Selected quad for the lemma: enemy_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
enemy_n	high_a	king_n	treason_n	1,342	5	9.2657	5	true

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

it is a Decreet in Absence not subscribed by the Clerk Register for the time but by Mr. Thomas Henderson pretended Clerk to that Committee from whom an Extract was elicit in anno 1661 ten years thereafter and whereof there is no Warrant extant in Records of Parliament It is Answered 1o. That it is notourly known that Mr. Thomas Henderson who Subscribes the Extract of the Decreet of Forfeiture pronounced by the Committee of Estates in anno 1651 to whom the Parliament had remitted these Processes of Forfeitures was Clerk to the said Committee of Estates and the Extract of the Decreet bears not only the Forfeiture of John Swinton but of several other persons and amongst the rest Lieutenant Govan who upon the same Decreet was Execute as appears by the Minuts in anno 1661 upon the Margine thereof the last Minut whereof is ordaining that Decreet of Forfeiture to be put to further execution against Govan and is Subscribed by the President of the Parliament 1661 and the Sentence of Death was accordingly execute against him thereupon though his Crimes were far less obvious and notour than these of John Swinton's and Clerks to Committees of Estates or Criminal Courts or any of the Registers Deputs do grant authentick and valid Extracts although not subscribed by the Clerk Register and it is a meer Calumny that the Extract was elicit from Mr. Thomas Henderson in the year 1661 and it is an intollerable imputation and reflection upon the Parliament to say that they would upon the same Extract have ordained Govan to be Execute and ratified and approven the Forfeiture contained in this Extract against John Swinton if the Extract had not been both true and warrantable and the truth is the whole particulars that are contained in the said Extract were then recent and fresh in the Memories of a great part of the Members of the Parliament 1661 who had been Members of the Committee of Estates in anno 1651 and who had pronounced that Decreet of Forfeiture against Swinton and others therein contain'd 2o. Swinton in his Answers Written and Subscribed by himself given in to the Parliament 1661 therein endeavours to extenuat his Guilt in joyning with the Usurper Cromwell and going with him to Worcester pretending it was because he was out of the Protection of Law which Words can no otherways be understood than of the Decreet and Sentence of Forfeiture pronounced against him in anno 1651 neither does he in his Answers deny that he was Forfeited in anno 1651 which is a clear demonstration of the verity and truth of the foresaid Decreet 3o. Whereas it is pretended that there is no Warrant upon Record of the said Decreet It is Answered That it is notour and universally known that the Warrants of that year and of several other years of the Registers were lost coming down from London in anno 1660 and that Extracts furth of the Registers make as much Faith as if the Warrants thereof were yet extant the Lords of Session always sustaining such Extracts out of the Registers of these years and refusing to grant Certifications against any Writs that are Registrat these years because the Warrants thereof were lost in manner foresaid and if this Preparative should be sustained or be encouraged to reduce Decreets or Acts of Parliament which are Corroborat by other publick Acts of subsequent Parliaments relative thereto upon Pretences that the Minuts or Warrants thereof are not extant then the most part of His Majesties Prerogatives asserted by the Acts of Parliament and all Decreets of Forfeitures whereupon Annexations to the to the Crown have followed or Donations to the Liedges may be all called in question and redargued upon the same pretences and therefore the foresaid Decreet of Forfeiture in anno 1651 being unquestionably astructed as to the verity thereof by the Parliament 1661 their homologating the samine in putting the Sentence of Death to execution against Govan by vertue thereof and by their ratifying the samine in so far as concerns Swinton and acknowledged likewise by Swinton in his Answers the same cannot now be redargued upon the pretence of the want of the Records which were lost in manner foresaid To the second reason of Reduction bearing That the King and Committee of Estates for reasons and considerations moving them did restrict the Sentence of Punishment to the said John Hume who was one of the persons forfeited in the said Decreet to the Death which takes off the effect of the Sentence as to Swinton and all the rest till it should be reconsidered by the King and Parliament It is Answered That by this reason appears either the gross ignorance of the Libeller or his disingenuity if not both for the Doom of Forfeiture is most solemnly pronounced by sound of Trumpet and tearing the Arms of those forfeited and by reiterat and ingeminat Clauses forfeiting the Traitors as to Life Heretage and Movables which is exprest and repeated as to John Swinton and the exception is taxative and relates only as to John Hume who by the former part of the Doom was forfeited as to Life Lands and Heretage also and which is evident by the exception which restricts the Sentence as to John Hume that his punishment should only be Death when apprehended and the Escheat of his Movables and the Liferent of his Lands and both Swinton and Govan do not so much as pretend to or found upon any restriction of that Sentence when they were brought before the Parliament 1661 which certainly they would not have neglected if their Restriction had been extended to them and the Decreet and Sentence was considered by the Parliament 1661 as not containing any such restriction in their favours when they did not only ordain Govan to be execute by vertue thereof which was accordingly done but also when they did repell Swinton's Answers as being no ways relevant and did ratifie and approve the foresaid Decreet and forfeited him of new for the new additional and supervenient Crimes whereof he was Indicted To the third reason of Reduction bearing That by the late Claim of Right in the Meeting of Estates It is Declared that the causing Pursue and Forfeit persons upon frivolous and weak Pretences and upon lame and defective Probation is contrair to Law and that the Crimes libelled against John Swinton were such being both irrelevant and calumnious It is Answered 1o. That if the Crimes of Deserting of the Kings Army by a Commissionat Officer and going in to the common Enemy who at that time had invaded the Kingdom and having their residence and dayly resorting and conversing with the said publick Enemy be irrelevant to infer the Crime of Treason then it is not known what can be found relevant to infer that Crime For 1o. by Law and the Custom of Nations de re militari who ever accepts a Military Commission or Charge he cannot at his pleasure dismiss or exauterat himself and Swinton having acknowledged and it being

