to which the Archbishop continues and prorogues them. Without breaking the words by that feigned stop, 'tis so hard to divide the application of them; that the writer of the appendix to the Narrative is free to own, we may so fairly presume, if not by common sense, yet by what we have seen; i.e., by far-fetched Allusions to the Parliament. Certainly, if this Form had meant to provide for any such separate Practice, it would have said: de rebus communibus quae Reformatione indigent suo tempore consultent; ac denuo Referant die statuto.\nAnd yet, despite the Consul's intervention requiring intervening days before the final report day, might not the Archbishop direct them or allow a part or committee of them to meet and advise in the meantime, so they would be ready for a report on the appointed session day? This method is common in the registers, where the Archbishop commits business to a select company to adjust and offer it in some appointed session. However, in all our records, we do not find one single instance before 1701 where the Lower House, after the Archbishop's prorogation, formally adjourned themselves to an intermediate day, calling that meeting a session, and there consulting business of their own choosing, independently from the Bishops. In truth, there was never any proper synodical business of common concern to the Church or Religion that was ever treated in a committee of the Lower House alone.\nBut all business was constantly referred to a joint committee of bishops and clergy, and they formed reports together to be presented to the Archbishop and his suffragans. According to this method, the session would continue from one session of both houses to another, as seemed expedient to the Archbishop with the counsel of his brethren, and until the king himself intervened with a writ for prorogation or dissolution. The convocation would be continued as long as it seemed expedient, and until a writ for dissolution was presented to the Archbishop, who would make the dissolution in obedience.\nThe Author of P. L. H. ascribes the power of assembling only and purely to the King's Writ and infers that the powers of proroguing and dissolving are the natural and necessary results of the former according to law and reason (p. 3, c. 1). However, this supposition is absolutely false. Our Reformed Princes did not assemble the Clergy only and purely by their own Writ any more than their Popish Predecessors did, who also sent the same Writ of Precept to the Archbishop, who then convened the Clergy by the same Mandate as now. In truth, before the Reformation, Archbishops prorogued and dissolved by their own power, as Dr. A states.\nThe Act of Submission did not alter the Constitution of our Provincial Assemblies. The Archbishop could no longer convene without a King's Writ. However, prorogation and dissolution were not directly affected by the statute. The Archbishop could have still prorogued or dismissed his Provincial Assembly if necessary. However, Henry VIII, to keep a Convocation of Popishly affected Clergy in awe of a Reforming Parliament, began sending his Precepts to the Archbishop to prorogue and dissolve the Convocation at the same times as the Parliament. Edward VI.\nAnd Queen Elizabeth and the monarchs after her adopted similar prudent methods. When the majority of Convocation were suspected of opposing the measures passed in Parliament, this was the reason for the custom of royal writs to command the proroguing and dissolving of a Convocation in conjunction with every Parliament. However, this custom did not prevent the legal prerogative from being exercised in 1640. There is no law other than custom that can now restrict the crown from issuing or not issuing such writs at will.\n\nHowever, it is important to note that when these writs are issued, the writ itself does not prorogue or dissolve the Convocation on its own (as the first writ did not convene the Convocation). Instead, it declares an expediency and a resolution, and then commands the Archbishop to exercise his authority. He does this by himself or his commissary, who prorogues or dissolves the Convocation through a schedule of their own, distinct from the writ. This was how it was assembled before, in obedience to the king's writ.\nThe Prolocutor is only to appear before the Reverend Master during the Session, that is, when both Houses hold a concurrent Session and are ready for mutual intercourse. Upon his arrival, he is to wear the aforementioned habit, and the Janitor or virgifier of the lower House is to precede him. It is the duty of the Prolocutor to admonish all members not to leave London without permission. In the minutes of previous Convocations, there are frequent entries of such solemn admonitions. When occasions required any member to retire into the country, a proper application for leave was made to the President alone.\nTill now, in this last Convocation, they attempted to form a House of Commons in various ways. One method was to ask permission of the House for a member to go into the country, even during an intermediate session. For instance, in the Minutes of May 14, Mr. Ardeacon Hutton requested leave to go into the country for his visitation. However, several members of the majority side went away without leave or knowledge of the archbishop. Yet, their own narrative condemns the practice and those who engaged in it, as they did not deny that the archbishop had the power to demand the attendance of our members. If the Lower House granted a leave of absence, the member was not entirely free without leave from the archbishop. Narrative, p. 49. Reverendissimi.\nThe statutes set days signify the common days appointed by the President for holding joint sessions of both houses. No notice is ever given for other days, indicating that the lower clergy never pretended to make intermediate sessions of their own appointment. The Prolocutor admonishing them to come early on these convening days was to have them ready to attend at the opening of the session, when the President often took occasion to instruct and advise them on the business of the day. The obligation of the lower clergy to pay the salary of the Clerk of the Upper as well as of the Lower House is a clear argument that they are not exempted from the Upper-House. However, the whole body of the Convocation, under the head of the province, requires every member to contribute to the common occasions of being mutually served and assisted.\nAnd therefore, by the Constitution of our Provincial Synods, there is only one Convocation Register and one Registry of Acts and Minutes: that is, the Archbishop's Register, and the Registry of his Metropolitan See. The Archbishop's Principal Register typically has a delegate or deputed officer, and this person, by virtue of their office, is the standing register for the entire Convocation. They are able to attend in person only in the Upper House and therefore delegate or assign an assistant to attend to the Lower House. This assistant acts as an Actuary or Scribe to record their minutes and prepare their written correspondence with the Archbishop and Bishops. This Actuary or Under-Clerk was never chosen or rejected by the House or the Prolocutor, but was assigned and dismissed by the Superior Clerk or Register of Convocation.\nBut in the late Assembly, they were breaking these fixed Rules of Property and Constitution, and pretended that the Clerk of the Upper House is but a fellow Actuary with the Clerk of the Lower, who is chosen and employed by the Prolocutor, contrary to all Right and Fact. (Narrative, p. 33. 36.)\n\nAll true Sons of the Church of England will be content with a Convocation to be held, according to the ancient custom. And that is why I have here published the Entire Form of Holding a Reformed Convocation or Protestant Provincial Synod, drawn up by an excellent Antiquary Archbishop Parker, under the Government of Queen Elizabeth. This strict Regard to the Constitution of the Church and State is to be a standing Rule for Posterity, as long as God should bless this Nation with the Purity of Religion then Established.\n\nAnd the reading over this Form Alone will abundantly discover and refute those late Writers who have labored for Change and Innovation in these Matters.\nThere is scarcely any one of their pretenses, but what is really opposite to the orders and opinions here delivered. As you find particularly,\n\n1. Dr. Atterbury would have the Constitution of English Synods entirely altered by the Act of Submission. He refers all to ancient observation and antecedent custom, without hinting at any one material change occasioned by the Reformation.\n2. It is a pretense of Dr. A. that the Parliament Writ is entered in the front of the Acts of every Synod, and that even by the Provincial Writ, the Bishops and Clergy are summoned directly by the King, not at all by the authority of the Archbishop. Whereas here is nothing at all of a Parliament Writ; nor indeed of the King's Provincial Writ as a royal summons; but the Archbishop's mandate only is mentioned, and all members are explicitly said to be cited by the authority of the Archbishop.\n3. It is a notion of the like author of P.L.H.\nThe certificates or returns the Dean and Suffragans make to the Metropolitan are based on the King's Writ, not the Archbishop's Mandate. In contrast, the Bishop of London only brings in the Mandate and certifies its execution.\n\nRegarding the Lower House, he has advanced a new claim for permission to grant leaves of absence to its members without seeking the Archbishop's approval. However, in this case, members appear before the Archbishop alone, and the penalty for their absence is reserved for him. The Prolocutor is to remind all lower clergy of this duty, preventing them from leaving town without his leave.\nAnother practice emerged among the Lower Clergy of choosing their own business and coming to resolutions in important matters without consultation or knowledge of the Archbishop and Bishops. Here, the Archbishop is first to declare the cause of his coming and the reasons for opening the Convocation, while the Inferior Clergy proceed based on instructions and in joint committees with the Upper House.\n\nThe Prolocutor has been made Head Governor and President of the Lower House; however, the Archbishop is not a President of Convocation: When a Prolocutor is elected and confirmed by the Archbishop's authority and attends his Grace when and where he is bidden or commanded; and when, by the very Act of Uniformity 14. Car. 2., the two Archbishops are referred to as the Presidents of Convocations within their respective Provinces.\nThey took up a singular issue in sessions: Where there is no intimation of any Meeting but in Die Statuto, which they themselves acknowledge to be the next Session appointed by the Archbishop for the joint Assembly of both Houses. And so in many other particulars, they have advanced Notions and Claims either directly Opposite, or at least not agreeing, to this Good Old Form.\n\nAccording to the superior and inferior Houses, and the inferior House's Janitor, they should faithfully pay according to the ancient taxation, as it concerns each one of them.\n\nMaintain the ancient roads.\n\nFINIS.", "creation_year": 1701, "creation_year_earliest": 1700, "creation_year_latest": 1701, "source_dataset": "EEBO", "source_dataset_detailed": "EEBO_Phase2"},
