Selected quad for the lemma: enemy_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
enemy_n	army_n	horse_n	regiment_n	1,230	5	9.4676	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
B02584	The case of John Swinton, in relation to his father's pretended forfeiture upon pretext whereof, the estate of Swinton hath been unjustly possess'd by the late Duke, and this Earl of Lawderdale [sic], ever since the year 1660. With the reasons of reduction of the said forfeiture, now depending against the said Earl, at the instance of the said John Swinton, before the Parliament.	Swinton, John, Sir.	1690 (1690)	Wing C921; ESTC R170951	11,757	18

of anno 1661. all that was found did from ocular inspection and many other Circumstances concurring with the Earl of Crawfurd's Letter and even from the Records of Parliament themselves make it manifestly evident to be false However the Earl of Lauderdale had that influence upon those to whom the Trial of this Affair was recommended at that time as rendred the further Prosecution of the Commission given them ineffectual Nor was John Swinton who now represents his Father nor his eldest Brother before him in a capacity to quarrel otherwise their Adversarie's Title so long as there stood pretended Decreets of Parliament in their way of a Forfeiture how false and groundless soever against their Father Thus the Estate of Swinton hath been unjustly possessed by the Duke of Lawderdale and the Earl his Brother for the space of near 30 years for tho the Duke got his Gift of the pretended Forfeiture of that Estate in the year 1661. yet he entred to the Possession of it in the year 1660. eight Months before the Gift was granted During all which time the true Proprietars have been debarred from access to an Inheritance transmitted to them from their Ancestors by an uninterrupted Succession of above 600 years And for the Recovery whereof upon the present Revolution this Swinton the Representative of the Family being to make Application to the PARLIAMENT now sitting as the Supreme Judicatorie of the Nation and in order thereunto having after the first Adjournment intented a Reduction before the same of the two pretended Decreets above mentioned of his Fathers Forfeiture and the Earl of Lawderdale having been cited therupon by a Warrant of the Council the Signet not being open and the Rents of the Lands by the Council's Order sequestered in the Tennents hands during the Dependence the REASONS of the said Reduction are here subjoyned REASONS OF REDVCTION at Swinton's Instance against the Earl of Lawderdale THE PRETENDED DECREET OF THE COMMITTEE OF ESTATES 1651. whereupon the Duke of Lauderdale's Gift is founded cannot be respected as a Decreet and Doome of Forfeiture and ought to be reduced 1. Because it is a Decreet in absence not subscribed by the Clerk Register for the time but by Mr. Thomes Henrison pretended to be Clerk to that Committee from whom a pretended Extract thereof was elicit in the year 1661. ten years after and whereof there is no Warrant extant in the Records of Parliament 2. Though it laboured under no such Defect yet it being against several other Persons aswell as the deceass'd Swinton and particularly against one John Hume accused and convict for betraying the Castle of Edinburgh to the English It bears an express Declaration That the King and Committee of Estates for Reasons and Considerations moving them did restrict the Sentence and Punishment to the Execution of the said John Hume to the Death Which clearly takes off the effect of the Sentence as to Swinton and all the rest till it should be reconsidered by the King and Parliament 3. By the late CLAIM OF RIGHT it is declared by the MEETING OF ESTATES That the causing pursue and forfeit Persons upon frivolous and weak Pretences and upon lame and defective Probation is contrary to Law And it is evident that this pretended Decreet proceeds upon most frivolous weak and irrelevant Pretences The Crime therein libelled against Swinton being That be hawing a Charge in the King's Army deserted the same and went in to the Enemy and had his frequent Residence with and resorted to the Enemy in the Town of Edinburgh Cannongate and Leith carrying has Sword about him Which as libelled was both irrelevant and calumnious For he did not desert the King's Army but being Lieutenam-Collonel of a Regiment of Horse under the King and at that time his necessary Occasions calling him over to his House in the Merse he gave up his Commission as he or any man in such Circumstances might lawfully do and one Crawfurd of Crawfurdland was immediatly thereupon put in his Place And as he crossed the Water several Weeks if not Months after he had thus quit his Charge and Crawfurdland