Selected quad for the lemma: nation_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nation_n	law_n	nature_n	positive_a	2,085	5	11.0131	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A63189	The tryal of Philip Standsfield, son to Sir James Standsfield of New-Milns for the murther of his father, and other crimes libell'd against him, Feb. 7. 1688. For which he had judgment, that on the [15th ...] betwixt the hours of two and four in the afternoon, to be carried to the Mercat-Cross of Edinburgh, and hang'd on a gibbet, until he be dead; his tongue to be cut out and burnt on a scaffold; and his right-hand to be cut off, and affixt on the east gate of Hedington, and his body to be hung in chains. Which doom and sentence was accordingly put to due execution upon the said Philip Standsfield. Published by authority.		1688 (1688)	Wing T2211; ESTC R222248	50,467	41

contraverted so the atrocity of the Act and the forcing others to do the same upon the common grounds of Law does clearly infer Treason and it cannot be expected that such extravagant words should either be exprest or particularly provided against by any Law in express terms but the nature of the words in express terms of our Law discharging all Speeches to the disdain of his Majesty the contempt of his Authority do clearly and naturally comprehend the words Libeled and by the common Law Ad leg jul Maj. crimen laesae Majestatis ad exemplum legis scriptae est vindicandum And whereas it is pretended that these words were inadvertantly said and that it appears by the tract of the Pannal's life and his readiness to engage in his Majesties Service that the words could not be deliberate and malitious It is replyed That it is offered to be proven that the drinking Confusion to the King was openly and plainly proposed And that the Pannal did deliberately send out for Ale to drink certain Healths and that this Health to the King's Confusion was the first or second and that it was no lapse or mistake in the expression but that he forced others to pledge and drink that same Health And the malice and disloyalty is evident by the Healths subsequent viz. Antichrist's c. and it is not at all relevant after the reiterate and deliberat expressing of these words that he had retracted or drank the King's health for a crime once committed is not retracted or taken off by such inconsistent and unconsequential Speeches But to shew the sence the Pannal had of the importance of his own words the Pannal being informed that some of the persons present had divulged his having drunk the King's Confusion the Pannal did conjure them to secrecie and did menace the Witnesses with a great Kane that he would beat and brain them if ever they told it Whereas it is answered in general as to all Crimes committed without the Kingdom that they cannot be cognosced or punished here It is replyed That as to all Crimes against Nature or the Law of Nations as every party is competent to be an Accuser so every Judicature is competent and therefore as to the crimes of Treason or Cursing of Parents wherever committed they are punishable by the Justices But because in relation to the Crimes committed abroad there is no positive Probation but Declarations and Testimonies Therefore as to these Crimes His Majesties Advocat does not insist on them as distinct Crimes per se but as Qualifications Documents and Evidences of the habitual Debauchry and unnatural Malice exprest by the Pannal against his Father for a Tract of many Years Whereas it is answered That as to all Crimes preceeding 1685 they are taken off by the Indemnity It is replyed The Indemnity 1685 is no general Indemnity neither as to Persons nor Crimes but particular Crimes are Remitted and particularly enumerat without any general Clause And as Cursing of Parents is not particularly enumerat so by the Nature of that Crime it cannot be included or comprehended in any general Indemnity And the words of the Act of Parliament 20. Act. 1. Par. K. Ch. 2d bears expresly That the Cursers of Parents shall be put to death without mercy So that a general Act of Indemnity or Mercy without a special Remission could not include this Crime which as the Act of Parliament bears is expresly against Nature and the Law of God And by the Opinion of all Lawers General Indemnities do not extend to all Crimes but these Crimes which are called in Law Crimina excepta are never intended to be Indemnified nor such Crimes where the Interest of Parties is more than the Interest of publick Justice and in all former and General Indemnities Murther and other Crimes are particularly excepted with a general Clause excepting all such Crimes as use not to be comprehended in general Acts of Indemnity So that this so horrid a Crime wherein the Parent was more interested than the Publict neither was nor could be comprehended under a general Indemnity As also that restricted limited Indemnity bears expresly an exoneration for all persons below the degree and quality of an Heretor Wodsetter or Burgess and whether the Pannal were an Heretor or not yet it cannot be said that he is below the degree and quality of a Wodsetter or Burgess and therefore the Act of Indemnity is of no use