{"content": "Paris, September 18, 1701.\nSIR,\nIt is no wonder that you are inquisitive in England about how His Majesty would act towards the Prince of Wales upon the taking of the King his father to mercy. I suppose it is no news to you that the Prince assumed the style and dignity of King of England as soon as his father the late king died, this title being devolved to him as his son and heir. There has been no difficulty in France to acknowledge him in this capacity; His Most Christian Majesty having declared his intentions of doing so before his father's death, for treating him as Prince of Wales during his father's lifetime. It was a natural consequence that after his decease, he would call him King of England.\nWe do not believe any offense can be taken, as we do not perceive an engagement or obligation to the contrary from the Treaty of Ryswick. The fourth article of that treaty states that His Most Christian Majesty shall not disturb the King of England in the possession of his dominions, and shall not provide troops, ships, or any other supplies to those who would cause disturbance. His Majesty will faithfully adhere to this article, and the title of King of England, which the Prince of Wales believed he was indispensably obliged to assume after his father's death, does not entitle him to any assistance from France beyond what his father received since the Treaty of Ryswick, which is intended only for his subsistence and to console him in his misfortunes.\nHis Majesty's generosity would not allow him to abandon the Prince or his family; and since His Majesty could not make a decisive move against the Prince of Wales by withholding a title derived from his birth, he could not do so. It is no new thing to continue passing down to children the titles of kingdoms that their fathers have lost. Princes have done so without scruple while at peace with the present possessors. History provides us with frequent examples, such as the Kings of Naples and Narvar. We know that the Kings of Poland, of the House of Vasa, retained the title of Kings of Sweden until the Peace of Oliva, though that treaty was made long after their expulsion and they had entered into strict alliances with both King Gustavus and Queen Christina during the interim.\nHis Majesty has declared that his intention is only to treat the Prince of Wales with the same regard he has expressed towards the late king his father, since the Peace of Ryswick. And certainly the measures His Majesty has observed at this conjuncture are both just and exactly pursuant to his treaties, as well as to what his honor requires from him. I am, [signature]\n\nLondon, Printed for J. N. near Ludgate, 1701.", "creation_year": 1701, "creation_year_earliest": 1701, "creation_year_latest": 1701, "source_dataset": "EEBO", "source_dataset_detailed": "EEBO_Phase2"},
{"content": "The paper complains that if the clause passes for prohibiting the refining of rock-salt anywhere but near the rock-pits, all rock-salt refineries will be destroyed. In response, it is answered that if rock-salt is permitted to leave the pits, not only will makers of salt from brine and sea-water be ruined, but the duty on salt, amounting to three million pounds lent to the government, will also be lost. The people of England would then have to pay and make up for this deficiency. The weights and various drawbacks allowed to rock-salt are such that it is not possible to prevent frauds in any other way than by the method prescribed in the bill. For example, 75 pounds of rock-salt is considered a bushel and pays 3 shillings 4 pence at the pit. Only 56 pounds of brine-salt is allowed a bushel and pays the same at the works. And 56 pounds of rock-salt melted in fresh water pay the same duty.\nAs actually done at the Excise Office in London, a salt rock refiner's production of 19 pounds more in weight than a brine salt maker's results in a 3 shillings and 4 pence profit. The refiner sells this excess weight in its unrefined state, reimbursing himself one-third of the duty paid at the mines in the process, resulting in a loss for the Revenue. The refiner then refines some of the salt rock, calling for the officer to weigh out 20 bushels, more or less, at 75 pounds per bushel, and placing it into large cisterns of water for melting. The officer grants a drawback for this. However, due to the lengthy melting process, which often occurs when the officer is absent or in bed, half of the rock is removed from the cisterns.\nAnd conveyed back to the Warehouse; this practice is repeated until double the duty paid at the pits is drawn back upon melting. Brine salt makers have no opportunity for drawback on their salt, except upon exportation. The bill sufficiently provides against the cheats in this regard, protecting the revenue and fair trader. However, if the author's proposal in the paper were allowed (that both brine and rock be charged with duty at the pits), a drawback would need to be allowed upon boiling; then, brine salt makers would easily find ways to evade the duty, as rock refiners do. The paper asserts that rock is not refined in any creeks or secret places but in great towns, with an Excise Officer employed there.\nThe paper does not allow the collection of duty without additional charge; this is not true, as the paper's margin reveals where Helbre and Hyde in Cheshire, Peelstouder in Lancashire, and Grane in Kent are mentioned as refineries for rock-salt. A thousand such refineries would be established if it were limited to being refined only at the pits, as once it leaves there, it cannot be contained within bounds.\n\nThe paper proposes further that refining rock-salt only at the pits would be unprofitable, which is not true. The rock is refined by creating a brine from it, and by allowing water to remain in the pit, it will produce a stronger brine, which can be brought up with minimal labor through pumping, saving the cost of digging the rock and winding it up. Additionally, even according to the assertion in the paper, salt refined from rock salt sells for six pence per bushel more than Newcastle salt.\nWhereas salt made from brine is never sold for more than 5d per bushel at the works. The paper also alleges that if rock-salt is limited only to the pits, brine proprietors will be the only manufacturers and will then have the power to set what rates they please. This is totally impossible. In the first place, rock-pits will become brine-pits (as some have done), and even they will afford such plenty of salt as would supply more than half the kingdom. But in the next place, there are now so very many brine-pits in Cheshire, Staffordshire, and Worcestershire, besides the very many salt-works in the bishopric of Durham and Northumberland, and some also at Port-Sea and Limington, that the only contention is, and always will be, who shall gain most customers by selling cheapest.\nThe Justices of Peace have the power to set prices for salt. The author praises his rock salt over all others, but his assessment is disputed. The brine extracted from rock salt does not contain the harmful, impure parts that remain with the rock and give it a reddish color and high bitterness content. Therefore, the author is incorrect in his philosophy, as the entire rock, including the sand and bittern, is mashed to create salt that inevitably absorbs these harmful qualities.\nSeveral merchants who had their fish and provisions spoiled testify against the use of certain salt in the text below. However, the author of the paper in question demonstrates a lack of knowledge about salt in his last two paragraphs. In the first, he mentions that the Dutch have strictly enforced the use of resined salt, which is made from sea water. Yet, in the next paragraph, he discourages all salt, specifically Newcastle salt, which is also made from sea water. For a better understanding of brine salt, Newcastle salt, Port Sea, Limington salt, and Dutch salt, the author is referred to Mr. Collins' book, \"Salt and Fishery,\" where he will find that the salt discouraged as the worst and having the most noxious qualities of sand and bittern is that made from sea water and granulated by the sun.\nAnd so used without boiling it up with fire; this is the Salt which the Dutch must not use for their herrings. But the Salt made from brine-springs, and Salt made with fire from seawater, are recommended by that Author, who was a good judge of such matters, for all uses.\n\nThe Author's Conclusion is a wild, random estimate of what the refineries have cost. He hopes the Honorable House will not pass that clause which destroys the use of them without giving some satisfaction. By this, it is plain they are so harmful to the Duty on Salt, that himself thinks they will not be longer allowed.\n\nTherefore, the answer to him is, that the rock-refiners, having cheated the Nation of ten times more money than all their cost about their refineries amounts to, they are too well paid if they are allowed to go away unpunished.\n\nAn Answer to the Paper Entitled, The Case of the Proprietors and Refiners of Rock-Salt.", "creation_year": 1701, "creation_year_earliest": 1700, "creation_year_latest": 1701, "source_dataset": "EEBO", "source_dataset_detailed": "EEBO_Phase2"},