had got it being intercepted by a Party of the English and carryed to their General 's Quarters he was for some time detained there a Prisoner and thereafter upon his Parole had liberty to go home Which neither in Sense nor Reason nor in the Construction of Law could be understood a deserting of the King's Army and going in to the Enemy And that he resorted to and resided with the Enemy in Edinburgh Cannongate and Leith was a most frivolous and absurd Pretence to infer the Crime of Treason For these Places and the greatest part of the Southside of Forth being then under the Enemie's Power it could infer no Crime much less the Crime of Treason against any who had occasion for their lawful Affairs to come where the Enemy was that they resorted to the Enemy or conversed with them For if that had been relevant the most part of the Inhabitants of this side of Forth might have at that time been forfeited upon the same ground And certainly simple Converse and being present with an Enemy is not relevant to infer a Crime unless it could be made appear that the Party so conversing and present joyned with the Enemy in Counsel or Acts of Hostility against the State which is neither libelled nor could be alledged in this Case And as to Swinton's having a Sword about him when he thus resorted to and conversed with the Enemy he being a Gentleman and a Prisoner upon Parole had liberty to wear his Sword and his doing so could infer no Crime against him unless it had bee libeled that he had whilst he wore it used it as an Enemy 4 As the said pretended Decreet proceeds upon frivolous and irrelevant Pretences and so upon that Head falls under the foresaid Article of the CLAIM OF RIGHT It falls under the same Article by the Defect of Probation For the said Decreet being a Decrect in absence neither condescends as to Swinton upon Witnesses that were examined against him nor upon what they deponed as all Decreets of this nature where Parties are not found guilty by their own Confession ought to do but only bearing That the King and Committee of Estates had found the foresaid Pretences libelled against Swinton relevant and SUFFICIENTLY proven without expressing what way the same were proven or bearing even so much as that Witnesses were adduced at all in the Probation Neither is there the least vestige in the Records of Parliament of any Probation whatsoever led any manner of way against Swinton in this Matter So that the whole Probation in this pretended Decreet as to Swinton resolving in the simple Assertion of a Clerk without any authentick Document of the Probation upon Record is in Law no Probation at all 5. The Duke of Lauderdale after he had obtained his Gift of Swinton's Forfeiture founded upon the pretended Decreet of the Committee

of Estates 1651. being convinced how groundless and illegal the said Decreer was caused raise a new Inditement against Swinton then a Prisoner in the Tolbooth of Edinurgh before the Parliament 1661. and therein amongst other Crimes which he caused charge Swinton with he causeth libel the very same Crime in the very same words that was libelled against him in the Decreet 1651. giving him withall the Designation of John Swinton OF SWINTON Which was an implicit passing from the said Decreet and a most evident Demonstration that it was then looked upon by him as no Decreet It being obvious both in Law and common Sense that a Man once forfeited cannot be again forfeited seing by the first Forfeiture in the Construction of Law he is no more in beeing and can have no Estate to forfeit Upon all which Grounds it is manifest that the said pretended Decreet 1651. is null and void to all intents and purposes AND the said Decreet 1651. being null the Duke of Lauderdale's Gift of Forfeiture as being only founded upon that Decreet is null and must fall in consequence Nor can it subsist by the pretended subsequent Decreet of Forfeiture if any such Decreet had truely been in the year 1661. because the Gift is anterior to it the said Gift being dated the 25 of May 1661. and the Decreet 1661 bearing Date the 12 of July thereafter And by the CLAIM OF RIGHT it is declared that the disposing of Forfeitures before Sentence is contrary to Law AND AS TO THE PRETENDED DECREET OF THE PARLIAMENT 1661. The same is null and ought to be reduced 1. Because the same proceeds either upon weak and frivolous Pretences or upon Pretences false and calumnious and is destitute of all Probation whatsoever For as to the first Article of the Inditement whereupon it proceeds bearing That Swinton sate and voted in the Parliament 1649. in which the Act concerning the Engagement forfeited and turned out of Office It was not relevant Because no Man can be not ever was