to him Whereas it is answered That Sir James was reconciled with the Pannal and wrote kind Letters to him whereby dissimulando former Injuries were taken off It is replyed That Injuries are only taken off dissimulando which are not atrocious but never specifick Crimes wherein the Discharge or express Renunciation of the Party injured cannot liberat a vindicta publica the punishment of Crimes especially in Capital Punishments belonging to the Magistrat and the privat Party has not the sole Interest nor can dispense with Capital Punishments But the Letter founded upon does not in the least infer the Parties forgiveness or dissimulation of the injury And a Father ordering his Son to call in for Chamberlain Accompts without impowering him to Discharge the same is not the least evidence of confidence in his Son much less a Remitting of his Crime And as to the second Article in relation to the Cursing it is positively offered to be proven not in single Acts but by a tract and habit of cursing his Father in the most abominable Termes imaginable As to the third Article in Relation to the Murder that this matter may be clear ut constet de corpore delicti these undoubted Qualifications are offered to instruct that Sir James Standsfield was murdered and strangled and that he did not drown himself 1 o. It is offered to be proven by the Minister that was that night in the House that long after ten a Clock at night and that Sir James had retired to the Chamber where he lay a lone the Minister heard the confused Whispers Murmurs and Noise of several persons both Men and Women which afrighted him and that he heard the noise go away by the back-side of the House which leads directly to that Pool where Sir James his Body was thrown in the Water 2 o. Sir James's Body was found swimming above the Water and albeit it appeared by the Ice upon the top of his Cloaths that he had been several hours in the Water yet there had no Water entred into his Body which is a demonstration that he was dead before he was thrown in the Water for a person thrown alive into Water drawing in of Air and Respiration being in the Water he must draw in Water and if the person drawes in as much Water as fills his concavitie he becomes heavy having so much more weight of Water and therefore he sinks But if a person be thrown dead into the Water when the Clap of his Throat is shut the Water cannot enter and there

THE TRYAL OF Philip Standsfield SON TO Sir James Standsfield OF NEW-MILNS FOR The Murther of his father AND OTHER Crimes Libell'd against him Feb. 7. 1688. For which he had Judgment That on the 〈…〉 the Hours of Two and Four in the Afternoon To be carri●● 〈◊〉 the Mercat-Cross of Edinburgh and hang'd on a Gibbet until he be dead His Tongue to be cut out and burnt on a Scaffold And his Right-hand to be cut off and affixt on the East Gate of Hedington And his Body to be hung in Chains Which Doom and Sentence was accordingly put to due Execution upon the said PHILIP STANDSFIELD Published by Authority Edinburgh Printed by the Heir of Andrew Anderson Printer to the King 's most Sacred Majesty Anno Dom. 1688. With Allowance to be Reprinted at London And are to be sold by Richard Baldwin 1688. THE Publishers Advertisement TO THE READER SIR James Standsfield the Subject of this Tragical Relation was Born in England whence in his younger Years he went into Scotland and was Secretary to the Famous Major General Morgan upon His Late Majesties happy Restauration and the Armies Disbanding he betook himself to Merchandizing and very considerably in returning of Monies betwixt the Two Kingdoms In which he behaved himself with that Honour Justness and Punctuality as soon made him Rich and Eminent and also well known to His Late Majesty and the Greatest Personages of both Courts and Kingdoms He was a Gentleman of a Publick Spirit and having Married a Scotch Lady and gain'd a considerable Estate in that Kingdom sought all Ways Just and Honourable to do it good And amongst others at a vast Expence settled the Linnen and Woollen Manufactures at his own Seat called New-Milns near Hadington a few Miles on this side Edinburgh where not only great Sums of Money but Hundreds of poor People were Employ'd and Conveniences made for their Working from the Wool to the Draper's Shop as was generally known in that Kingdom and also in this He was a Gentleman of that Sobriety Temperance and discreet Behaviour as obliged all Persons he had Converse with and I have heard some Persons of Quality that knew him Intimately for Thirty Years say they neither saw nor ever heard of so much as one Intemperate or Immorral Act that he was guilty of Yet this worthy good Gentleman fell by the Hands of his most Cruel and Vnnatural Eldest Son even in his own Bed-Chamber a Son to whom he had given very Liberal Education and whose repeated Extravagancies had cost many Hundreds Still hoping that his Tenderness and Indulgence towards him together with a Sight of his Errors would as he grew in Years reclaim him but instead thereof as he increased in Years he increased in Vice and such a Riotous Course of Living as rendred a plentiful Annual Allowance not sufficient for a Month. Being thus Arrived to a