{"content": "In the year 1473, Thomas Green, Vicar of Great Linton in Cambridgeshire, lodged a complaint with the Master and Scholars of Pembrook-Hall in the University of Cambridge (who held the rectory) regarding the remoteness of the Vicarage's manor house from the church. The Master, Scholars, and Vicar, through indentures dated 18th of June 1473, reached an agreement to settle the dispute and establish peace between them. The Master, Scholars, and their successors were granted the manor house, while the Vicar and his successors received a messuage near the church, 10 acres of arable land in the fields, the tithes of 40 acres of corn, 12 shillings annual rent, and other lesser tithes, which the Vicar usually received for their portion of all corn and grain.\nAnd they should have the tithes of saffron from certain lands mentioned, and 3 shillings 4 pence annually, in lieu of all tithes of saffron; and should also have all oblations, personal tithes, mortuaries of strangers, and all other small tithes, such as of wool, lambs, milk, calves, flax, hemp, herbs, fruits, geese, pigs, wax, and honey. FOR their and their whole and entire portion of tithes forever, notwithstanding any other things that might happen, de novo.\n\nThat is, the vicars have enjoyed the messuage near the church, and the 10 acres of land, and the tithes of 40 acres, and other agreed matters.\n\nAbout 60 years ago, carrots and turnips began to be sown in the common fields of Linton. At first, they were sown in such small quantities that the tithes were not recognized, and for some few years, the vicar received the tithes of them under the notion of small tithes.\nBut afterwards, when whole fields were sown with carrots and turnips, and the tithe became valuable, Curtis, the farmer of the rectory, applied to the college. Upon review of the indenture of composition, it appeared that these were not included as they were a new kind of tithes that occurred afterwards.\n\nTherefore, he sued for the tithes of carrots and turnips sown in the common fields, and for over 20 years, the college and their farmers of the rectory have enjoyed them, as well as the tithes of hasty peas, which have been sown in the common fields in great quantities.\n\nThe respondent sued the appellants with an English bill in the Exchequer for the tithes of the said peas, carrots, and turnips sown in the common fields of Linton in the year 1694.\n\nAnd the said court has adjudged the said tithes to belong to the vicar and not to the impropriator, and has decreed the appellants to account and make satisfaction for them to the respondent.\nWhich Decree, the appellants humbly conceive and are advised, is erroneous. It is contrary to the express words and intent of the Indenture of Composition, which was made to quiet all claims and questions and ascertain and settle the right and pretenses of the Vicar. By the Composition, the Vicar has a recompense given expressly in lieu of all tithes BLADORUM; which comprehends all corn and grain. Also, the small tithes the Vicar was to have are enumerated, and he is excluded from any new sort of tithes that might happen afterward.\n\nObject 1. It was objected at the hearing (upon which the Decree seems to be founded) that these peas are of the kind of garden peas or hasty peas, which were usually set or sown in gardens, and these are gathered green and managed with a hoe as in gardens; and peas in gardens pay tithes to the Vicar, and therefore they ought to pay in common fields as a small tithe.\nIn response, peas pay in gardens only due to the location (vicars typically holding the tithes of gardens). However, peas, being substantial tithes in their own right, are not made small due to being gathered green or produced earlier through cultivation than in common fields.\n\nAdditionally, the hoe, formerly used primarily in gardens, is now found to be an effective farming method in common fields, not just for peas but also for other grains. This method of cultivation does not diminish the size of the tithes.\nSeveral hundred acres of the common fields and enclosed grounds in the Parish are sown with peas, carrots, and turnips. This profitable method of farming increases every year, meaning that if the Vicar must receive the tithes, the entire profits of the Parish will eventually belong to him. The impropriation given for the sustenance of the college will dwindle to nothing, yielding neither fines nor rent for these lands that once provided valuable tithes to the impropriator but nothing to the Vicar. This judgment in the Exchequer may impact, and potentially prejudice, most, if not all, impropriations in England.\n\nObject 2: The Vicar previously held possession of these tithes, so a new endowment for them may be intended.\nAn ancient and uninterrupted possession, where no inducement appears to be contrary, may be aided by such an intent. But this is not the present case. Here are three reasons why:\n\n1. There is an express indowment that excludes the Vicar.\n2. The subject matter is not ancient enough for such an intent to be built upon it. This course of husbandry being first introduced within the last 60 years.\n3. There is neither an uninterrupted nor continued possession. At first, one person received them while the Vicar held them, and another while the Farmer of the Impropriation did. The Vicar received them for a few years, but after the Farmer of the Impropriation consulted the College and found these tithes belonged to them, they claimed and sued for those tithes and had them. They have been enjoyed by the College and their farmers for over 20 years, making the possession theirs as well as the Vicar's.\nAnd it is difficult to establish such a Question by a Decree without calling in the College, who have the Fee of the Impropriation.\n\nObject 3. It is a Poor Vicarage.\n\nResponse. The Respondent was offered 40 l. per year for what he has without the tithes in question, and he may have that rent when he pleases, but thinks it too little. As for the respondent, he cannot plead poverty, holding another benefice worth 100 l. per year.\n\nAppellants' Case.\nThomas Martin and others, Appellants, against William Stephens, Respondent.\nTo be heard on Wednesday, the 17th day of February, 1696.", "creation_year": 1701, "creation_year_earliest": 1696, "creation_year_latest": 1705, "source_dataset": "EEBO", "source_dataset_detailed": "EEBO_Phase2"},
{"content": "William Lenthal, Esquire, having been seized in fee of the office of Marshal of the Kings-Bench several years ago, granted the said office to William Briggs, Esquire, at an annual rent of \u00a31,400. The grant was to hold to him and his assigns for his life.\n\nBriggs held the office for six years and, about a year ago, granted or assigned his interest in the said office to George Taylor. For this, Taylor paid Briggs \u00a32,000 and acknowledged a judgment of \u00a31,400 penalty for securing the payment of the same rent to Briggs, as Briggs had covenanted to pay Lenthal. Briggs is still alive.\nIn Easter Term, Mr. Taylor was admitted into the office and paid rent to Mr. Briggs for four months. However, Mr. Boulter and others prevented the payment to Mr. Briggs. Afterwards, Taylor agreed to become a tenant of Mr. Boulter, on the condition that Boulter indemnify him against Briggs. Taylor paid Boulter 100 l. as part of the rent. Despite this, Mr. Briggs executed a judgment against Taylor for 1400 l. because he had noticed Taylor's agreement and payment to Boulter. Taylor was still willing and ready to pay his rent and was being indemnified.\nAfter all this (as is supposed, by Mr. Boulters means) a clause was presented to the Committee of the Right Honourable House of Lords (to whom the said Bill was committed) for making void all Grants heretofore made by the said Mr. Lenthall of the said Office, which clause was received by the said Committee, Notwithstanding it is admitted that Mr. Lenthall had a Right to make the aforesaid Grant to Mr. Briggs, under which Mr. Taylor claims.\nThis Clause was presented at the Close of the Commttee, and received without any Notice to Mr. Taylor, and he never was heard against it, and if the Clause should pass, Mr. Taylor will thereby be divested of his Freehold in the said Office, (without being heard) and lose his 2000 l Purchase Mony. Of which (with submission) there is no President in Parliamentary Proceedings, Wherefore it is humbly hoped, that this Honorable House wilt be pleased to reject the said Clause, or admit Mr. Taylor to be heard by his Council against the same.\nThe Clause is as follows;\nAnd be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that all and every depiction or deputations, grant or grants, at any time heretofore made or executed by William Lenthal, Esq; of the said Office of Marshal of the Marshalsea of the said Court of King's Bench, is, and are hereby declared void and of none effect. And that all and every succeeding marshal shall from time to time, and at all times hereafter, be constituted and appointed by the said William Lenthal, his heirs and assigns, with the consent in writing under the hand and seal of Edmond Boulter, Esq; his executors, administrators, and assigns, until the debt owing by the said William Lenthal to the said Edmond Boulter, Executor of Sir John Cutler, Baron deceased, be satisfied.", "creation_year": 1701, "creation_year_earliest": 1700, "creation_year_latest": 1701, "source_dataset": "EEBO", "source_dataset_detailed": "EEBO_Phase2"},
{"content": "Richard Fagan, brother of the aforementioned Peter and under whom he claims, was proven by the Queen's Warrant for Reversal of his outlawry (grounded upon the cases having been examined by Sir George Treby, then Attorney General) to have quit his command of an old company, in accordance with their Majesties Declaration of the 22nd of February 1688, and to have retired to his habitation, living inoffensively (without re-taking any employment, either civil or military) until he was murdered in August 1690 by Rapparees in the English Quarters, for owning Their Majesties.\n\nAll these particulars are also further proven by affidavits viva voce, recently taken before Judges and Masters of Chancery in London. These affidavits, along with the above-mentioned Warrant, are annexed to the Report made by the Trustees here.\nHis being outlawed contrary to law, justice, and reason after death is proven by the certificate of the proper officer of Ireland (who is now in town) and acknowledged by the trustees, with the certificate attached to their report. And with this groundless and illegal outlawry reversed, the said Peter Fagan can have no relief but by humbly applying (as he now does) to the justice and compassion of the Honorable the House of Commons for its reversal.\n\nCase of Peter Fagan of Feltrim.", "creation_year": 1701, "creation_year_earliest": 1701, "creation_year_latest": 1701, "source_dataset": "EEBO", "source_dataset_detailed": "EEBO_Phase2"},
