Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
england_n duke_n lord_n marquis_n 2,519 5 10.8284 5 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
B01492 Abbreviat of the depositions of the witnesses, adduced by the Earl of Lauderdale against the Earl of Aberdene. Scotland. Convention of Estates. 1684 (1684) Wing A70BA; ESTC R173257 18,118 20

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

the Vote The Lords found the said Deposition was Probative upon that ground that he being an Officer of the Mint and Deponing upon a matter incumbent to his Office and Charge his Deposition did sufficiently prove against himself and consequently against the Earl of Lauderdale as being lyable for him and the rest insolid●m in the terms of a formal Interlocutor and doth not remember that that Point was tune Voted or not nor yet how the Votes ran but that it was carried by plurality of Votes And Depones that upon the Lord Aberdene's uttering the foresaids expressions my Lord Pitmedden said that he wished the King were sometimes present to hear them Adam Chrystie Depones that at the Advising of the Probation some of the Lords said that John Falconer Warden seemed to be Examined before the Commission as a Witness as appeared by the style of his Deposition bearing John Falconer of such an Age Depones And next albeit he were Examined as a Party some of the Lords said it was debateable how far it should operate against another albeit it were Probation against himself And after some Debate amongst the Lords the Earl of Aberdene seemed to be angry and displeased saying My Lords This is not my private concern but the King's Cause If you will for my part you may Assoilȝie the Earl of Lauderdale And afterward it was carried affirmative 5. Albeit by the Interlocutor the Lords found the Earl of Lauderdale only lyable for the rest of the Officers of the Mint in solidum quoad the Bulȝeon yet after the Interlocutors were drawn upon the Advising of the Probation the Earl of Aberdene caused apply the Interlocutors as to the Bulȝeon to the whole other Articles of the Libel found the Earl of Lauderdale and Lord Maitland lyable in solidum for the whole malversations of the rest of the Officers of the Mint The Duke of Queensberry in Answer to the 2d Interrogator Depones as to the Earl of Aberdene's urging that the Earl of Lauderdale and his Son might be found lyable for the rest of the Officers of the Mint The Deponent doth not remember the Argument he made use of to that purpose The Lord Reidfoord in Answer to the 2d Interrogator Depones that he thought my Lord Aberdene earnest to have every one of the Officers of the Mint found lyable in solidum Sir Alexander Gibson in Answer to the first Interrogator Depones That the time of the Advising the Earl of Aberdene was of the opinion and did urge that the Earl of Lauderdale should be found lyable in solidum for the other Officers of the Mint To the 4 5 6 and 7. special Interrogators Depones that after the Deponent had drawn the Interlocutor given upon Advising the Probation Sir Patrick Hume did draw another Draught of the Interlocutor in more ample terms and in special as to the several Officers of the Mint their respective malversations and therein the Interlocutor which was given upon debate as to the second Article anent the Bulȝeon finding the general Libel in solidum for the rest of the Officers of the Mint is applyed and repeated as to all the Articles of the Libel relating to the Mint Which Interlocutor Sir Patrick did shew to the Earl of Aberdene the Deponent being present And after the same was read the Deponent told he was not clear to Extract the Decreet in the terms of the Interlocutor unless the same were brought to the Lords and considered Whereupon the Earl of Aberdene ordained the Deponent to Transcribe that Interlocutor and to bring it in to be read before the Lords the next day which the Deponent did accordingly And the Interlocutor being read the Lords did acquiesce thereto and the Decreet was Extracted conform to the samen The King declared he would not have the Lord Maitland insisted against whereupon my Lord Maitland Compeared at the Bar and declared he could not Defend and discharged his Advocats to Defend and gave in a written Declaration and Submission to that purpose Yet notwithstanding he is made Compearing and no notice is taken of his Declaration and refusal to Defend but is Decerned in solidum My Lord Chancellor Perth in his Answer to the 6. Interrogator Depones That in the Council held at Windsor where were present beside the Counsellors of the Scots Nation Prince Rupert the Marquess of Hallifax the Duke of Ormond the Earl of Sunderland the now Lord Thesaurer of England c. The late King of ever blessed memory did declare that what-ever faults might be in the Family of Lauderdale or amongst the Officers of the Mint he thought my Lord Maitland was not chargeable with any of them The Earl of Belcarras in his Answer to the first Interrogator Depones That he was in a Scots Council at Windsor where the late King's Majesty after hearing the report of the Commission anent the Mint said That my Lord Maitland to whom his Majesty had spoken was but a young Man and had been much out of the Countrey and therefore thought he had little meddling in that Affair and his Majesty said he thought he should not be meddled with and that after some debate in the Council about that matter the Deponent thought it was his Majesties resolution that my Lord Maitland should not be meddled with in that Affair The Bishop of Edinburgh in Answer to the first Interrogator Depones that the late King's Majesty in a Scots Council held at Windsor Castle the 24. of August 1682. After hearing the report of the Commissioo anent the Mint read and considered and that some in that Council had moved that the Lord Maitland might be turned out of his Office of being General of the Mint al 's well as the other Officers His Majesty did say that my Lord Maitland could not be guilty of any malversations in his trust of the Mint since his Majesty knew that for the most part he was out of the Kingdom by his Majesties own allowance and that he was very young So if when at home any errors were committed by him they were to be imputed to his Father under whose conduct he was and therefore his Majesty declared he would not suffer my Lord Maitland to be meddled with or touched in that Process All which his Majesty spoke with a great deal of zeal and concern for the Lord Maitland's interest The Viscount of Tarbat in Answer to the 7. Interrogator Depones that in the Council at Windsor the Deponent heard the late King say he would not have the Lord Maitland pursued for the Mint or some words to that purpose But what the Deponent heard his Majesty say in private the Deponent conceives he is not bound to declare it The Lord Forret in Answer to the 6. Interrogator Depones that the Lord Maitland did appear before the Lords and declared in their presence that he would not Defend in the Mint-Process and discharged his Advocats to compear therein for him and gave