Selected quad for the lemma: king_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
king_n	duke_n	earl_n	son_n	38,738	5	5.4501	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

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 Edinburgh Printed by the Heir of Andrew Anderson 1690. Answers for the Earl of Lauderdale to a Printed Paper Entituled The Case of John Swinton in relation to his Fathers Forfaulture and to the pretended Reasons of Reduction of the said Forfaulture Alledged to be now depending before the Parliament THE deceast John Swinton being a Person of a considerable Interest and Trust in the Kingdom of Scotland in Anno 1651. Upon the Invasion of Cromwel and the English Rebels Swinton did desert his Soveraign and Native Countrey and abandoned his Charge in the Army and did joyn and associat himself with the Usurper Cromwell for which he and some other Traitors were Cited before the Parliament at Perth and the matter being remitted by the Parliament to the Committee of Estates and His late Majesty King Charles the Second being present in the Committee and the matter being both notourly known as also sufficiently proven John Swinton was Forefault in anno 1651. for deserting his Charge in the Army and joyning with Cromwel Thereafter John Swinton marched with Cromwel to Worcester and did actually appear in Arms against his Soveraign in Person when the Royal Family and his Native Countrey were at the last and outmost extremity where the late Duke of Lauderdale being taken Prisoner in defence of his Soveraigns Right and preservation of his native Countrey from slavery was thereafter detained three years closs Prisoner in the Tower of London expecting every hour the stroak of the Executioner and was kept other three years in a Vault at Portland-Castle and being transported thence to Windsor-Castle he was likewise detained Prisoner there other three years And being Forfeited for his Loyalty by those Regicides John Swinton did improve his Interest and Power he had with the Usurper Cromwell being his great Minion and Trustee being nominat by him to be a Lord both of Council Exchequer and Session to so base and ungenerous ends that he did persecute those who had faithfully adhered to their Soveraign and Native Countrey in their distress and did procure in his own Favours a Gift of the Duke of Lauderdale's Forfaulture and thereby did possess a considerable part of his Estate to the value of one thousand Pounds Sterling per annum for the space of more than 8 years the rest of the Duke's Estate being possessed by as notorious Traitors as himself during all which time the Duke of Lauderdale's Lady and Daughter were reduced to such straits and necessities that they had not Bread to eat the unjust Invaders of his Estate neither allowing him any thing out of the same to maintain himself and his Family nor yet interposing with the Usurper for an allowance out of the Publick In which condition the Duke lived till it pleased God to extricate him out of these straits and difficulties by the happy Restauration of his Native Soveraign King Charles the Second in anno 1660. In anno 1661. John Swinton was sent down Prisoner from London to be Judged by the Parliament of Scotland and being conveened before the Parliament His Majesties Advocat did insist against him not only upon the former Sentence and Doom of Forfaulture past against him in anno 1651. And that the samine might be put to further Execution but likewise exhibited a new Inditement against him upon several new additional Articles of Treason and particularly upon his going along with the Rebels to and being in Arms at the Fight of Worcester against his Soveraign in person And John Swinton having appeared several times in the Pannel he not only viva voce did acknowledge but by Defences Written and Subscribed with his own Hand given in to the Parliament he confessed his being in Arms at Worcester with the Usurper Cromwel against his Soveraign but did plead the benefite of the Act of Indemnity in England which did not at all concern Scotsmen whereupon the Parliament in anno 1661 did not only Ratifie and Approve the former Doom and Sentence of Forfaulture pronounced against the said John Swinton by the Committee of Estates in anno 1651 but also for the additional Crimes contained in the new Inditement acknowledged by himself both viva voce before the Parliament and by the Written and Subscribed Defences Swinton was again Forfaulted And in the next Session of that same Parliament the Doom of Forfaulture against Swinton is mentioned and related in the Act of Indemnity and he and some others are expresly excepted from the Indemnity as standing Forfault by that same Parliament King Charles the Second was graciously pleased to gift and bestow Swinton's Forfaulture to the late Duke of Lauderdale not only in consideration of his faithful Services and great Sufferings but particularly because John Swinton had taken a Gift from the Usurpers of a considerable part of the Duke of Lauderdale's Estate So that there was never any Forfaulture upon more just and important Crimes nor did ever any Prince Gift