{"content": "On Tuesday, 28th November last, around midnight, the roof of the parish church collapsed, causing the walls to shake significantly. Skilled workmen have assessed that the church cannot be repaired but must be rebuilt, with an estimated cost of over 6000 pounds. The parishioners are unable to raise this amount but humbly request the Honourable HOUSE OF COMMONS for compassionate relief, for the following reasons:\nI. The decay of the church was not perceivable to the inhabitants and therefore could not be prevented. The fall of the roof was sudden and unexpected, caused by a hidden defect in the innermost part of the largest and principal pillar, which fell and brought the roof down with it, and not due to negligence of the parishioners. They had constantly and diligently repaired all defects of the church as soon as discovered, and within a few years had spent several hundred pounds on its support and decoration. They did not suspect any danger and believed it could have stood for hundreds of years.\n\nII. Within the past twenty years, the town has been greatly depopulated and deserted by the wealthier sort who once lived there, giving it a reputation as a wealthy parish. This is evident in the largest and best houses now being empty and having been so for some years.\nIII. The majority of the gentlemen living there are merely tenants at will, and so it cannot be expected that they will bear the great expense of building a church in a parish where they have no estate and can leave at will. Therefore, the burden of constructing the church falls upon the largest group, which are the poorest inhabitants.\nIV. Nearly nine-tenths of the inhabitants of the said parish are made up of seamen, watermen, fishermen, and others, who for the most part are employed in Her Majesty's and the merchants' service at sea and have large families. The trading part of the town, consisting only of necessities of life, is in a low condition due to the long credit they are forced to extend to seafaring men and their families, who frequently remain in arrears of pay.\nV. Over 3000 widows and children of Master of Families from the parish have become a charge to the parish due to Sir Cloudsley Shovel's misfortune and other war accidents.\nVI. The parishioners, who have contributed to the rebuilding of St. Paul's and other churches through taxes on coals for the past forty years, humbly request the compassion of the Honorable HOUSE OF COMMONS for relief in this deplorable calamity. The greatest number of inhabitants, who bear the unbearable burden of building the parish church, are persons who daily risk their lives in Her Majesty's service and for the defense of their country. Since the town has been without a Dissenting Meeting-House, the hopes of those who take advantage of the lack of a suitable place for worshiping God may be frustrated, preventing them from seducing the inhabitants from their former zeal for the Church of England towards schism and enthusiasm.\nAnd since St. Paul's is now finished or nearly so, and the duties granted for coal have several years yet to come, and may likely produce more than enough to pay all debts and charges for the building, as well as all borrowed money on that account. Therefore, they humbly request that the sum of 6000 pounds, or whatever other sum your honors deem fit, for rebuilding the parish-church of Greenwich, be assigned from the surplus of the duties remaining after all debts and charges have been paid.\n\nThe Case of the Inhabitants of Greenwich, in the County of Kent, and Reasons for Seeking Relief for Rebuilding their Parish-Church.", "creation_year": 1701, "creation_year_earliest": 1701, "creation_year_latest": 1701, "source_dataset": "EEBO", "source_dataset_detailed": "EEBO_Phase2"},
{"content": "Sir Walter Dongan, baronet, grandfather of the current Earl of Limerick, inherited several manors, lands, and other properties in Ireland through descent from his ancestors and a grant in 1622 from his brother William Dongan, Recorder of Dublin. Sir Walter died in 1627, and the estate passed to his eldest son, Sir John Dongan, father of the current earl.\n\nIn July 1642, Sir John Dongan, with eight sons - Walter, William, Edward, Robert, Michael, Jerome, Thomas, and James - made his will and entailed both estates upon all his sons successively, except for a small part in the Queen's County, which he entailed upon the second son of his family at the time. Sir John died in 1650.\n\nIn 1652, Sir John Dongan and his two eldest sons, who had served in the King's Army during the English Civil War, had their estate sequestered and kept from the family until the restoration of King Charles II.\n\nSir Walter Dongan, eldest son of Sir John Dongan.\n5. In 1663, Sir William Dongan, the second son and later created Viscount Dongan of Clane, along with his father and elder brother, were declared innocent by the Court of Claims in Ireland. The Viscount was restored to both the Estates.\n\n6. All other sons of Sir John Dongan, except William and Thomas, died without issue. Thomas, as the second son of the family, enjoyed the Estate in Queen's County according to his father's will, about five and twenty years before the last war in Ireland.\n\n7. In July 1676, William, Viscount Dongan, intending to go to Spain, made a settlement of his estate for his use during his life, with the remainder to his eldest son and every other son in tail male. The remainder was granted to his brother Thomas (now Earl) in tail male, with various other remainders. However, this settlement, made in the country, was poorly advised and poorly written.\n8. In 1685, William Viscount Dongan was created Earl of Limerick. The title was limited to Thomas (then called Colonel Thomas Dongan) and his male heirs.\n9. In 1686, William Earl of Limerick levied some fines from his estate to create a jointure for his wife and borrow money. He borrowed 7500 pounds from his wife's mother, Donna Mariana Chambers, the widow of Sir Richard Chambers. Earl of Limerick granted a rent-charge of 450 pounds per annum to the Lords Kingsland and Trimblestown and their heirs in trust for her. The rent-charge was redeemable upon payment of 7500 pounds and all arrears of the rent at any time after. This was a common practice in Ireland to mortgage property without entering the estate and being accountable for profits, as the Irish courts of equity never foreclosed a mortgager of the equity of redemption.\n10. In 1688, William Earl of Limerick lived near Dublin in Ireland during the Revolution.\nAnd he had a Regiment of Dragoons, but being an old paralytic man, he was incapable of action. His nobility obliged him to attend the person of the late King James when he arrived there, and to be part of his council, as the present Majesty did not yet have any forces in that kingdom to resort to for protection. However, it is notoriously known that William Earl of Limerick opposed in council all violent proceedings against the Protestants.\n\nThe 11th of April, 1689, saw William Earl of Limerick laying down his commission as Colonel of Dragoons. He did so in obedience to their Majesties' proclamation, which promised indemnity and enjoyment of their estates to all who laid down their arms before that time. After this, he accepted no other commission except one for the government of Munster, which he accepted at the earnest request of the Protestants, whose persons, estates, and churches he preserved from all manner of violence.\nMany eminent Protestants certified this under their hands:\n\n12. After the Battle of the Boyne, where he did not engage, William Earl of Limerick left Ireland and, having no other opportunity, went to Brittany in France.\n\n13. After the reduction of Ireland, William Earl of Limerick was outlawed on 13 separate indictments for high treason against King William and Queen Mary. These generally did not specify any particular act of treason, but were alleged to have been committed on February 13, 1688. This was the very day their Majesties were declared king and queen; it was therefore impossible for him, who was then in Ireland, to have notice of their accession to the crown and consequently to be guilty of any treason against them.\n\n14. In 1693, Godart Earl of Athlone obtained a warrant for a grant of the Earl of Limerick's estate. The current Earl of Limerick, having notice of it, petitioned the queen for time to make out his title before the grant passed. In this interval\nThe Earl, with the Secretary of State's permission, requested information from his brother in France about the settlements of the estate. Due to his long absence from England and the unlikely chance of returning, the details had slipped his memory. His brother sent the Earl a deed of settlement from 1676, which the Earl believed would secure his rights. He showed it to the Secretary of State and several council at law, who found issues with the unskilled drafting and poor handwriting but deemed it valid in law. One council member made a copy to prevent loss at sea during the journey to Ireland.\n\nThe Queen ordered the deed to be sent to Ireland for presentation before the Lords Justices. They instructed the Solicitor General, who was also a council member with the Earl of Athlone, to receive it.\n\nThe Solicitor General received the deed about three days before the scheduled presentation to the Lords Justices.\nPronounced it a forged Deed, and preferred an Information against the Earl of Limerick, his Council, Attorney, and agents, for publishing this Deed. This deterred all Persons from appearing on the Earl of Limerick's part, and the Lords Justices were therefore induced to believe it a forged Deed.\n\nOne of the defendants to the Information swore in his Answer that he brought this Deed out of France in the same condition it was when delivered to the Soldier General; and if the late or present Earl of Limerick could have been guilty of so dishonorable a practice, they could not want assistance to have had a Deed well drawn, well written, and well attested. This Deed is attested by six Witnesses, some of whom are now living in Ireland, and Persons of Estate and Reputation.\n\nBy this management, the Deed was damned without any Trial, and ordered to be hung up in the Exchequer in Ireland, where it continues; and the Grant of the Estate to the Earl of Athlone, passed without opposition.\nIn the Queen's County, the lands are comprised, though the Lords Justices, upon proof of the Earl's long enjoyment as second son, had ordered the Commissioners of the Revenues to restore them. 1694. The Earl of Athlone's agents, apprehensive of the defects in the outlawries, procured an Act of Parliament in Ireland for confirming the late Earl of Limerick's attainder and the grant of his estate to the Earl of Athlone, despite any reversal of the attainder or any charter of pardon or restitution. 1693. Before this Act passed, the Lady Chambers, who had the mortgage for 7500 l. on this estate, came to England to look after it. The now Earl of Limerick, looking upon himself as next entitled to the estate after his brother's death, bought in this debt and rent-charge by which it was secured for a sum of ready money.