Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	ireland_n	parliament_n	statute_n	2,883	5	8.7954	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A25786	The Marques of Argyll his defences against the grand indytement of high treason, exhibited against him to the Parliament in Scotland; Defences against the grand indytement of high treason, exhibited against him to the Parliament in Scotland	Argyll, Archibald Campbell, Marquis of, 1598-1661.; Scotland. Parliament.	1661 (1661)	Wing A3652; ESTC R15529	63,628	100

what was the ground and occasion of that Act and the reasons inducing the Defender and the Parliament at that time to go along therein and how little ground there is for challenging him thereon it would be considered That when the late King came to the Army before Newcastle the Defender was in Ireland by Commission from the Parliament 1646. and that His Majesties Declarations anent the grounds of His resolution in coming to the Scots was sent both to the Committee of Estates in Scotland and to the Parliament of England so that the same being printed before the Defender came to Newcastle he neither did not could know any other ground of his coming nor what was contained in His Declaration viz. His gracious Resolution to comply with His Parliaments in both Nations and those entrusted by them in every thing for setling of truth and peace and that he would totally commit himself to their counsels and advises Upon which terms both the Committee of Scotland and Officers of the Army declared to His Majestie and to the Parliament of England that they received him And all this before the Defender came from Ireland to Newcastle from whence His Majestie sent him with Instructions to the Commissioners at London of which Commissioners the Defender was one also to hasten the Propositions and privately commanded the Defenders to take the advice of the Duke of Richmond and Marqueis of Hertford anent what might concern His Majestie and particularly if it was fit that the Scots Army should declare for His Majestie whose judgement and opinion was which they conjured him to tell his Majestie that such a course was the onely way at present to mine his Majestie for that he himself knew That neither the Nobility or Gentry of England who attended him at Oxford wished him to prevail over his Parliament by the sword and much less would they indure the Scots Army to do it and that it would make all England as one man against him And that it was their earnest request to His Majestie by any means to give way to the Propositions Which advice he not onely faithfully told to His Majestie at Newscastle and many others there and to our gracious Soveraign who now is when he was in Scotland but also being in the Tower he intreated the Lieutenant thereof to propose for him that the Marquess of Hertford who was then alive might be examined in this matter which was put off from time to time because of His Majesties great affairs And as it is most certain that as neither Independent nor Sectary was able to carry one vote in the House at that time so it is notior that they who tendred His Majesty most in England were for disbanding the Scots Army and His Majesties 〈◊〉 in England wherein the Defender appeals to the particular knowledge of the Earl of Landerdale London Sir Charle Erskin and the rest of the Commissioners then there and it is of truth which all know that so little fear suspicion and jealousie there was of what followed That the great fear of His Majesties friends in both Kingdoms was That if he fixed on his Subjects in Scotland all England would be against him and probably cast off His Government and Interest forever So that under what representation soever the matter may now appear because of the sad sequels 〈◊〉 to them who know the matter as it was there shared what Declarations and Assurances there were from the Parliament of England and how little fear of the prevalency of Sectaries it did appear to be an act if not of necessity at least an act very expedient and convenient for the time other ways many who did assent thereto which never have condescended and consequently the defendors concurring therein upon such probable grounds can be no such crime as is libelled nor is it releivant to answer the conclusion of the Dittay To the second member of this Article bearing that under present for satisfaction for the arrears of the Army he went to London and there treasonably gave up at least condescended to the upgiving of his dread Soveraign and Master as being impowered so to do by the Kingdom of Scotland It is answered 〈◊〉 member is not relevant because neither the time of this going to London 〈◊〉 of his being these the persons to whom he condescended to give up are not particularly mentioned and set down By which generally he is precluded from several defences 〈◊〉 arise to him if the Ditay were clear and it is a principle in Common Law and of constant practice That non et vagandum in crimin●e sed debet certum speciatim dici for that dolus error 〈◊〉 in generalibus 2. No ways acknowledging the relievancy of the subsumption herein upon any of the Acts of the Proposition till the same be clearly condescended on and craving the same may be first done Oppones the Act of Parliament and the truth is while the Defendor was at London there was nothing spoken at all by him of leaving his Majesty in England except what he was expresly commanded by his Majesty to speak to Richmond and Hertford as aforesaid To the third Member of the eighth Article bearing That in a joynt Committee of both Kingdoms where the English questioned whether the Scots Army would concur with them in their said Treason and Treachery the Defendor after many arguments used in their favour earnestly requested them to have patience for a little time and that it would appear how far they intended to concur And that within few days thereafter there was a Declaration and Vindication emitted in name of the said Army holding forth That in case his Majesty did not condescend to all the desires of both Kingdoms which were no less then divesting himself of all Regal Power Civil Ecclesiastical and Military they would deliver him up which immediately upon the receit of Two hundred thousand pounds the Defendor and they did It is Answered That adhering to the former defences anent the subsumption and repeating it here This member although it were rightly subsumed as it is not is most irreleivant and general in time place person and speeches mention being made of many arguments and never one produced and of a Question and Answer out of which even as libelled Treason cannot be inferred viz. That the Defendor requested them to have patience a while and it would appear how far the Army intended to concur but within few days after the Army declared themselves in manner as aforesaid Seeing these alledged words of the Defendor as they are indefinite and general so the most they could infer is That in a short time it would appear whether the Army would concur or not and what can from thence be infered as to any thing the Army did if they have outshot their duty as it was in regard of him with the speaking of these words a future contingent wherein the Defendor had no causualty so they must answer for