a Forfaulture upon more reasonable and equitable considerations Nevertheless after the Duke of Lauderdale's decease in anno 1682 when his Family and Representatives were in very hard circumstances Swinton's Son did impetrat and procure from the late King Charles the Second upon most false and disingenuous representations a Commission for enquiring into the Method and Procedure and the Warrands upon Record of Swinton's Forfaulture and there being a multitude of frivolous Objections offered by Swinton's Son and full Answers thereto by the Earl of Lauderdale and the Creditors of the deceast Duke of Lauderdale And both Parties being heard viva voce before that Commission the Commissioners were fully satisfied that nothing of moment was instructed and that the Crimes for which Swinton was Forfeited at Perth viz. his deserting his Charge in the Army and joyning with the Rebel Cromwel and his being thereafter in Arms at Worcester for which he was again Forfeited in the Parliament 1661. was not only true and incontroverted but acknowledged by Swinton himself in his Answers given in to his Inditement which were Written and Subscribed with his own Hand as said is So that if there had been any Informality in the Processes of Forfeiture as there were none yet these Informalities could have no effect and ought not to be regarded Especially seing by the 135 Act Parl. 8. K. Ja. the 6. It is Statuted that no Forfeiture for Treason against the King and His Estates shall be Reduced for any pretended Cause of Nullity that may be Alledged to have been in the Process except the Crime be either Remitted by His Majesty or that it could be purged and acquit by a Tryal Whereupon the Commission was deserted Thereafter the said John Swinton's Son and his Relations being conscious to themselves that they could not prevail to

Reduce the foresaids two Decreets of Forfeiture pronounced against his deceast Father the Crimes for which he was Forfeit being both notour and proven and acknowledged by himself they did fall upon another Contrivance which was in anno 1685 or 1686. to procure an Rehabilitation to Swinton's Children with a Remission of the Crime thinking thereby and by the interest with the Quakers and others who had then Influence at Court that they would lay a force upon the Earl of Lauderdale either to Transact with the said John Swinton for the Estate of Swinton or if he refused to do the same they would procure a Recommendation to the next Parliament to Reduce the Forfeitures upon the former frivolous Objections and pretended Nullities offered before the Commission But the Tenor of the Rehabilitation running upon these same false Grounds and Suggestions which were insinuat to King Charles the Second when the Commission was obtained in anno 1682. and which being objected against by the Lord Maitland then at Court the Letter of Rehabilitation in favours of Swinton's Children was refused This being a short and true Account of the matter of Fact in relation to the Forfeitures of Swinton and the Gift thereof in Favours of the late Duke of Lauderdale and the Contrivances that have been fallen upon of late to quarrel the same A Paper lately came out in Print Intituled the Case of John Swinton of Swinton in relation to his Fathers Forfeiture with the Reasons of Reduction of the said Forfeiture shall be made appear to any indifferent person to be Disingenious False Calumnious and inconsistent with the Laws of this and all other Nations both from what has been said before and what shall be hereafter said in the particular Answers to the Reasons of Reduction It is represented in the said Paper that the Duke of Lauderdale after the Restauration of King Charles the Second first entered into the Possession and then obtained a Gift of the Deceast Swinton's Estate upon pretence of his being Forfeited by the Committee of Estates in anno 1651. for his being with the English albeit there was nothing ever could be made appear to evince that there was ever any such Forfeiture against Swinton in the year 1651. But the pretended Extract of a Decreet in absence elicite from an Under Clerk ten years after of which there was never the least Warrand upon Record And as to the Forfeiture in the year 1661. there was only a Process intented which never came the length of a Sentence And Swinton having objected it to the Duke of Lauderdale in the latter end of the year 1673. There were Methods taken in January 1674. for making up of the Minuts as if a Sentence of Forfeiture had followed upon the Process and a Decreet extracted upon the same 13 or 14 years after the intended Process and Sir Archibald Primerose who was then Clerk Register dealt first with the Earl of Crafurd to sign the said Minuts albeit 13 years after that Parliament at least that Session of Parliament was no more in being and then caused application to be made in behalf of the Duke of Lawderdale to the Lords of Session to give their Warrant for Extracting what he was conscious to himself was so unwarrantably done And that the Earl of Crafurd had declared under his hand by a Letter left with his Daughter Lady Helen Sinclair