\nThe agents of the Earl of Athlone initially attempted to impeach the mortgage given to Lady Chambers for forgery. However, with many persons of honor and quality still living to attest to it, they abandoned this plan. Instead, they instigated the following strategy.\n\nThey ordered an inquisition in Dublin, which declared Lady Chambers an alien. Consequently, the rent-charge granted for the security of her \u00a37500 was seized by the King, as real estate purchased in trust for an alien. The King was entitled to this grant, and the Lords Kingsland and Trimblestown obtained it from the King in 1695.\n\nHowever, this grant of the rent-charge to the Lords Kingsland and Trimblestown was not intended to be a purchase but merely a mortgage. Money lent on a mortgage in fee is considered personal estate, which an alien may acquire. If the late Earl of Limerick had repaid the money before the inquisition was taken, this would have been the case.\nThe King could not obtain anything through an Inquisition conducted afterward.\n\n25. The Lady Chambers was an Alien Friend, that is, a Spanish woman, and the widow of an Englishman, Sir Richard Chambers. She ought not to have been treated as an Alien Enemy.\n\n26. Besides the particular hardship for the now Earl of Limerick, this Precedent could have negative consequences for the English in Spain. They frequently lend money on mortgage of houses and lands, but Englishmen not naturalized cannot purchase estates in Spain, and Spaniards cannot purchase in England.\n\n27. However, if strictly applying the law, this rent-charge mortgaged in trust for an Alien is considered a purchase. The King could not be entitled to it, nor any profits from it, until an Inquisition was taken and his title was found in the records. The Lady Chambers and her grantee were entitled to all the arrears incurred before. Yet, based on a bill presented by the Earl of Athlone in the Court of Chancery of Ireland.\nAn injunction was granted to halt all proceedings on a distress for arrears and remains in effect to this day.\n\n28. This action prompted the Earl of Limerick to recall the ancient settlements of the estate and remember the entail established by his father's will. He communicated this to the Earl of Athlone and, with his consent, petitioned the king to examine his title to the estate through the Lord Chancellor of Ireland or the Attorney General there. The Earl of Athlone informed the Earl of Limerick that the king had promised to make amends to him if the Earl of Limerick had a valid title.\n\n29. The king referred the matter to the Lords Justices of Ireland, but this reference was suppressed until the Earl of Athlone went to Ireland, sold part of the estate, and departed from the kingdom. However, the purchasers were aware of the Petitioner's claim from the Earl of Athlone.\n\n30. Only then was the reference produced.\n and the Lords Justices referr'd the Case over to the Attorney and Sollicitor General of Ireland, who were both of Council with the Earl of Athlone, and made their Report to the effect following.\nFirst, That Sir Walter Dongan, Grandfather of the now Earl of Limerick, in 1615. settled the antient Estate of the Family on Sir John Dongan, and the Heirs Male of his Body, with divers Remainders over; which disabled Sir John Dongan to make any Settlement by his Will in 1642. and that Earl William levied several Fines of the Estate, and made himself Tenant in Fee.\nSecondly, That Sir John Dongan's Will is questionable, and to be suspected, because not prov'd till above twenty Years after the Date of it, viz. in 1663. and was then prov'd only in com\u2223mon Form by the Executor upon his Oath de Credulitate, and by one Patrick Fitz-Gerald, and not by any one of the four subscribing Witnesses to the Will; and Earl William took no notice of this Will in his Petition to the Court of Claims.\nThirdly\nThat the Earl of Limerick has no right to any estate of his ancestors because he was never declared innocent by the Court of Claims, though his father and two elder brothers were, and that the Acts of Settlement make all persons non-innocent who were not.\n\nTo the first of these, the Earl of Limerick answers:\nNo such deed of Settlement from 1615 has been produced, nor any trace of it apparent, except for an office found in 1627 and some mention in William Earl of Limerick's petition to the Court of Claims, which are not binding evidence. Nor was this deed produced to the Court of Claims, as indicated in their decree. Nor was there any occasion to prove anything more than his father's seisin and his own innocence.\n\nBut if such a Settlement had been made in 1615 and still existed, limitations in it might appear for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, &c. sons of Sir John Dongan.\nSir John Dongan had no power to include the Estate of William Dongan, Recorder of Dublin in his settlement of 1615, as it was not devised to him until 1622. The fines levied by Earl William could only bind his own issue and not those claiming in remainder. The settlement was resettled by Earl William in 1676 through a condemned deed without trial.\n\nSir John Dongan lived eight years after the date of his will.\nFrom before 1650, there was no court in Ireland for probating wills. When Sir John Dongan and his two elder sons were declared innocent by the Court of Claims in 1663, this will was proven. It has been registered in Dublin since then.\n\nThe will was proven in common form because no one disputed its truth or contested its inheritance. In such cases, wills are rarely proven otherwise. Proving a will concerning lands in any court is not necessary unless it is contested. The four subscribing witnesses, including Patrick Fitz-Gerald, who was sworn to its truth, were well acquainted with Sir John Dongan's and the witnesses' handwriting and could attest to its execution.\nThe late Earl of Limerick did not mention this Will in his Petition to the Court of Claims because it would have appeared from that Will that Sir John Dongan was seized in fee. If Sir John Dongan or his eldest son Walter had not been decreed innocent, the estate would have been forfeited, even if E. William had been decreed innocent. But after the decree of innocency, E. William acknowledged the Will and permitted his mother to enjoy the jointure settled by it upon her, which he previously refused to allow, and also allowed the second son of the family to enjoy the lands in the Queen's County, to which they had no other pretense than by that Will.\n\nThere are several living witnesses who were acquainted with the handwriting of Sir John Dongan and have sworn that this Will is signed by him, as they verify believe.\n\nMany more arguments can be urged to prove the truth of this Will; but its being registered in Dublin 36 years ago is another piece of evidence.\nThe Earl of Limerick justifies his title from all suspicion of forgery for the following reasons:\n\nTo the third objection, he answers:\nHe was not a year old when the Irish Rebellion broke out in 1641, and therefore could not be guilty of it. If the Acts of Settlement in Ireland make or suppose all persons guilty who were not decreed innocent, these Acts must have a reasonable interpretation and be understood to extend only to those capable of being guilty, not to impotent children who could not speak, much less act treason.\n\nThe Earl of Limerick's title comes from a will subsequent to the Rebellion in 1641, made by a person who was decreed innocent. Since the estate was not vested in the Crown or completely taken out of the Crown by that decree, and the Earl was not under any incapacity to take by that will, there was no need for a decree for his innocency. This has been adjudged in the King's Bench in Ireland.\nUpon a special verdict in the case of Sir Stephen Rice:\n\n31. Since this report, William Earl of Limerick is deceased, and the honor and right to the estate are vested in Thomas, now Earl of Limerick.\n32. The current earl does not justify his late brother's actions against King William III but hopes the loyalty of his family, including that of the Earl of William himself, who served England and had family members killed in its service, may atone for one offense. Earl William, under the unfortunate circumstances at the beginning of the late revolution, could scarcely avoid this act. The current earl, who was in no way involved and has always been faithful and somewhat serviceable to this nation, should not bear the punishment for his brother's crimes. Instead, the merits of the Earl of Athlone should be rewarded in another way than at the cost of the Earl of Limerick's birthright.\n33. The current earl takes little pleasure in recounting his own services.\nHe believes all he has done or can do is his duty, but he hopes it will not be considered vanity or ostentation for him to mention on this occasion what he acted and suffered for the Crown and Nation of England. He was bred a soldier and became Colonel of the Irish Regiment in France, worth over 5000 l. per year to him. In 1677/8, in pursuance of a vote of Parliament for recalling English subjects then in the French King's service, he quit that honorable and advantageous post and rejected the temptation of greater preferments if he would continue there. For this reason, the French King commanded him to leave France in 48 hours.\nAnd refused to pay a debt of 65,000 Livres owed to him for recruits and arrears, as stated in an account with the Intendant of Nancy. This is known to the Earl of Montagu, then Ambassador in France.\n\nKing Charles II nominated him to be a general officer in the English Army, which was intended for Flanders, and settled upon him a pension of 500 l. per year for life, in consideration of his losses in France. This pension has been stopped since the Revolution.\n\n1678. Appointed Lieutenant Governor of Tangier, and removed from there in 1680. In 1682, he was sent as Governor of New York in America.\n\nUpon his arrival, he brought five warlike Indian nations, who had been seduced by the French of Canada and used to burn and destroy the plantations of Virginia and Maryland, to make peace and become subjects of the English Crown. By doing so, those colonies were delivered from a vast charge they had previously been shouldering for their defense.\nAnd the adjacent colonies were protected from other Indians.\n\n1686/7. The French in Canada, angered by the five Nations of Indians aligning with the English, declared war with 3000 French soldiers and other Indians. The Earl of Limerick took the five Nations under his protection. Despite haughty messages from the French governor of Canada, Limerick raised an army of Christians and Indians, who, under his directions, killed many, took 500 prisoners, and destroyed all their corn and provisions, leaving them with nothing but what came from France. They would have had to leave the country if Limerick had been allowed to continue the war for another year; however, a peace was concluded, and Limerick was dismissed from his government due to the French king's complaint.