mighty height in all manner of Wickedness a low Ebb of Fortune and nothing but his Fathers Life standing betwixt him and a plentiful Estate The want of Grace and the Strength of the Tempter put him upon perpetrating the Horrid Fact which notwithstanding all Endeavours was used to bring him to Confess and Repent of yet he remained Obstinate to his last moment which some attribute to the Shame that must naturally be the Consequent of so Vnnatural and Bloody a Fact. The Tryal of Philip Standsfield Son to Sir James Standsfield of New-Milns for the MURDER of His Father and other CRIMES Libel'd against Him. Curia Justiciaria S. D. N. Regis tenta in praetorio Burgi de de Edinbugh Sexto die Mensis Februarii 1688. per Nobilem Potentem Comitem Georgium Comitem de Linlithgow Dominum Livingstoun c. Justiciarium Generalem totius Regni Scotiae honorabiles viros Dominos Joannem Lockhart de Castle-hill Davidem Balfour de Forret Rogerum Hodge de Harcase Joannem Muray de Drumcairn Commissionarios Justiciariae dicti S. D. N. Regis Curia Legitime affirmata INTRAN Philip Standsfield Eldest lawful Son to Vmquhile Sir James Standsfield of New-Milns Prisoner within the Tolbooth of Edinburgh INdyted and Accused at the Instance of Sir John Dalrymple Younger of Stair His Majesties Advocate for His Highness's Interest That where notwithstanding by the Law of GOD the Common Law Law of Nations Laws and Acts of Parliament of this Kingdom and constant Practice thereof the expressing of malitious and seditious Words to the disdain of His Sacred Majesties Person and contempt of His Royal Government such as Drinking or Wishing Confusion to His Majesty is High-Treason particularly by the 2d Act 2d Sess Par. 1 st K. Ch. 2d of ever Glorious Memory The Plotting Contriving or Intending Death or Destruction to the King's Majesty or any bodily harm tending to Death or Destruction or who shall by Writing Printing or other malitious and advised Speaking express and declare such their Treasonable Intentions after such persons being legally Convicted thereof they shall be deemed declared and adjudg'd Traitors And the Cursing Beating Invading or Assassinating of a Parent by a Child above the Age of sixteen Years who is not Mad and Furious is punishable by Death and Confiscation of Moveables And of all other Murders Paricide is the most atrocious and unnatural and Murder under Trust is punishable as Treason with forfaulture of Life Land and Goods and particularly by the 20 Act 1st Sess 2d Par. K. Ch. 2d the King's Majesty and Estates of Parliament considering how great and atrocious a Crime it is for Children to Beat or Curse their Parents and how the Law of God hath pronounced just Sentence of Death against such as shall either of these ways injure either of their Parents therefore the King and Estates of Parliament did Statute and Ordain That whosoever Son or Daughter above the Age of Sixteen Years not being Distracted shall Beat or Curse either their Father or their Mother shall be put to Death without Mercy And sicklike by the 51 Act 11 Par. K. Ja. 6th It is Statuted and Ordained That the Murder or Slaughter of whatsomever of the Leidges where the Party slain is under the trust credit assurance and power of the Slayer all such Murder or Slaughter to be committed in time coming the same being lawfully tryed and the Person dilated found guilty by an Assise thereof shall be Treason and the Person found culpable shall forfault Life Land and Goods as in the saids Laws and Acts of Parliament at more length is contained Nevertheless it is of Verity that the said Philip Standsfield shaking off all Fear of God the Bonds and Ties of Nature and Christianity Regard and Obedience to the saids Laws and Acts of Parliament did dare and presume to commit the saids horrid and detestable Crimes in swa far as upon the first second third or one or other of the Days of the Moneths of June July August or September last by past one or other of them he did within the House and

prejudice against his Father upon the account of Disponing his Estate to his second Son for he knew nothing thereof till after his Father's decease that one Alexander Ainslie told him that his Father made such a Disposition 3 o. As to the pretended Expressions that the Defender should have had of Railing Cursing and using Imprecations against his Father in so far as the samen are lybel'd to have been done abroad in England Holland or other places he cannot be lyable to the punishment inflicted by the Law of this Kingdom because when a party commits a Crime in another Nation he is only to be punished according to the Law of the place where the Crime was committed and not according to the Law of the Nation where he is a Subject or has his dwelling As is clear by the Common Law Authentick Cod ubi de criminibus agi oportet Qua in provincia quis delinquit ant in qua pecuniarum aut criminum reus sit sive de terra sive de terminis sive de possessione sive de proprietate sive de hypotheca aut de alia qualibet occasione vel de qualibet re fuerit reus illic jure subjaceat quod jus est perpetuum In that Nation where any Person commits a Crime or is lyable to answer upon any account whatsomever he is to be judged by the