Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
england_n high_a lord_n treasurer_n 4,230 5 10.7514 5 true
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
B08654 The case of the Kerry quit-rent, 1681 1681 (1681) Wing C1096A; ESTC R205941 12,106 17

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

then the Value of the Land or that 5668 Acres of cleer Lands could not have been found amongst the 54000 Acres inserted into the Certificate of the Court of Claimes besides such a way of proceeding is without precedent as well as without Reason Object 3. That although the Lord Lieutenant and Council upon report of the Committee of the Council by Instruments signed by the Lord Lieutenant Lord Chancelllor Lord Chief Justice Lord Chief Baron and many others had recommended the Reduced Collumn to be Judicially confirmed as it had formerly been That the extreme Measure had been a loss to the King and would intitle the Farmers to Defalcations c. Yet the King had done nothing upon it Answer The King by his several Letters since hath pressed the Consideration and Settlement of the Reduced Collumn and this plea it self was filed upon an Order of the Lord Lieutenant and Council in Trinity Term 1678 grounded upon his Majesties said Letters and after the Earl of Essex his Reducement to 148 l. had been made Object 4. That the Conaught Survey was not like the Kerry Survey and that if the Late Commissioners for the setling of Conaught had charged Quitrents onely upon the Aliquot part and not the extream content It did not concern the Pleadant to take notice of it Answer 1. The Kerry and the Conaught Surveyes are the same in substance and in their Maps though they do differ onely in the form of their Books of Reference 2 The Reason of charging Quitrents in Conaught by the Aliquot part is far less and less Warrantable then in Kerry and those transactions are produced by the Pleadant as precedents à fortiori for that the Reduced Acres of Conought are of Triple value to those in Kerry And for that the present Chancellour and Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer were Judges and Commissioners with the Lord Chief Justice Booth and Sir Richard Reynel for Conaught so as these Transactions were also pleaded as Arguments ad hominem as well as ad rem As to the other Chief Question viz. WHether according to the true meaning of the Clause in the 37th Page of the Explanatory Act Which appoints That the legal Quit-rents shall be so Moderated as to incourage Plantation That for scarce three years enjoyment of the Premisses The Kings Ministers shall dispose of them the remainder of 21 years and a half and We might add give the profits of them to those who never had any right thereunto and who have Grosely contemned and Violated the Orders of Court made concerning the same As to this question We shall onely leave the Reader to an afidavit made the 25th of July 1681 before the Lord Chief Baron and hereunto annexed until further proceedings shall call for a larger discourse both upon this and the former question also Onely Noting for the present That out of the said Afidavit there do arise the following Arguments for discharging of the said Lands from all Seisures Custodiums c. viz. 1 Arg. It is most certain that the King hath had these Lands by seisure Custodium from Easter 1675 to Michaelmas 1681 which is 6 years and a half and that the Grantees never medled with them in any measure but between Michaelmas 1668 and Easter 1675 Which is also 6 yeares and a half so as by the severest Rules that ever were conceived the King was never to have one half of the Profits for his Quitrent as in this Case he hath had 2 Arg It is certain That besides the said 6 years and a half from 1675 to 1681. the King and others under him did also possess the premisses from Easter 1660 to Michaelmas 1668 which is 8 yeares and a half more making in all 15 yeares which is certainly sufficient to pay the Quitrent for 6 years and a half 3 Arg. of the 6 years and a half hitherto supposed to have been enjoyed by the Grantees It will appear That not 3 years of the said 6 years and a half hath been so enjoyed by them viz. 1 By Reason of Levari's and Seisures happening within the said 6 years and a half 2 By the Usurpation of certain persons called REFRACTORIES 3 By the frequent and cruel distrainings of the late Farmers for what was neither due nor possible to be paid 4. For that the 2392 l. acknowledged to have been recieved is not full 3 yeares Rent according to the Leases by which the Grantees did or might have let the same if they might have been quiet Wherefore 3 yeares and a half of the said 6 years and a half was held by the King and those who directly or indirectly made use of his Name so as the said 3 yeares and a half added to the last mentioned 15 yeares makes 18 years and a hlaf and is a sufficient quitrent for the other 3 yeares 4 Arg. The said 2392 l. is not 2 years and a halfs Rent according to the present Custodium Rent of 1120 l. per annum so as the Question now is whether 19 years be a sufficient Quitrent for 2 yeares and a half 5 Arg. The said 2392 l. is not One year and a halfs Rent at the Rate of 1830 l. per annum which the Farmers have certified the Lands which yeilded the said Money to be worth so as the last Question is whether 20 yeares be not a sufficient quitrent for one year and a half Whereas by the Earl of Essex his most severe Rule one year should suffice for that purpose so as the other years all quitrents being discharged together with the value of the said Woods is to be accompted for to the Grantees 6 Arg. Moreover although the Earle of Essex and the other Commissioners made a Rule That ⅖ parts should be given to the King for Quitrent against which there are many weighty Objections yet even according to that Severe Rule it self The King was paid his quitrents by Anticipation even in that proportion up to Easter 1681 by the first 8 yeares and a half for that 8 years and a half is the ⅖ of 21 yeares a quarter But It will rather appear That the King had these Lands ten years before the Grantees had any profit at all out of them and consequently was paid up till the year 1685 and moreover that he had held them the Equivalent of 15 yeares when the Grantees had held them but three yeares before the Custodium was granted Anno 1678 And also that the said Custodium was granted after his Majesty by the advice of the Earl of Essex himself and Lord high Treasurer of England in his Letters of the 28th of April 1676 and the 8th of December 1677 had directed the contrary These 6 Arguments rising gradually one above another We hope will be as Easy stairs by which the Lamest understanding may get up to the Top of this Truth to wit That the said Lands ought now to be and long since to have been discharged from all seisures Custodiums c. even according to the severest Rules that ever were made in pursuance of the said Clause in the 37th Page of the Explanatory Act But much more according to the Rates made by the Lord Lieutenant and Council and according to the dictates of common sense and Reason and the common Rule of the whole Kingdom For if but one year in 8 or if but ⅛ part of the Profits be generally given to His Majesty for Quitrnet throughout the whole Nation then It is wonderful That above 18 years disposure of the premises should not have satisfied the Kings-quitrents for the Grantees enjoyment of the same but 3 years onely As the Subsequent Afidavit Importeth The Affidavit made before the Lord Chief Barron Hene