how he was prevailed with by the said Sir Archibald Primrose to so unjustifiable a practice and which Letter is set down at length in the foresaid Paper and that the Duke of Lauderdale notwithstanding of his great power durst not adventure albeit that he knew his Title to that Estate to be defective to put a Crime so calumnious as was charged upon the Deceast John Swinton to the Tryal of a Parliament knowing that he would have been able to have Cleared himself And that the Letter written by the Earl of Crafurd having been shown to the King he did grant a Commission to make inquiry in the whole procedor concerning Swinton's Forfeiture and to inspect the Records of Parliament in relation to the same and to make Report thereof to His Majesty And the Records of Parliament being inspected there was nothing found that related to any pretended Decreet of Forfeiture against Swinton in the Parliament 1651. And as to the Parliament 1661. all that was found did appear from the Records of Parliament to be false But this Earl of Lauderdale had that influence upon those to whom the Commission was direct as rendered the same ineffectual This being the sum of John Swinton's Case as he 's pleased to term it It is Answered thereto 1o. That it is most false and calumnious that the Duke of Lauderdale did enter to the possession of the Estate of Swinton before he obtained the Gift of Forfeiture For the deceas'd John Swinton being Forfeited by the Committee of Estates in anno 1651. who had power from the Parliament then sitting at Perth to discuss the relevancy and probation of the Inditement raised against the said deceast John Swinton and others and to decide and determine therein as fully in all respects as the Parliament sitting in pleno e●● sessu might have done After the King's Restauration that same Committee being appointed by the King to meet in anno 1660. to mannage the publick concerns of the Kingdom until a Parliament was called they amongst other things did Sequestrat the said John Swinton's Estate whom they knew they had Forfeited in anno 1651. and did appoint George Hume of Kaimes to intromet with the Rent of the said Estate and to be comptable to the King or Lords of Thesaury And the Duke of Lauderdale did not intromet with a six pence thereof until the Martinmass 1661. which was long after both the last Sentence of Forfeiture and his Gift thereof from his Majesty 2o. As to the Decreet of Forfeiture in anno 1651. Altho the Warrands thereof were lost with several other publick Records coming down from London in anno 1660. yet the Extract thereof must make as much Faith as if the Warrants thereof were yet extant seing it is notourly known that the Lords of Session sustains all Extracts out of the Registers of these years 1648 49 50 and 51. and refuses to grant Certifications against any Writs Registrat these years because the Warrants of the Registers of these years were lost But that which puts the truth and verity of this Decreet beyond all question is this that Lieutenant Govan who was Forfeited at that same time with John Swinton and contained in the same Decreet with him was put to death by Order of the Parliament in anno 1661. by vertue of the first Sentence in anno 1651 as is evident by the last Minuts upon the Margin of that Decreet anno 1651. Ordaining the Sentence of Death to be execute against him conform to the said Decreet and which Minuts are Subscribed by the then President of the Parliament 1661. So

of the Decreet given to John Swinton thereafter when the Principal Decreet was gotten back from him And as to that pretence that it was absurd to assign him a further Dyet after a Judicial Confession since in Law Confessus pro condemnato habetur It is Answered That it was very consistent with the Parliaments Procedure in that Process because John Swinton not only being Indyted upon new Crimes committed by him in anno 1651. But likewise the Decreet in anno 1651. being to be Ratified and Approven his Judicial Confession being only in relation to these new and supervenient Crimes the Parliament might very well assign him another day as they did upon his desire to give in his Answers to the Decreet 1651. To the third Branch of that Reason It is Answered that there was no necessity to insert in the last Decreet of Forfeiture that he had gotten up the former Decreet to see unless that Swinton had returned the samine with particular Answers and although it had been insert it would infer no nullity in the Decreet although John Svvinton never appeared before the Parliament thereafter for having neglected to give in his Answers the Parliament might and did very warrantably proceed both to Forfeit him upon the new Inditement and to Ratifie and Approve the first Decreet To the fourth Reason of Reduction being against the third and last Minute It is answered 1o. That the Minut is opponed bearing no such thing as Swinton's compearance that day but it doth only bear that the Parliament having considered that member of the new Indytment of Treason pro tempore insisted on with the Pannals answer in Write and Viva Voce and judicial confession desire of the