Law of that place which is established as a perpetual Law and Mattheus de Criminibus in his title de poenis is express of the same opinion 4 o. As to all those pretended Expressions of railing cursing and threatning lybel'd that were before March 1685. The Defender is secured by the Act of Indemnity by which all Crimes are indemnified preceeding that time against the Government and Laws 5 o. As to any pretended Expressions of railing and cursing since that time they being but Injuries alledged done to the Father he might and did remit the samen in so far he did not challenge and pursue the same in his own time and this is clear from the Common Law Carpzov Part 2. Quaest 65. Actio autem injuriarum nec active nec passive in Haeredes transit etiamsi mortuus illatas injurias ignoraverit Institut lib. 4. tit 12. par 1. de perpetuis temporalibus action Leg. 10. par 2. ff si quis cautionibus in jujudicio fisten And leg 13. ff de injuriis injuriarum actio neque haeredi neque in haeredem datur As also it is a Principle in Law that dissimulatione tollitur injuria and if it could be made appear that the Pannal had any such Expressions the Father did dissimulat and pass from the same in so far as by a Letter dated in June last written by the Father to the Pannel he orders him to take in his Chamberlain Accompts of the Rents of his Lands and of any Money he had received from the Tenements or for the Corns sold and that he expects he will do the same exactly and recommends to him to be careful of all his Affairs and subscribes himself to be his Loving Father By which it is evident that all former differences if any were betwixt them were then taken away As to the third part of the Indytement in relation to the several Acts and Qualifications insisted upon To inferr that the Defender had accession to his Father's death It is answered primo That the Indytement in so far as it is founded upon the 51. Act Par. 11. K. Ja. 6. in relation to the Murder under trust which is declared to be punishable as Treason is not relevant Because the Father cannot in Law be said to be under trust and assurance of the Son and that Act of Parliament takes only place in Cases where a man is invited to his neighbours House or of an Traveller being in an Inn and that he be murdered under that trust and the same Act of Parliament being founded on in the case of Swinton who killed his Wife in the year 1666. the Inditement was restricted to simple Slaughter And in the case of Master James Oliphant in the year 1665 The Lords of the Session found that a Son 's killing his Mother was not Murder under trust and so he was not punishable by that Act of Parliament as guilty of the Crime of Treason 2 o. The Acts and qualifications condescended on to infer the Defenders Accession to his Fathers death are but very remote and uncertain for as to that expression That the defender is alledged to have threatned his Fathers death It is the opinion of all Lawyers who have written upon the subject that that is but a very remot Presumption And as Carpzovius expresses it Part. 3. Quest 121. Numb 51. quod est indicium admodum periculosum quippe cum homines saepe nil minus faciant quam quod minas exequantur et ira cundia agitatus minas de crimine perpetrando saepe jactet ipso tamen animo fervore paulo post disscusso cohibeat manus et abstineat a facinore illo quod forsan ab alio postea committitur And Paris de puteo gives an instance in his Tractat de syndicatu upon the word Tortura and Boverius That a Woman seeing a Person going by her Window against whom she had a Prejudice and that another having a hatred against her and hearing that she had threatned to cut off that Persons Leggs the party that did hear the Woman use the threatning did the thing upon which the Woman that did threaten being challenged and put to the Torture did confess Yet thereafter it was found that she was altogether innocent and that another had done it 3 o. As to the pretended Acts of the Defenders alledged Pursuing and Invading his Father and fireing Pistols at him at Lothian burn and Culterallors in Annis 1683 and 1684. As it is most groundless so if need were it could be made appear by the Persons who were in company with him at that time That the Defender and his Father were then in intire friendship all alongst the journey and he was so far from making any such attempt That it can be made appear that the Defender did behave himself towards his Father with all the submission and respect that became a Son to have to his Father But as to these and all other Acts preceeding March 1685. the Defender is secured by the Act of Indemnity and as the Defender cannot be pursued for any Crime preceeding that time neither in Judgment nor out with the same they in effect being no Crimes being taken away by the Act of Indemnity they cannot be so much as made use of as qualifications or aggravations to infer another Crime posterior thereto 4 o. As to that pretended qualification that when the Defender did touch his Fathers dead body after it was taken out of the grave the Corps did bleed It is answered that this is but a superstitious observation without any ground either in Law or Reason And Carpzovius relates