Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	king_n	pass_v	scotland_n	2,506	5	8.3693	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
B01414	Answers for the Earl of Lauderdale, to a printed paper, (entituled, The case of John Swinton, in relation to his fathers forefaulture) and to the pretended reasons of reduction of the said forfaulture, alledged to be now depending before the Parliament.	Lauderdale, Charles Maitland, Earl of, d. 1691.	1690 (1690)	Wing A3467; ESTC R170333	35,487	39

conceived a prejudice against his King and his Countrey by the Sentence of Forfeiture pronounced against him in anno 1651. which he stiles the hard measure he met with and his being out of the protection of the Law 3o. That he was there personally in Arms such as a Traveler uses to ride with viz. Sword and Pistol which are all the Arms could be carried by any single Horse-man there And altho he denys that he drew either Sword or Pistol or did joyn with any Troop or Regiment yet his being present with the Enemies in Arms is a sufficient demonstration of his joyning with them against his King and Countrey and is per se relevant in Law to infer the Crime of high Treason it being very difficult to prove a mans particular Actings in an Army who had no remarkable Charge and his serving the Usurper at that time is sufficiently cleared by the rewards that the Usurper gave him afterwards And the good Services which are pretended that Swinton did to his Countrey-men at that time is an evident demonstration of his intimacy and interest with the Usurper and which could not be done by a prisoner 2o. As to that Alledgance that the Crime being committed in England it was remitted by the English Indemnity It is Answered that the English Act of Indemnity did extend no further than to the Kings English Subjects and not to any Subjects who were Scots-men for as no Law made by the Parliament of England could hinder the Parliament of Scotland to proceed against Traitors and Rebels who were Scots-men so no Indemnity past in the English Parliament could Indemnity a Scots-man's Crimes or could hinder the Parliament of Scotland from proceeding against them albeit they had been particularly Indemnified by the Parliament of England And all that is now represented for John Swinton in this reason of Reduction being intirely under the Parliaments consideration at the time and by them found relevant and proven to infer the Crime of treason And what is now alledged being then proponed and repelled by the Parliament cannot now be drawn in question And as to which the former Answers are repeited To the last part of the first Reason of Reduction insisted upon against the said Decreet 1661. viz. That the Decreet is lame and defective in its probation albeit it bears to proceed upon John Swintons Judicial Confession yet there is no such Confession extant in the Records of Parliament other than what is contained in his Written defence which are so qualified that it could never be a ground of Forfeiture It is Answered 1o. That a Judicial Confession emitted before so High and Supream a Court as a Parliament makes full Faith without being Subscribed and the assertion of the Parliament and their Act thereupon is a full and sufficient Probation And altho a Judicial Confession emitted before an Inferior Judge such as Commissar or Sheriff does not make Faith unless it be Signed by the Party yet a Judicial Confession emitted before the Lords of Session which is a Supream Court and so marked and Minuted by the Clerk does make as great Faith as if it were Subscribed and Signed by the Party And it cannot be denyed that John Swinton compeared before the Parliament and viva voce confessed these horrid and detestable Crimes of Treason and Rebellion that he was guilty of and particularly of his being in Arms at Worcester with the Usurper against his native King for which he did blame his Ambition in his younger years which prompted him to these Treasonable Acts and as a Remorse and Abhorrence of them he said if they were to do he would rather with the one hand strike off the other than be guilty of them upon which Confession the King's Advocat took Instruments 2o. He did not only confess the Crimes Libelled and insisted on viva voce but in his Answers written and subscribed by himself given in at the same time to the Parliament he did acknowledge the same and altho in his Answers he did endeavour to excuse and qualifie these Crimes to procure the Commiseration of the Parliament that his Life might be spared yet the Parliament did most justly Repel his Answers and proceeded and gave Sentence of Forfeiture against him and the excuses and qualifications adjected are so far from being extenuations of his Crimes that they rather do aggravat the same being Insinuations of the great favour interest and intimacy he had with the Usurper as is evident by the Answers themselves hereto subjoyned So that the Decreet of Forfeiture proceeding not only upon a verbal Confession emitted viva voce But also upon a Written Confession Subscribed by John Swinton himself the same cannot now be Invaliditate or drawn in question upon the pretence that it is lame and defective in its probation The second Reason against the Decreet of Forfeiture 1661. is that the Minuts are Forged and False upon the pretended Grounds following viz. That albeit there be a considerable time interveening betwixt the Minuts dated the 7 of February 15 of May and 12 of July 1661. Yet it appears by ocular inspection that they are all written at one and the same time and with the same Pen and Ink and being compared with the Minuts upon the end of the Inditement Subscribed by Glencairn which are the true Minuts they are much more recent and fresh 2o. All the three Minuts which are on the Margine of the Inditement being Signatures of the Procedure of the Parliament in pleno consessu the first thereof which is on the 7 of February 1661. bears the giving in of the said Inditement against the said John Swinton then Pannel with the former Decreet in anno 1651. and craving that the said Decreet might be Ratified and the new Inditement found Relevant and admitted to Probation The King and the Estates of Parliament are said to ordain before Answer the new Inditement to be given up to John Swinton to see and answer and yet it is evident by the Records of Parliament that the Articles sat the 7th of February and not the Parliament and Ordained the same thing that the Parliament Ordained to wit The giving up of the Inditement to John Swinton and by Robert Hamilton's Diary one of the Senators of the Colledge of Justice and then one of the Clerks of the Parliament It is evident that upon the 27 of February John Swinton having formerly received his Inditement was brought that day to the Bar and after his Dittay was read he was appointed that day 15 days to give in his Legal Defences neither was that Term before Answer either the stile of Parliament or any Court at that time being introduced since nor was it at all in this case intelligible it being impossible that an Inditement could be considered before it was given up and seen by the party by which it is clear as is pretended that the forsaids Minuts are forged 3o The second of the saids Minuts being dated the 15