\n\nLimerick maintained this war for over a year and a half at his own expense, using his own money, mortgaging his lands, and selling his plate and furniture.\nAnd he gave his bonds for provisions and ammunition to the value of many thousand pounds. Of this, he received no more than 2,500 pounds in tallies. His present Majesty ordered him to discharge some pressing debts with this. For the truth of this, he refers to the Honorable Mr. Blathwait, then Secretary and Auditor General of the Plantations, and to Mr. Povey.\n\nIn 1687-8, before the happy revolution, he received letters (ready to be produced) from King James and the Earl of Sunderland, inviting him home with assurances of good employment; and from the Earl of Tyrconnel, offering him the command of a Major General in the Army and of a regiment of dragoons in Ireland, which he refused. After his dismissal from his government, he remained in New York and New England until the year 1691. When he came to this kingdom, he has lived here ever since in retirement.\nAnd conforming to the Government, the Earl of Limerick seeks relief from the Parliament of England, humbly hoping they will grant him such relief as their justice and wisdom deem fit. We, the Protestant inhabitants of the City or County of Limerick, in gratitude for the favors received from the late Earl during his government of Munster and at his request, certify that he was not only willing to hear and redress the complaints of Protestants who remained in their houses and possessions despite attempts by Irish Proprietors, under the pretext of law and the supposed Act of Repeal, to evict them; and that throughout the duration of his government.\nby his Countenance we and other Protestants had the free exercise of our religion. The churches being preserved by his power for that exercise, when the Popish Clergy, as we have heard and do truly believe, often importuned him to appropriate the same to the Popish Service.\n\nGiven under our hands this Eighth Day of November 1699.\n\nSigned by 66 Protestants of Quality and Note.", "creation_year": 1701, "creation_year_earliest": 1701, "creation_year_latest": 1701, "source_dataset": "EEBO", "source_dataset_detailed": "EEBO_Phase2"},
{"content": "In the County of Cork, Sylvanus Spencer, Esquire and father of William, granted part of his estate to Peregrine, his second brother, for the purpose of Peregrine's marriage. After Peregrine's death, this portion of the estate passed to Hugoline, Peregrine's son. Hugoline was later outlawed for treason and rebellion following the Irish revolution. Finding Hugoline's estate vested in the king, and being the next Protestant heir as well as the heir at law to Hugoline, William Spencer petitioned the monarch for a grant of this estate. He detailed his claim to the property and his services, sufferings, and losses during the Irish rebellion on behalf of the government.\nHis Majesty referred the petition to the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury in England, who in turn referred it to the Earls of Montrath, Drogheda, and Galloway, then Lords Justices of Ireland, to examine the matter and report back. The Lords Justices reported back to the Lords of the Treasury in England, recommending William for His Majesty's grace and favor due to his great services, sufferings, and losses during the troubles, and as the next Protestant heir to Hugoline. His Majesty granted Hugoline's estate to William by letters patent dated at Dublin on June 14, in the ninth year of his reign. The estate was valued at \u00a367.17.6 annually. A mortgage of \u00a3500 was on the estate, which remained unpaid.\nThat it cost the said William over \u00a3600, the better part of his fortune, in improving the said estate and obtaining the grant. However, due to a recent Act of Parliament in Ireland, all grants were made void, and the forfeited estates were vested in trustees to be sold for the public's benefit. During this time, the said William was too ill to come before this Honorable House to request a saving clause, which would have prevented the trustees from disposing of the estate without considering his improvements and other charges, resulting in his ruin and impoverishment.\nThat this is the only case of this kind in the entire Kingdom of Ireland, as the petitioner is the next Protestant heir, and whose grandfather, Edmond Spencer, received these lands through a book entitled \"A View of Ireland,\" which outlined the settlement of that kingdom. The petitioner previously applied to this honorable house during the last session of parliament for relief in this matter. The petition was then referred to the trustees in England, who reported back to this honorable house. Upon further consideration of that report, it was referred to the trustees in Ireland, who have now reported as follows: The petitioner was of great service to the public by acting as a guide to His Majesty's General, the Earl of Arthlone, during the recent wars in that kingdom.\nThat he had 300 head of black cattle and 1500 sheep taken from him, several houses burnt, family stripped, and his only son given above twenty wounds by the Irish Army. In consideration of his services and sufferings, and being the next Protestant heir to Hugoline Spencer, who was attainted, His Majesty granted the forfeited estate of the said Hugoline to the petitioner in 1697, now set at \u00a360 per annum. There is a claim heard and allowed as an encumbrance of \u00a3300 absolute, and \u00a3200 more in case Hugoline, who is very old and unmarried, dies without a male issue. The petitioner has expended nearly the sum mentioned in his petition in bringing jurors to England to procure his grant, passing his patent in Ireland, and building a house and planting an orchard on the premises. Therefore, his grant has hitherto been a charge to him and not an advantage.\nAnd the Petitioner humbly hopes this Honorable House will consider my case and restore me in my estate or otherwise provide relief as seems meet.\n\nThe Case of William Spencer, Esq.", "creation_year": 1701, "creation_year_earliest": 1701, "creation_year_latest": 1701, "source_dataset": "EEBO", "source_dataset_detailed": "EEBO_Phase2"},
{"content": "It has been a wonder to all travelers who have visited the City of London to observe its vast riches and beautiful structures, yet its streets lie poorly paved and unhealthy. This issue, when addressed, would significantly improve both the health and beauty of the city, a fact that the entire kingdom has recognized through various Parliament acts for paving and cleaning the streets. However, none of these acts have had the desired effect, as they only impose penalties for defects but do not provide means for their correction. Perfection of this task can only be achieved through a general undertaking, a method that famous European cities have discovered through experience, for the following reasons:\n\nI.\nThe quantity to be paved and cleansed is so large that to have it done and kept as it should requires a very great sum to be raised and appropriated for that purpose alone.\n\nII. If everyone paves only before their own door, there can never be a true level or regular current observed. Each one paving at different times, according to their private interest or fancy, higher or lower, to accommodate some threshold, cellar-door, cross-kennel, or some irregular ascent or fall, they have no mind to alter, without any regard to the public. Thus, it is impossible for a common line to be observed, or for there to be any raising or abating, turning, or any ways altering a current, though necessary.\n\nIII. Many, when they pave, have so little time in their houses that they purposely do it slightly to last their own time only. Some out of covetousness, will either not pave at all or so very little that the streets are nothing the better.\nWhere pavement layers are paid sufficiently to do their work properly, yet they still use inferior materials or work them poorly, resulting in rough and disorderly surfaces. It is in their interest to have the work frequently done rather than well done, and they hire unskilled laborers who work at the lowest rate. Additionally, they raise each new pavement higher than their neighbors, which quickly damages the adjoining pavements.\nWhereas, if done by a Society to continue the task, it will be their business and interest to employ the most skilled and experienced persons. They should form and keep each street with a perfect and regular level and current. The stones should be of true size and the most lasting sort, and laid in such stuff for longest firmness. This is the only way for streets to lie even and be handsomely paved, allowing them to be swept clean and kept neat. Otherwise, it is impossible.\n\nIt is likewise absolutely necessary that sweeping the streets be performed at the charge and care of the undertakers, or else scarcely three of the inhabitants will sweep before their doors at the same time, and some will not sweep until the dirt carts have gone, resulting in the entire street becoming dirty again.\nThe Undertakers are willing to oblige for the whole Work to be regularly and ornamentally done at One Shilling per yard square for new laying in all places already paved. For places not yet paved, after being first cleansed and graveled for pavement, the sum of 4 shillings and 6 pence for every yard square will be charged for paving with scapel-stone; and 1 shilling and 4 pence.\nFor every yard square paved with common pavement, each inhabitant shall pay a proportionate share: Undertakers are responsible for sweeping and repairing the pavement at a cost of four pence half-penny per square yard. This is cheaper than current arrangements, even in their rough condition. This method will free inhabitants from indictments and penalties, and prevent disputes over parish rates.\nThe Undertakers are required, at their own costs and charges, to remove dirt, dust, ashes, and filth from houses, streets, lanes, and alleys, and keep the streets clean during the specified term. They are willing to pay fines if there are any defects in paving or cleaning that are not immediately rectified upon notice. Besides the usual remedy of distress for such defects, payments from the various wards or parishes may be withheld until the fines are paid.", "creation_year": 1701, "creation_year_earliest": 1700, "creation_year_latest": 1701, "source_dataset": "EEBO", "source_dataset_detailed": "EEBO_Phase2"},
