Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	act_n	parliament_n	person_n	2,736	5	5.0257	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
B01468	An addition to Swinton's case, in relation to his father's pretended forfeiture, upon occasion of the answer to it published by the Earl of Lauderdale.	Lauderdale, John Maitland, Duke of, 1616-1682.	1690 (1690)	Wing A532AA; ESTC R176282	12,752	18

the Inditement 1661. but libe● the pretended Crimes without respect to or so much as making mention of the Decreet 1651. And when the said Decreet was thereafter produced Swinton was allowed to see and answer i● as a Libel and so it could not be made use of as a Probation 4. As to that Pretence that the Parliament did ratifie and approve the Decreet 1651 and of new forfeited Swinton for being in Arms against the King at Worcester it is what is absolutly inconsistent and repugnantia in adjecto to ratifie a former Forfeiture and of new to forfeit And in this Case the former pretended Decreet 1651 could not be ratified because by giving a new Inditement to Swinton for the same Crimes it was passed from So that if there had been any Ratification of it such a Ratification could import no more but the ratifying of a Libel which can never have the effect of a Forfeiture 5. A man that is forfeited is not only civiliter mortuus not having personam standi in judicis but also being forfeited he has no Estate both his Person and Estate in the Construction of Law being extinct and therefore being forfeited once he can neither quoad vitam nor quoad bo●● be forfeited a second time And the Instance of a Murtherer committing Treason after his being condemned for the Murther is most impertinent and absurd there being a vast difference betwixt such a one and a Person that is forfeited For a Man that is sentenced for a Murther his Escheat only falls which carries the Right to his Movables but his Lands and heretable Estate still remain with himself and go to his Heirs And therefore if a Person sentenced for Murther should make his Escape and thereafter commit Treason he may be forfeited and his Forfeiture will carry the Right to his Lands and heretable Estate But it is not so in the case of a Person forfeited who what Crime soever he commit after is incapable either as to Life or Fortune of a higher Punishment Whereas it is alledged That John Swinton by his Answers given in to the Parliament 166● doth acknowledge that he was at Worcester and that he went thither at the desire of the Usurper which sufficiently proves the Crime against him IT IS ANSWERED That Swinton's Answers are opponed which bear expresly that he did deny that Article of the Inditement as it was conceived And tho he acknowledges that he was at Worcester yet he declares it was as true he went thither through the earnest Intreaty and Importunity of him that though he doth ingenuously acknowledge he could not say he used that as an Argument could have commanded him alongst with him as his Prisoner and whose Prisoner he was upon the matter and that he went in no other capacity than a Traveller And that if it should have been made appear that ever he joyned so much as in any Troop or carried any Charge or that upon any occasion there in the Battel or otherwise he did draw a Sword or loose a Pistol he admitted all or any one of these relevant of consent to inferr the Conclusion of the Inditement And as an evident Demonstration that Swinton was not at Worcester hostili animo or out of any design to act against the King or to the prejudice of his Native Countrey he declares in his Answers he could say in the presence of the SEARCHER OF ALL HEARTS that he thought if the Parliament should find the Inditement against him upon that single Head of his being at Worcester as he doth look upon that as the Principal and all the rest but as Accessories even in the intention of the Libeller and the Sentence that should pass as to Life and Estate were ready to receive its last Consummation he could receive 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 were under Which Confession being so qualified and particularly that he was there as a Prisoner it cannot be divided and so did not prove that Article of the Inditement and could never inferr any Crime against him far less the Crime of Treason And whereas it is alledged That the English Act of Indemnity did extend no further than to the King●s English Subjects and not to Scotsmen And as no Law made by the Parliament of England could hinder the Parliament of Scotland to proceed against Traitors who were Scotsmen so no Indemnity pass'd in the English Parliament could Indemnifie Scotsmens Crimes or could hinder the Parliament of Scotland to proceed against them albeit they had been particularly indemnified by the Parliament of England IT IS ANSWERED That as by the Law of Nations Crimes may be judged and punished in the Place where they are committed so Persons committing Crimes may be indemnified by the Supream Authority where the Crimes are committed seing a judicando condemnando ad condonandum remittendum vale● consequentia And therefore as the deceass●d Swinton in his Answers urgeth with no less elegancy of Expression than force of Reason this being a Crime alledged to be COMMITTED in England TRIABLE in England PARDONABLE in England PARDONED in England and that by him AGAINST WHOM the offence was committed that English Act of Indemnity if he were guilty behoved to free him Which being general and so comprehensive not only indemnifying all his Majesties Subjects in England and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging but also the Subjects of all OTHER his Majesties's Dominions it must necessarly comprehend Scotsmen that had committed Crimes in England And therefore they could not be pursued for the same before the Parliament or any other Judicatory in Scotland And whereas it is alledged That a judicial Confession emitted before a high Court of Parliament makes full Faith albeit not subscribed And Swinton did not only emit a Confession viva vo●e before the Parliament but also in his Answers which are subscribed by him he acknowledged his being at Worcester with the King's Enemies IT IS ANSWERED 1. That it is denyed that Swinton did emit any judicial Confession of the Crimes libelled before the Parliament and there is no vestige of any such Confession extant upon Record 2. It is a great mistake in the Author of these Answers to assert that a Confession albeit judicially emitted before the Parliament should make Faith without being signed either by the Party or the President of Parliament it being against the Principles of Law and incontroverted Custom of all Courts of Judicature whatsoever whether supreme or subaltern to admit judicial Confessions without being signed either by the Parties themselves or by the Judge that presides 3. As to any pretended Confession in Swinton's Answers the former Answer is opponed that it is qualified and cannot be devided but must be taken as it stands and which so taken could never have inferr'd a Crime against him much less the Crime of Treason As to what is alledged against the Reason of Reduction founded upon the Nullitie and Falshood of the Minutes the MINUTES themselves that REASON of Reduction and the Earl of CRAWFVRD'S LETTER are opponed which the Penner of the Earl of Lauderdale's ANSWERS finds such rugged stubborn and untoward Peeces to deal withall as all the pitiful Shifts and Evasions he tortures himself with to shape an Answer to them serve but to demonstrate to the World that they neither ARE nor CAN be answered And whereas it is alledged That albeit the Interlocutories had not been signed by the Earl of Crawfurd yet that is no Nullity there being no special Law nor Custom requiring the same at that ti●● And the Minutes and Interlocutories of the other Processes of ●●●feiture against Govain Guthrie and others passed in that Parliame●● are not signed by the Chancellor nor President IT IS ANSWERED That the Alledgence is most ●●lumnious For it was the constant Custom of the Parliament 16●● and hath been in other Parliaments both preceeding and sub●●quent for the Chancellor or President as they sign all the W●●rants for the ACTS and STATUTES that pass in Parliame●● so they are in use to sign all Minutes that are Warrants for D●●CREETS and SENTENCES as is evident from the RECORD● and particularly in the Minutes of those very Sentences against ●●vain and Guthrie in the Parliament 1661. mentioned in the ●●ledgence of those in the same Parliament pronounced against 〈◊〉 Marquess and late Earl of Argile then Lord Lor● Ardkinglass ● And it were against Sense to think that a Minute of a Clerk shou●● take away a Man's Life and Fortune without being signed 〈◊〉 the Chancellor or President of Parliament IN RESPECT OF ALL WHICH Swinton's REASONS OF REDUCTIO● which are instantly verified and instructed 〈◊〉 ought to be sustained and the ACT given in 〈◊〉 him reducing the aforesaid two pretended Decree● of Forfeiture ought to pass and he to be restor●● against the same by WAY OF JUSTICE