proven against him that he received his Charge in the Army from the King and Committee of Estates he could not loose himself or his cingulum sacramentum militare fine missione and without his Majesty and Committee of Estates their License and Warrant and his pretended giving up of his Commission which in his Answers to the Parliament 1661 was by intimating the samine to the Chancellor and to Gilbert Ker that they received the samine off his hands doth not excuse much less warrant his withdrawing from his Charge whereupon the Law tho he had proceeded no further put this construction and character of Desertion and having gone to the Enemies Quarters sine comm●● tu Law goes further to put the Character upon him of being transfuga hostis and whatever may be his Pretences of his being taken Prisoner and carried to the Enemies Quarters where he was some time detained Prisoner yet they are undoubtedly nothing else but Excuses to palliat his treasonable designs against his King and Country for if he had not had a design to joyn with the Enemy what could move him to that side of the Water and place of the Country where the Enemy was lying his Family being on the other side and where he could not Escape being taken by the Enemy but the true reason was he was afraid that the Treaties and Correspondence which he had with the Enemies before should be discovered and he punished for the same and if he had been kept as a Prisoner with the Enemy is it possible that they would have suffered him to wear his Sword who had been in Arms against them especially when they had disarmed all the Gentlemen in the Country and would suffer none to wear Swords but those who who were actually in their own Service And whatever might be Alledged against simple Converse and being present with an Enemy as not relevant to infer the Crime of Treason yet this Converse being qualified as is Libelled viz. the deserting of his Charge in the Army his going to the place where the Rebels were his residing and frequent resorting with them with his after Carriage in going in with the Usurper to Worcester which he acknowledges in his Answers that he did it at the desire of the Usurper by the Construction of all Law and by the Laws of this Kingdom is relevant to infer the Crime of Treason and that of the highest nature 2o. The foresaid Decreet being ordained by the Parliament to be given out to him to see the 15th of May 1661 and to give in his Answers thereto again that day eight days and accordingly the said John Swinton having gotten up the said Decreet to see he returned the samine without any Answers which certainly he would not have done if he had been innocent of these Crimes libelled against him in the said Decreet or if the Decreet of Forfeiture had not truly been pronounced against him and seing that the Decreet of Forfeiture 1651 is not only ratified by the Parliament 1661 as to John Swinton but thereupon the said Lieutenant Govan was excecute as aforesaid it is high and bold insolence in John Swinton to have libelled such a reason of Reduction by questioning the relevancy of his Fathers Inditement which in effect is of no less import than to accuse both the Committee of Estates 1651 and the Parliament 1661 of high and manifest Injustice and upon the matter is an impugning of the Authority of the Estates and Parliament which by the Law is declared Treason To the fourth Reason of Reduction viz. That the foresaid Decreet is defective in the Probation the Decreet neither condescending upon the Witnesses that were examined against him nor upon what they deponed but only that the King and Committee of Estates have found the Libel relevant and sufficiently proven without expressing what way the same was proven So that the whole Probation of that Decreet resolves in the simple assertion of one Clerk without any authentick Document or Probation in record which in Law is no Probation at all It is answered 1st That the Decreet is opponed bearing expresly Sir Thomas Nicolson's compearance who was then Kings Advocat before the King and Committee of Estates and desiring that His Majesty and the said Committee would consider the relevancie of the said Libel and Inditement with the Depositions of divers famous Witnesses Received Sworn and examined thereanent So that the Decreet condescends that the manner of Probation was by Witnesses And it is neither Practise nor Form to condescend upon the Witnesses names in any Decreets but only to condescend upon the manner of Probation whether the samine be by Witnesses Write or Oath of Partie 2ly After that Sir Thomas Nicolson had desired the King and Committee of Estates to consider the relevancie of the Libel and the Witnesses Depositions the King and the said Committee did find the Libel as it was raised against the said John Swinton viz. That he being imployed as Leiutenant-Collonel and having had the charge of one Troop of Horse did desert the said Charge and did go in to the common-Common-Enemy who had invaded the Kingdom and did oppress the same and had frequent Residence with and did resort to the said Common Enemy divers and several times since in the Town of Edinburgh Cannongate and Lieth relevant to infer the Pain and Punishment of high-High-Treason and found the samine proven by the Depositions of divers famous Witnesses Sworn Admitted Examined and Deponed as was clearly known to His Majesty and the Committee of Estates And therefore the King and Committee did pronounce the sentence of Forfeiture against him so that it is most callumnious to alledge that the foresaid Decreet does only bear that the Libel against Swinton was found relevant and sufficiently proven without expressing what way the famine was proven or that Witnesses were adduced for proving thereof And the former Answer is repeated that the Authority of a Parliament is not to be impugn'd nor are Decreets of Forfeiture to be reduced upon any pretended Nullitie or informality of Process till first the Crime be purged and the Partie by a Remission be rehabilitat as is clear by the 135 Act. Parliament 8 King James the 6. And as to that part of the foresaid Reason of Reduction viz. That there is no authentick Document of the Probation upon record the samine is so fully answered before that it is needless to repeat it here in this place To the fifth Reason of Reduction viz. That the Duke of Lauderdale after he had got an Gift of the said John Swinton's Forfeiture upon the Decreet 1651 he did cause raise a new Indytment before the Parliament 1661 wherein was Libelled the same Crime in the very same Words as it was Libelled against him in anno 1651 And did design him John Swinton of Swinton which was an implicite passing from the said Decreet and an evident Demonstration that it was looked upon by the Duke as no