{"content": "A Wise Son makes a glad Father. A Wise Son heeds his Father's instructions. He who respects reproof is prudent. The lips of the righteous know what is acceptable. The wise in heart will receive commandments. The tongue of the wise uses knowledge rightly. He who walks with wise men shall be wise. The lips of the wise will preserve them. Wise men lay up knowledge. A wise daughter will bring an inheritance to her husband. Whoever honors his father makes an atonement for his sins (Wisdom of Sirach 3:3). He who honors his mother is like one who lays up treasure (Wisdom of Sirach 3:4). He who fears the Lord will honor his father and do service to his parents, as to his masters (Wisdom of Sirach 3:7). Whoever honors his father will have joy of his own children; and when he makes his prayer he shall be heard (Wisdom of Sirach 3:5). Come, children, and listen to me, and I will teach you the fear of the Lord (Psalms 34:11). Wemet Fecit.\nA Foolish son is his mother's heaviness (Proverbs 10:1).\nA foolish man despises his mother (Proverbs 15:20).\nA scorner does not listen to rebuke (Proverbs 13:1).\nA fool despises his father's instructions (Proverbs 15:5).\nThe mouth of the wicked speaks folly (Proverbs 10:20).\nA prating fool shall fall (Proverbs 10:8).\nThe mouth of fools pours out folly (Proverbs 15:2).\nA companion of fools will be destroyed (Proverbs 13:20).\nThe mouth of the foolish is a rod for pride (Proverbs 14:2).\nThe mouth of the foolish is near destruction (Proverbs 10:14).\nShe who lives dishonestly is her father's disgrace (Ecclesiastes 22:4).\nHe who forsakes his father is like a blasphemer, and he who angers his mother is cursed by God (Ecclesiastes 3:16).\nA stubborn heart will fare badly in the end.\nAn obstinate heart will be burdened with sorrows, and the wicked will heap sin upon sin (Ecclesiastes 3:26, 27).\nAn evil son, nurtured, is his father's disgrace; and a foolish daughter is born to his loss (Ecclesiastes 22:3).\nI. To fear and reverence your parents: You shall fear every man's mother and father, Leviticus 19:3.\nII. Honoring and reverencing your parents: A son honors his father; if I am a father, where is my honor? Malachi 1:6. Honor thy father and mother, so that your days may be long in the land the Lord your God gives you, Exodus 20:12. Honor your father and mother, the first commandment with a promise, that it may go well with you and you may live long on the earth, Ephesians 6:2-3. Ecclesiastes 3:\nIII. Supporting and caring for your parents: And Joseph nourished his father with bread, Genesis 47:12. God spoke, \"Honor your father and mother,\" and, \"Whoever curses father or mother, let him die the death.\" But you say, \"Whoever says to his father or mother, 'It is a gift; whatever profit you might receive from me, and you do not honor your father or mother,' he shall be free.\" Matthew 15:4-6.\nHonor your father with your whole heart and do not forget the sorrows of your mother. Remember that you were begotten of them, and how can you repay them for what they have done for you? (Ecclesiastes 7:27, 28)\n\nIf a widow has children or nephews, let them first show piety at home and repay their parents, for that is good and acceptable before God. (1 Timothy 5:4)\n\nIV. To obey your parents' instructions.\nChildren, listen to the instruction of your father. (Proverbs 4:1)\nMy son, give me your heart, and let your eyes observe my ways. (Proverbs 23:26)\nListen to my son and be wise, and guide your heart in the way. (Proverbs 23:19, 22)\nMy son, listen to the instruction of your father, and forsake not the law of your mother. (Proverbs 1:8)\nMy son, keep your father's commandments and forsake not the law of your mother. (Proverbs 6:20)\nChildren, obey your parents in all things. (Colossians 3:20)\nChildren, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. (Ephesians 6)\nA man had two sons. He went to the first and said, \"Son, go work in my vineyard.\" The first replied, \"I will not,\" but later he regretted it and went. The father then approached the second son and made the same request, and he replied, \"I will, Sir,\" but he didn't go. Which of the two did the father's will? The disciples asked Jesus about this, as recorded in Matthew 21:28-30.\n\nJesus, though he was a son, learned obedience through suffering (Hebrews 5:8). We have had earthly fathers who corrected us, and we respected them. Hebrews 12:9. He who rejects correction despises his own soul (Proverbs 15:2). But he who listens to reproof gains understanding.\n\nTo submit to the correction of their parents in marriage, we see an example in Isaac, who told Jacob, \"You shall not take wives from the daughters of Canaan.\"\nArise and go to Padan-Aram, to the house of Bethuel, your mother's father, and take a wife from there. Jacob obeyed his father and mother (Genesis 21:1, 2, 7).\n\nVII. To follow the advice of guardians. Esther did the commandment of Mordecai; she raised Hadassah, that is, Esther, his cousin, for she had neither father nor mother (Esther 2:2).\n\nI. To curse your parents. Whoever curses his father or mother shall be put to death. The blood of one who curses his father or mother is on him (Exodus 21:17, Leviticus 20:9). His lamp will be put out in obscure darkness (Proverbs 20:20). He who curses his father or mother shall die (Matthew 15:4). There is a generation that curses their father and does not bless their mother (Proverbs 30:11).\n\nII. To strike your parents. He who strikes his father or mother shall be put to death (Exodus 21:15).\nWho so despises his father or mother and says it is no transgression, is a companion of a destroyer, Prov. 28.24.\n\nIV. To Despise and Deride Parents.\nDespise not thy mother when she is old, Prov. 23.22. A fool despises his father's instructions, Prov. 15.5. The eye that mocks at his father and despises to obey his mother; the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it, Prov. 30.17. In thee [Jerusalem] have they set light by father and mother, Ezech. 22.7. Cursed is he that sets light by his father, Deut. 27.16. Glory not in your father's dishonor; for your father's dishonor is no glory to you, Ecclus. 3.10. A foolish son despises his mother, Prov. 15.20. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father [Noah], and told his two brothers. And Noah said, Cursed be Canaan: a servant of servants, shall he be to his brothers, Gen. 9.22, 25.\n\nV. To be Disobedient to Parents, God gave them over to a reprobate mind.\nTo be disobedient to parents: Rom. 1:28, 30. Men shall be disobedient to their parents in the last times, 2 Tim. 3:2. If a man sins against another, the judgment shall judge him. But if a man sins against the Lord, who shall intercede for him? Nevertheless, they (Hophni and Phinehas) did not heed the voice of their father; because the Lord would slay them, 1 Sam. 2:25. If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or his mother, and yet, after chastising him, he does not heed them: then his father and mother shall seize him and bring him out to the elders of his city, and to the gate of his place; and they shall say to the elders of his city, \"This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice: he is a glutton and a drunkard.\" And all the men of the city shall stone him with stones, that he die, Deut. 21:18-20.\n\nTo marry without the parents' consent.\nAnd Esau was forty years old when he took to wife Judith, the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bathsheba, the daughter of Elon the Hittite; which were a grief of mind to Isaac and Rebecca, Genesis 26:24, 25. If a woman vows a vow to the Lord and binds herself by a bond, being in her father's house in her youth\u2014and her father disallows her on the day that he hears\u2014none of her vows, or of her bonds, wherewith she had bound her soul, shall stand: and the Lord shall forgive her, because her father disallowed her, Numbers 30:3, 5.\n\nVII. Disrespecting Guardians, for they are in the place of parents.\nHonor thy father and thy mother both in word and deed, that a blessing may come upon thee from them, Ecclesiastes 3:8. My son, if you will receive my words and hide my commandments with you, then shall you understand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowledge of God, Proverbs 2:1, 5. Honor thy father and mother, that it may be well with thee, and thou mayest long live on the earth, Ephesians 6:2, 3. Exodus 20:12.\nHis blood shall be on him, Leviticus 20:9.\n2. His lamp shall be put out in obscure darkness, Proverbs 2:2.\n3. He shall surely be put to death, Exodus 21:17. Matthew 15:4.\n4. He shall be stoned that he die, Deuteronomy 21:21.\n5. The ravens of the valley shall pick out his eyes, and the young eagles eat them, Proverbs 30:17.\n6. He shall die the death, St. Matthew 15:4.\n\nO Lord God, Heavenly Father, from whom every good and perfect gift comes, pour into my heart such unfeigned affection for my father and mother [or tutors and guardians], that I may ever love, fear, and honor them, that I may support, cherish, and succor them in all their wants; that I may willingly submit to all their chastisements and corrections; that I may diligently observe all their good instructions and cheerfully perform all their lawful commands, for his sake who was subject to his parents here on Earth and obedient to thee, our Father, who art in Heaven, even Jesus Christ, thy only Son, our Savior and Redeemer. Amen.\n\nLondon. Printed for Sam.\nAnd Will. Keble at the Turk's-Head in Fleet-street.\n\nRecently published: The Duty of Servants (Printed in a sheet like this).\nThe Church of England's Man's Private Devotions, a collection of prayers from the Common-Prayer Book.\nThe Holy Days: Or the Holy Feasts and Fasts, as observed in the Church of England, Explained.\nPreparations to a Holy Life, or Devotions for Families, A Week's Preparation for the Sacrament.\nA Collection of Miscellanies on several Divine and Moral subjects.\nThe Passion Week.\nAll by the author of The Week's Preparation to the Sacrament.\n\nPrinted for the above-mentioned.", "creation_year": 1701, "creation_year_earliest": 1701, "creation_year_latest": 1701, "source_dataset": "EEBO", "source_dataset_detailed": "EEBO_Phase2"},