and opportunity and if this can be called joyning with the Enemy as this Case is circumstantiated or that by any Law of God or Man it can ever be charged upon him as a Guilt specially to infer the conclusion of the Inditement let all sober Men judge To the third Article of the Inditement he doth deny it as it is conceived tho it is true that he was at Worcester and as he was there it is also true he went thither through the earnest Intreaties and Importunities of him that though he doth ingenuously declare that he cannot say that he did use that as an Argument could have commanded him along with him as his Prisoner and whose Prisoner he was upon the matter and this after he had then met with that he then looked upon as hard measure from the King and Country out of the protection of Law these temptations he was under and yet he went in no other Capacity than as a Traveller no other Arms than a Traveller and if it shall be made our that ever he joyned so much as in any Troop or carried any Charge or that in any occasion there the Battel or otherways he did draw his Sword or loose a Pistol he admits all or every one of these relevant of consent to infer the conclusion of the Inditement It is known how greatly useful his there being was to his Country-men not only of his nearest Relations whom he found deadly wounded but many others the particulars whereof needs not to be mentioned he having indeed a sufficient reward in the work it self doing it upon a free and single intention never thinking of making use of it upon such an occasion as this Only this he can say in the presence of the searcher of hearts that he thinks if the Parliament should find the Inditement against him upon that single Head of being at Worcester as he doth look upon that as Principal and all the rest but Accessories as it were even in the intention of the Libeller the Sentence past as to Life and Estate and it ready to receive its last Consummation he could receive it and ly down under it with a more chearful heart than he enjoyed any time he was at Worcester to see and be Witness of the reproach of his Countrey and the distress his Countrey-men was under His Defence is that it was in England the Crime what-ever it was was committed where it is properly try able and where the King in whose Name and by whose Advocat this Inditement is prosecute hath Indemnified the Defender from it And that he hath so done will appear by the express words of the 5th Clause of the Act of Indemnity And tho it may be Objected that this is an English Law It is adduced in the case of Crime committed in England tryable in England pardonable in England pardoned in England and that by him against whom the offence was committed what-ever it was the Defender actually a Prisoner in England and from thence sent hither a Prisoner brought hither in an English Frigot so that as to this Crime in this case as it is circumstantiated it is pleadable and by the Defender Pleaded as his Defence And this is mainly to be minded in this particular of the Inditement That the Defender when he could have shunned it was taken in England was kept 19 Weeks and upwards closs Prisoner there was sent from England hither by the King's Authority to receive a Tryal in his own Countrey for such things as he is chargeable with at the instance of the King as acted here in his own Countrey For it can never be understood that the King in Honour Justice or Equity would send him down out of England to be tryed for his Life and Estate here for a Crime committed so many years ago in England and which he hath absolutely and freely Remitted there as fully as if the Defenders Name and Sirname were particularly exprest as Indemnified and that particular Act of his being at Worcester expresly remitted by reason whereof he ought to be Assoilzied from this Article of the Inditement As to the 4th Article of the Inditement It is denyed as it is conceived tho he doth not deny but he was in a Parliament of England by a Call and Commission from his Countrey the Nation having so far submitted to the Union with England that they sent their Deputies to several Parliaments By what Law this is Criminal specially as it is circumstantiated when the Pursuer shews it may receive an Answer To the other Branch of the Article The Defender doth ingeniously declare he doth not remember that he was at any such Vote of renouncing the King and his Family neither doth he think he was however if he was it was in England And if it should be proven as he is confident it will never be he repeats his Defence adduced in the Case of Worcester To that Branch of the Article His receiving Imployments from Oliver Cromwel and others as one of the Commissioners for Administration of Justice and one of the Council That part of the Article is so far confest by him that he was in these Imployments but never in these nor in any till his Countrey Nationally had submitted stopping for the good of the Nation to the necessity of the time to the Authority of England And as things were then stated he doth believe it was look'd upon by the Nation as for the good and service of the Countrey that Countrey-men were admitted to and did act in these Imployments and that it was look'd upon as no dis-service or disadvantage to his Countrey at that time that the Defender was one And he can truly say that the service of his Country was none of the least inducements to engage him in the accepting of and continuing to these Imployments And if ever it can be made appear that he sought after one or either of them let it infer the Conclusion of the Summons as relevant of consent What the tendency of his way in these Imployments was towards the service or dis-service of his Countrey let his greatest Enemy Witness in this day he shall not in these things bear Witness for himself the more narrowly and particularly his way in these things shall be inquired into it shall be the less disadvantage to him And as to the insinuations of the great profits and advantage he hath had he shall only give it this Answer which is single truth that notwithstanding what-ever he received one way or another he can solemnly declare and doth that tho he were not chargeable by the King nor any other as to his Estate or any Charge relating thereto upon the account of his acting in these things but were cleared of all these he is two thousand Pounds Sterling and upwards more in debt than he was left by his Father when be died in the year 52. occasioned through his Expences in tumbling about in these matters This he mentions only