as then established and to live peaceably yea such jealousie had they of the Defender that by his Capitulation he was prisoner upon demand Nither during all the time of their power over th●s Kingdom had he ever any favour of the said English but was always look upon by them with a most jealous eye And for evidencing hereof the Defender humbly craves that there be Comm●ssion granted for examining of Lieutenant Colonel Vtter anent what was deponed by Mac Nachtan and several viz. of the Defenders small affection to the Engl●sh or any other authority but the Kings Likewise it is notorious how unjustly he was persecuted before the Exchequer here for the time for payment of 4●00 l. Sterling alledged to be rest and bygon few duties This being the Defenders true case it is hoped that the honorable Court of Parliament will take consideration how the Defender stood out as long as he could till he was prisoner and will have a different consideration of Subjects acting under the lawful Magistrate in exercise of his Authority by himself or others lawfully constituted by him and of the actions under cruel Usurpation and Tyrannie the lawful Magistrate being forced for his own safety to abandon his Dominions and people to the lust and oppression of the unjust Usurper who was Master not onely of their fortunes and persons but their lives and all that was dear to them and had for a long time detained the possession of his unjust Usurpation and devouted the lawful Magistrate Which case is not onely difference by all who write on that subject but also Cook in the third part of the Institutes of the Laws of England cap. 10. anent his Treason in expounding the Statute of the 25 of Edward the third upon the words of the Statute Le Roy puts such weight upon the Kings being in possession or one of the same that he expressly affirms the Statute is to be understood of a King regnant and in possession of the Crown and Kingdome as also that in such cases a favorable consideration is to be had of the actions of a subject who was particularly noticed and jealously looked upon by the Usurper for his affection to the lawful Magistrate and his Government All which being remitted to the Commissioner his grace and the Honourable Parliament their consideration he now comes to answer to the eleventh Article Against which eleventh Article and all the members thereof as libelled it is alledged the said Article is general not condescending on the day or moneth nor on the particular year of God of the committing of the deeds therein libelled but onely alternative in Anno 1653. or 1654. and therefore as has been oft before alledged the same is inept and there can be no proces thereon 2. It is not condescending on nor cleared which of the acts of Parliament libelled on in the Proposition this Article and several members thereof are subsumed and therefore it is obscure and general and in that incertitude the Defender has reason to deny that it can be subsumed on any of the said Acts to infer the said crime ond pain As to that which is first libelled in this Article That the Defender did not rise in Arms with the Commissioner his grace and the Earl of Glencarn who were Commissioners by his Majestie The Defender he repeats the two exceptions aforesaid against the whole Article being confident this cannot be subsumed on none of the Acts libelled on And further alledges that it is not relievancy libelled to infer vel minimam culpam against the Defenders far less so high a crime except it were libelled that your Lordships Commissioner had been shewed him and he required which was never done And herein he may refer himself to the Commissioner his Graces Declaration and if his Grace does not remember that the Defender sent him word shewing his desire to have met with his Grace and to have spoke with him about the business but had never the honour to have his Graces answer or appointment 2. For further clearing that his not joyning except he had been required is no crime it is evident from the fourth Act of the first Parliament Iac. 1. that those onely are punishable who does not assist the Kings Host being required thereto and Craig pag. 365 says that because the King has so many Vassals they are not obliged nor cannot be punished except the particular pain to be inflicted upon the away-stayer be particularly exprest in the Edict by which they are commanded to appear and pag. 365. he says That these who come not being warned by an Edict shall be counted and pag 370. he says That the Vassal should not be obliged to appear at any such services except they be desired which command should be proven by his Peers These Edicts were particularly required by the fundamental Law and were called heri bona which is defined by Cujas to be the calling and citation of the Army and is lib. 3. c. 10. quart leg franc to be the punishment of him who comes not to the Kings Host when he is called and this assertion is clearly proven from Rague in his Treatise de Iur. Reg. pag. 53. Likewise by the said Act par 1. Iac 1. it is expresly ordained That those who disobeys to enforce the King against notorious Rebels against his Person shall be challenged 1. If they be required by the King as is said 2. And except they have for them reasonable excuses but sure it is the Defender not only was never required as has been alledged but there was even pregnant reasons as he humbly conceives the which it seemed very probable at that time that albeit it be the duty of all his Majesties subjects to rise for his Majesties interest in opposition to Usurpers yet it was not seasonable as affairs then stood till either they had been defeated by sea in the ingagement that they then had with Holland whereby both the forces might have been diverted and the Transportation of Victuals and Ammunition from England Ireland and the parts of Scotland under their command and their Army in Scotland might have been intercluded or that Spain and France had concluded that peace whereof there was then several reports and thereupon his Majesties subjects in Scotland might have had hope of some probable assistance in the undertakings in his Majesties service or that division and in consequence confusion had fallen out in the English Army amongst themselves whereof there seemed to be but little hope so long as the appearance for His Majesty should meet them as against a common enemy as it was Likeas it would be thought it should have no other effect and as in effect the event proved that that Army never divided till they had no common enemy against whom mutual preservation does necessitate a mutual concinse but all at amity one with another And albeit a particular command had not been absolutely necessary if His Majesty had been there