{"content": "Several persons advanced and paid into His Majesty's Exchequer the sum of 564,700 pounds, on the faith and credit of an Act of Parliament made in the sixth and seventh years of His Majesty's reign. This Act granted His Majesty certain rates and duties on stone, glass, and earthen wares, coals and culm, for five years, for carrying on the war against France. The Act empowered His Majesty to borrow this sum at an interest of 7 l. per cent. The Act contained a clause that whatever fell short or was deficient for repayment of principal and interest within the specified time, should be made good from the first aids granted to His Majesty by Parliament.\nThe next sessions of Parliament appropriated duties on stone, glass, and earthen wares for a National Land-Bank. Duties on coal and culm were taken away without the lenders' consent, leaving them without security on which they had parted with their money. In the following sessions, the petitioners humbly requested restoration of their security or an equivalent one in a petition to the House of Commons. The matter was referred to a committee for examination and reporting back to the House.\nThe committee examined the report and found all allegations to be true. Afterward, several resolutions were passed by the House, calling for effective provisions to discharge the said debt and interest. It is humbly conceived that the debt could have been paid from several funds in the Bank of England until 1706, as the remaining time before that year would have fully and honorably discharged all.\nThe House of Commons, determined to provide effectively for coal and other necessities, learned that a duty on leather would generate a substantial annual sum. Consequently, the debentures were transferred to the leather duty. However, the proprietors did not benefit from this transfer at that time and becoming ingraftable into the bank. The preamble of the Leather Act states that the disappointment and failure had caused harm to the lenders and damage to public credit, with a clause stipulating that any deficiency in debt and interest repayment within the specified time would be transferred to and paid to the lenders from the next grants or supplies to be given to the monarch by Parliament.\nDuring the ninth and tenth years of His Majesty's reign, Parliament held sessions where a duty was imposed on coal and peat to raise an additional 500,000 pounds, carrying an interest of 8 pounds per cent. At this time, those who had initially lent money on these duties submitted a petition, expressing the inadequacy of the duty on leather and requesting restoration of a portion of their initial fund. However, the petition was not acknowledged.\n\nThe duty on leather is so insignificant that it has failed to repay any principal sums for approximately fourteen months. This duty will expire on the 20th of April approaching, leaving those who had extended loans (in challenging times for noble purposes) without any security for their substantial and justified debt.\nBy all means, the petitioners have suffered greatly and are still likely to do so unless the Honorable House of Commons restores them to their original security, part of which is now a valuable fund, or makes such effective provision for the repayment of the great and just debt, along with its growing interest, as they deem reasonable in their great wisdom and justice.\n\nThe Extraordinary Case.", "creation_year": 1701, "creation_year_earliest": 1700, "creation_year_latest": 1701, "source_dataset": "EEBO", "source_dataset_detailed": "EEBO_Phase2"},
{"content": "God rest you merry Gentlemen,\nLet nothing you dismay,\nRemember Christ our Saviour,\nWho was born on Christmas-day.\nTo save our Souls from Satan's Fold,\nWhich long time had gone astray.\nAnd 'tis Tidings of Comfort and Joy.\nFrom him that was our Father,\nThe Blessed Angel came,\nAnd to the watchful shepherds brought\nThe Tidings of the same:\nThat there was born in Bethlehem,\nThe Son of God by Name,\nAnd 'tis Tidings,\nFear not, then said God's Angels,\nLet nothing you affright,\nThis Night is born a Saviour,\nOf a Virgin pure and bright:\nHe is able to advance you,\nAnd throw down Satan quite.\nAnd 'tis Tidings,\nThe Shepherds at these Tidings,\nRejoiced much in Mind,\nAnd left their Flocks a feeding,\nIn Tempest, Storm, and Wind:\nThen straight they went to Bethlehem,\nThe son of God to find.\nAnd 'tis Tidings.\nBut when they came to Bethlehem,\nWhere our Savior lay,\nThey found him in a manger,\nWhere oxen fed on hay:\nOur blessed Lady kneeling by,\nTo the Lord did pray.\nAnd this was the news, and so on.\nAt which the sudden gladness,\nThe shepherds then were filled,\nWhen as the Babe of Israel,\nThus when they had beheld:\nBefore his Mother thus to lie,\nThe Scripture thus was fulfilled.\nAnd this was the news, and so on.\n\nNow let me all you here,\nThat are within this place,\nThat each dear loving Christian,\nThe other would embrace;\nFor the happy time of Christmas\nIs drawing on apace.\nWith tidings and comfort and joy.\nIn friendly love and unity,\nFor good St. Stephen's sake,\nLet us all this blessed day,\nTo Heaven our prayers make,\nThat we with him the Cross of Christ,\nMay freely undertake.\nAnd Jesus will send you his blessing.\n\nThose accursed infidels,\nWho stoned him to death,\nCould not by their cruelties,\nWithhold him from his faith,\nIn such a godly martyrdom,\nLet us all the paths seek.\nAnd Jesus will send you his blessing.\nAnd while we sit here banqueting,\nLet us not forget to cherish the Poor,\nAnd give what is convenient to those who ask at the door.\nAnd Jesus will send you his blessing.\nFor God has made you stewards here,\nUpon the Earth to dwell:\nHe who gathers for himself and will not use it well,\nLives far worse than Dives did,\nWho now burns in Hell.\nAnd Jesus will send you his blessing.\n\nIn love and charity, see your table spread,\nSo that I may taste of your good cheer,\nYour Christmas ale and bread;\nSo that I may say that I am full.\nFor this my carol sped.\nAnd Jesus will send you his blessing.\n\nFor bounty is a blessed gift,\nThe Lord above it sends,\nAnd he who gives it from his hands,\nDeserves many friends;\nI see it on my master's board,\nAnd so my carol ends.\n\nWhen Herod reigned as King,\nWithin Judea's land,\nMuch woe his will brought,\nBy bloody, fierce command.\nAmong the rest, with grief oppressed,\nWas good St. John here slain.\nWho at this day with sport and play,\nA martyr'd death did gain.\nKing Herod being in his town,\nHerodias dancing spied,\nAs fair as any summer's flower,\nIn all her painted pride:\nClad in bright gold, which to behold,\nKing Herod's heart admired,\nHe bade her crave, and she should have,\nThough she half his crown desired.\nA kingly crown I do not wish,\nBut St. John's head, she said,\nWherefore all bleeding in a dish,\nBefore me be it laid;\nThis was the thing, she of the king,\nDesired with right goodwill;\nWhose death was wrought and to be brought,\nSuch minds have strumpets still.\nThus wine and woman we do see,\nMen's minds to folly win;\nFor Herod did too soon agree,\nAnd gave consent to sin:\nFor on this day, as scriptures say,\nSt. John did lose his head:\nWhile he did sing, before the king,\nAs he at table fed.\nThen let us all by him take heed\nOf riot and excess,\nFor fear that soon to us it breed\nAs great a wickedness:\nAnd let our sport, in civil sort,\nContent each merry mind,\nSo shall we all, in this good hall,\nRejoice and be of good cheer.\nMuch joy and comfort find. Now, kindly draw some beer, my pretty song is sung. You know the duties that belong to him who sings so clear: Holly and Ivy, drink will drive you to the brown bowl of Perry. Apples and ale, with Christmas tale, will make the household merry.\n\nOn the twenty-fifth of December, our blessed Messiah was born. Let us with praise this day adore, to see how he left his habitation. For to redeem poor sinful men, sing praise unto his most holy name.\n\nFirst, a bright angel brought the happy tidings to a pure and chaste Virgin:\n\nHail, blessed Mary, full of grace,\nThe Lord of life remains with thee,\nThe blessed Savior of all men.\nSing praise unto his most holy name.\n\nThe blessed Virgin was weary, and when she came to Bethlehem,\n\nThere was no lodging for her then. She was delivered of our Savior,\n\nThat very night in an ox's stall,\nTo show that man's pride must have a fall.\n\nThen came three wise men, kings that were so loyal,\n\nAll guided by a glorious star.\nFrom the East came those far,\nTo see the blessed Babe, sweet Jesus,\nIn a Manger laid,\nPraise his holy Name.\nBut when King Herod was deceived,\nFilled with wrath and anger,\nVowing all infants to kill,\nTo murder our dear Savior,\nWho came to redeem us then,\nO cruel, cruel, most bloody Man!\nThen came the glorious, happy tidings,\nTo poor shepherds feeding sheep,\nMade their hearts to leap,\nTo hear the blessed Babe, sweet Jesus,\nBorn in Bethlehem,\nPraise his most gracious Name.", "creation_year": 1701, "creation_year_earliest": 1700, "creation_year_latest": 1701, "source_dataset": "EEBO", "source_dataset_detailed": "EEBO_Phase2"},
{"content": "I am a young woman; hear my melancholy story. I was deceived by a false man and became pregnant, causing me great woe. His treacherous tongue led me to ruin. I destroyed my newborn infant in grief, and the man who betrayed me is now confounded. I am Mary Butcher; I confess this truth in tears, having delivered myself of my child and cast it into a dunghill.\n\nObserve, pretty maids, and heed the warning. Shun deceitful men, regardless of their station. Some only court our will to gain, often leading to our ruin, shame, and disgrace. Do not let their flattering tongues deceive you. The honest youth, though ever poor, is worth a thousand times more than them.\n\nObey your parents and heed your friends' advice. Trouble comes to those who despise good advice. Young maidens, take this warning to heart.\nBy unfortunate fate,\nI receive no gifts from men,\nBut shun the golden bait.\nI soon discovered I was with child,\nA fact I came to shamefully acknowledge;\nNo comfort could I find then,\nAnd I blamed myself.\nPoor wretch! I thought to conceal my shame,\nFearing my friends would discover it,\nBut now, through this murder,\nI expose it to the multitudes;\nSo consider this, young women all,\nWho may be confined in a worse city's goal,\nUntil the great assize arrives,\nFor I must resign myself to taking my trial.\nOh! consider this, ye youthful maidens,\nIf ever it is your unfortunate lot,\nTo be seduced, on all occasions,\nThen from your friends, pray do not hide it;\nYou will surely find some to pity,\nIf you act as a mother would,\n'Tis better to beg with it,\nThan to feel the sting of conscience.\nSo how can I expect to gain favor,\nIn this world, having broken\nThe laws of God and man,\nThrough my misbehavior?\nFrom time to time, I continued in sin,\nBut now, at last, I have been taken,\nAnd placed in prison where I lie,\nForsaken by all friends.", "creation_year": 1701, "creation_year_earliest": 1701, "creation_year_latest": 1701, "source_dataset": "EEBO", "source_dataset_detailed": "EEBO_Phase2"}
]