called in question for sitting and voting in a Parliament or-acting therein in a Parliamentary Capacity Seing what is done by a Parliament is not to be understood the Deed of any single Person but of the whole representative Body of the Nation And the King did so far acknowledge that Parliament 1649. that he admitted Commissioners from it as from the Representatives of the Kingdom And by his Treaty with them he was obliged to ratifie the Proceedings of the Parliament after his coming home Which was accordingly performed by him in a Parliament held after his Return in the year 1650. Neither did it appear that Swinton voted for the rescinding the Act in relation to the Engagement 1648. nor for the forfeiting or putting out of Office the Persons mentioned in the Inditement And as to the second Article bearing Swinton's holding Correspondence with the Vsurper by writing to and receiving Letters from him or by sending to and receiving Messages from him by word of Mouth It was absolutely denied and neither was nor could be proven it being in it self altogether false and calumnious And whereas in the said second Article it is alledged as in the first Decreet that Swinton deserted his Imployment in the King's Army and went in to the Enemy the former Answer to the said first Decreet is oppon'd And as to the thrid Article That Swinton did go along with the Usurper's Army to Worcester and fought there against the King at least was with the Vsurper there in Arms. and which is the onely Crime insisted upon by the King's Advocate against him It was likewise denied as it was conceived For if it could have been made appear that Swinton was at Worcester he could have instructed that he was there as a Prisoner and not as a Souldier Neither could it ever have been proved that he acted any thing there in a hostile manner But on the contrary was ready on all occasions to serve his Countrey to the utmost of his Power in that sad Conjuncture In which two of his Brothers in the King's Service Mr. Robert Swinton who commanded a Troop of Horse and Mr. Alexander now of Mersington and one of the Senators of the Colledge of Justice had the fortune the first of them to be kill'd and the other taken Prisoner And the good Offices he did to many of his Countrey Men at that time it is hoped are not yet forgotten And if he had been in Arms as he was not yet this being a Crime alledged to have been committed in England he was secured by the English Act of Indemnity And as to the fourth Article that Swinton did sit and vote in a Parliament in England declaring the King or any other of the Royal Family incapable to succeed in the Royal Government and as a Reward of his Service was appointed one of the Commissioners for Administration of Justice for which he got a considerable yearly Sallary out of the puclick Revenues If it could be made appear that he did sit and vote in any such Parliament yet that was no Crime he being there as one of the Commissioners from Scotland after the VNION and after the three Kingdoms were under the Government of the Usurper and erected in a Common-wealth And it was denied that he was present at the passing of any Act against the King and the Royal Family And if he had been present as he was not it was when the Government was in the hands of the Usurper and Common-wealth and it fell under the Act of the English Indemnity And as to his being one of the Commissioners for administration of Justice and having a Sallary for it He did not accept of that Imployment before the Government was settled in the hands of the Usurper and Parliament of England to which the whole Kingdom of Scotland had then submitted And it is very well known what good Service in accepting of that Imployment he did to his Countrey it being the Countrey 's Advantage that such Places of Trust were in Countreymens hands rather than in the hands of Strangers who understood nothing of the Laws and Customes of the Kingdom And as for any Sallary he got thereby he was never the richer for it but on the contrary it is very well known he was much more in Debt in the year 1660. than he was when he entered upon that Imployment AND as the said pretended Decreet 1661 proceeds upon frivolous and calumnious Pretences so the same is made to proceed upon so lame a Probations as it is without any Probation at all For albeit it bear to proceed upon Swinton's judicial Confession there is no such Confession in the Records of Parliament other than what is contained in the vvritten Defense given in by him under his Hand before the Parliament which is so qualified as it could never be a ground of Forfeiture against him 2. The said pretended Decreet 1661 is null Because the Minutes on the Margent of the said