Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	daughter_n	die_v	son_n	18,435	5	5.3320	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A46076	An impartial account of some of the transactions in Scotland, concerning the Earl of Broadalban, Viscount and Master of Stair, Glenco-men, Bishop of Galloway, and Mr. Duncan Robertson in a letter from a friend.	Friend.	1695 (1695)	Wing I65; ESTC R15762	20,378	32

created him Enemies afterwards an Heir Male and of Tail appearing to the deceased Earl of Caithnes he the said Sir John Campbell took a new Patent to be Earl of Brodalban In the year 1677. by order of Council he sent a double Regiment of his Tenants and Vassals in conjunction with the Marquis of Athol Earl of Perth and several other Noblemen and Gentlemen to the West Country which was then called the Highland Host there was a Commission of the Council sent along with them to try the Dissenters this created the Earl of Broadalban Enemies also Upon the Revolution he stood out but being convinced of his errour as to the alteration from that of Arbitrary and dispotick power to that of a mild merciful and peaceable Government tracing the true Constitution and fundamental Laws of the Nation he joined forces and offered his Service to the Government by bringing in of the Highland Clans and Rebels by fair means or necessary stratagems to make the effects answer the end As for the Glenco-men the truth is hic labor hoc opus est to describe them without reflection upon my Country-men which I would willingly avoid but the real truth is they were a branch of the Mc. Donnels who were a brave couragious People always seated amongst the Campbells who I mean Glenco-men are all Papists if they have any Religion were always counted a People given to Rapine and Plunder or Sorners as we call it and much of a piece with your Highway-men in England Several Governments designed to bring them to condign Punishment but their Purses it seems found them out Protectors and their Country was inaccessable to any small Parties and though I dare not approve of the method taken in January and February 1692. by killing them under trust and in cold Blood yet at the same time they deserved the heavy hand of Justice in a regular and legal manner which would have made their Neighbours live in more peace and tranquility I do remember when I first heard then of the matter I said to some great Persons that the best method would be to make these Men Prisoners and send them abroad to be Soldiers or to the Plantations and wishes it had been so Now that I have given you a Historical account of these Persons in as brief terms as I could to make you understand the Men and the relation of matters afterwards I begin again with the Bishop of Galloway Mr. Robertson and the Lord Viscount Stair's affair The Viscount of Stair is by his own his Author's and Predecessors Charters Heretable Bailly or Judge of the Royalty or Regality of the Lordship of Glenluce within the Bishoprick of Galloway for which the Bishop is obliged and was constantly in use to pay him 20l. sterling yearly of fee or Sallary in Money or value besides the perquisites of the Court which is allowed to the Deputy always The Bishop of Galloway died as was mentioned The three Daughters and their Husbands did contend about proving the Will of the Deceased the Bishop's Widow being poor and detained from what effects the Bishop left by the contention and tedious unnatural Law Debates of her Children Mr. Hugh Dalrymple the Lord Stair's Son being Factor for uplisting of his Father's Rents the time of his Father's Exile as abovesaid and the Viscount himself likewise after his return home did support her with Money that she might not starve during the Law debates for which they took security both from her self and Mr. Patrick Smyth her Eldest Daughter's Husband to repay them After long and litigious Debates the Lords of the Session pronounced a Decreet in favour of Mr. Patrick Smyth being found to have the best right and who supported the Mother by his Credit This Mr. Duncan Robertson encouraged by some Persons not well inclined to the Lord Stair to be sure presented a Petition to the Parliament upon the 3d day of June last complaining that the said Viscount had pronounced an unjust Sentence against him It would be needless and not to your purpose to repeat all the said Complaint and the great and long Debates followed thereupon so I only give you the substance and the most material points in the Complaint viz That the President in the Debate betwixt the said Robertson and Mr. Patrick Smith should have done Injustice by making up himself or by his Influence a Debate or Minutes and Interloquitor subjoyned thereto upon the 29th of July 1692. and signed the same privately in the Vacation 2. That after there was a Decree pronounced in favour of Mr. Smith against Mr. Robertson against which Decree Mr. Robertson gave in a Bill of Suspension upon which Bill the Clerk of the Bills refused to write a Sist by the President 's Order thereby stopping the ordinary course of the Law 3. That the President Transacted during the Dependence of the Plea with Mr. Smith as Executor to the Bishop for a Debt due by the President to the late Biship and had an Ease from Mr. Patrick of the Debt and took Allowance of 20l. Sterling of Baily Fee which the Bishop would never have paid The Answer made to the first was That if Mr. Robertson or any other could prove against the President that he did sign any Interloquitor or Debates privately but what was the meaning of the rest of the Lords in praesentia as well as his own Opinion he were most unjustifiable but nothing at all thereof was proved On the contrary one Smyth a Witness adduced by Robertson himself Deposed that the King's Advocate did Dictate them who is a Man of great Honour and Integrity and owned the same The Clerk also deposed the same and Mr. John Frank Robertson's own Advocate Deposed that the Point mentioned in these Minutes was stated by the President which should have been debated Mr. Robertson's Advocates declined to Debate and Mr. Patrick Smith craving a Decreet and that the same was pronounced in Mr. Frank's own hearing and others so not done privately Two of the Lords of Session Halcraig and Crosrig deposed to the same purpose and one of these Lords doth exactly remember that before the Cause was called the Lords Resolved that the Parties should Debate the very Points mentioned in the minutes which was stated truly by the President as all the Lords resolved And it is further cleared the aforesaid Interloquitor being res gesta known to and authorized by all the Lords by a subsequent Decreet of Suspension which followed thereupon the first of February 1693. It was answered to the Second That the Clerk of the Bills James Nicolson did refuse to receive or write upon the Bill of Suspension because Mr. Robertson was litigious and after two Decreets in foro he offered a third Bill and Mr. Patrick Smith having found Caution or Surety to Relieve Mr. Duncan Robertson and his Wife of any Process might be intended against them as Executors to the Bishop which was the