Lord Advocat with the former Decreet of Forfeiture they repelled the saids Answers given in in Write and viva voce as no ways relevant and found the formentioned Article and Member of the foresaid new Indytment insisted upon relevant and proven without making any mention of the Pannal's Personal Compearance And as to that part of the Reason denying any judicial Confession to be emitted by Swinton or extant in Process the former Answers are opponed 2o. Altho there was a day assigned to the said John Swinton to give in his Answers against the first Decreet yet there was no necessity to call him before the Parliament thereafter unless he had given in his Answers which he not having done as he was appointed and ordained the Parliament did very justly proceed to pronounce a Sentence of Doom and Forfeiture against him upon the new Indytment and to ratifie the former Decreet of Forfeiture in anno 1651. And the deceas'd John Swinton returning the said Decreet without any Answer was a clear and convincing Argument that he intended to make none against the said Decreet being conscious to himself that it was justly pronounced against him So that there was no necessity to call him when the Parliament advised his new Indytment and pronounced Sentence upon the samine especially considering that by the quality adjected to the sentence he was recommended by the Parliament to His Majesty as to his Life 3o. As to the last part of that Reason anent the want of the Solemnities as Read Voted Touched Warrand for publication by sound of Trumpet and tearing of Arms which certainly would not have been omitted as is pretended if any Sentence of Forfeiture had been truly past It is Answered 1o. That it is admired with what Confidence it can be asserted that there was no Decreet of Forfeiture past in that Parliament against John Swinton in the Year 1661 but that it was made up in the Year 1670 or thereafter seing amongst the list of the Imprinted Acts of the first Session of the Parliament 1661 there is Insert not only a Decreet of Forfeiture against John Swinton but also a Ratification of John Swintons Forfeiture in Favours of the late Duke of Lauderdale And in the Act of indemnity which was past in the second Session of that same Parliament the Decreet of Forfeiture against John Swinton is particularly excepted and by the Decreet of Parliament in anno 1661 John Swinton being recommended to the King as to his Life he was ordained to be kept Prisoner in the Castle of Edinburgh till his Majesties pleasure was fully known So in prosecution of that part of the Decreet upon the sixteen of July 1661 within four days after the Decreet the Commissioner subscribes a Warrant to the Magistrats of Edinburgh to deliver the Person of John Swinton to the Captain of the Castle of Edinburgh or his Lieutenant and whereupon Mercer Lieutenant of the Castle gave his Receipt which will appear by the Register of the Tolbooth and Warrants thereof all which being joyned with the Duke of Lauderdale's Possession of Swinton's Estate conform to the foresaid Decreet of Forfeiture do fully Adminiculat and astruct the Verity of the said Doom and Sentence of Forfeiture 2o. As to the want of the Solemnities it is Answered that it is known that Sir Archibald Primrose was a man so Exact and Cautious that he would not have put a Decreet and Sentence of Parliament in the List of the imprinted Acts nor would he have given an Extract thereof under his hand had not the foresaid Sentence been both Voted and Read the hazard thereof and of forging a Decreet of Parliament being no less than his Life and Fortune And it is evident that the Parliament having considered the Process having repelled the Defences which were formerly given in both in Write and Viva Voce And having likewise considered his Confession formerly mentioned they behoved to Read and Vote the samine these being solemnia sententiae latae quae semper et necessario inesse presumuntur etiamsi non expressa And as to the tearing of his Arms and sounding of the Trumpet there was no necessity thereof that Solemnitie having been performed in the first Decreet of Forfeiture in anno 1651. And the Touching of Decreets of Forfeitures is no ways necessar that being only a Solemnitie adhibit to publick Laws to signifie the Royal Assent but not at all to Sentences and Decreets betwixt or against privat Persons except by the Forfeiture the Lands of the forfeit Person be annexed to the Crown And if any such Solemnity was used in any other Decreets of Forfeiture it was ex super-abundanti there being no such thing required by our Law To the fifth Reason of Reduction being against the whole Minutes It is Answered 1o. That esto it were true that the Earl of Crafurd did sign these Minutes at the time condescended upon in his Letter yet he does not at all therein question the Truth of the saids Minutes and of the Sentence of Forfeiture and John Swinton's making use of this Letter to Canvel the Truth of the Minutes is the greatest Imputation and Reflection upon the Honour Integrity and Ingenuity of the Deceas'd Earl of Crafurd For can any Man in Sense or Reason think that