Selected quad for the lemma: reason_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
reason_n	great_a	know_v	think_v	4,867	5	3.8178	3	true

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

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 SWINTON having in his Printed CASE and REASONS of REDUCTION in relation to his Father's pretended Forfeiture given so true and clear an account of that Affair to the World as upon the severest Scrutiny can be made into the matter of Fact as represented by him it will be impossible for his Adversaries ever to convell he shall not trouble himself to take so much notice of the Paper published by the Earl of Lauderdale by way of Answer as to make any formal Reply unto it But the Earl's Design in that Paper being only to obscure and darken what he found was set in too great a Light for him by any other method to cope withall and to render the CAUSE of a Son unfavourable by reflecting upon his Father he shall endeavour to take off what therein may seem to have any weight with those that read it AND in the first place As to what the Author of the Earl's Answers is pleased so virulently to libel against the Fame Reputation of the deceass'd Swinton in the odious Comparison he makes bewixt him and the Duke of Lauderdale DEBASING the one as a Traitor to his King and Countrey and EXTOLLING the other as litle less than a Martyr for both those who shall consider the Answer the former gave in to the Inditement exhibited against him in the Parliament 1661 will even tho they never knew him find him of far another Character very clear from so black an Imputation and one whose Deportment in all the Transactions whether publick or private of his Life are so well known and have left so fair an impression in the minds of all that knew him as whatsoever the Duke 's great Merits were in relation to his King and Countrey the deceass'd Swinton were he living would think he had no great reason to envy his MEMORY either as to the one or the other Whereas it is alledged That this Swinton's Brother did procure a Commission from the late King Charles for enquiring into the Method Procedure and the Warrants upon Record of Swinton their Father's Forfeiture and there being several Objections offered against the Forfeiture and Answers made thereunto by the Earl of Lauderdale the Commissioners were convinced that nothing of moment was instructed on the Objector's part and the Commission thereupon deserted IT IS ANSWERED That Swinton's Brother having represented to the late K. Charles the clear Grounds of Nullity of the Forfeiture and the unjustifiable Methods had been made use of in the Procedure concerning it his Majesty found them so convincing that he was pleased to grant a Commission to the Earl of Aberdene then Chancellor and several others to take tryal of the same and to report And accordingly inquiry thereinto being made and the Parties heard the Lords of the Commission were fully satisfied of the truth of what was objected against the Forfeiture But by the influence the Earl of Lauderdale had upon several of them the Report was delayed and shortly after the Earl of Aberdene being laid aside the Commission thereby expired So that to alledge that the Commission deserted upon the account that there was nothing instructed against the Forfeiture is most calumnious and false Whereas it is alledged That albeit the Warrants of the Decreet 1651 be not produced yet the Extract must make as much Faith as if the Warrants were extant seing the Lords of Session sustain all Extracts out of the Registers in the years 1648. 1649. 1650. and 1651. and refuse to grant Certification against any Writs registered those years because the Registers of those years were lost IT IS ANSWERED That the pretended Extract of the Decreet 1651. can make no Faith because it is not subscribed by the Clerk Register for the time as all Extracts of Decreets of Parliament are in use to be Neither is it so much as made appear that Mr. Thomas Henryson who is alledged to subscribe that Extract was Clerk-depute to the Committee of Estates And seing there are no Warrants of that Decreet extant it cannot make Faith For as to what is asserted of the Lords of Session concerning Extracts for those years it is most calumnious the Lords not sustaining such Extracts to satisfie the Production in Improbations but all they do is to stop the Extract of the Certification for some time that the Parties may raise a Proving of the Tenor of any Writ registered those years and allow the Parties to make use of any pretended Extract they have only as an Adminicle in proving the Tenor but do not sustain such Extracts per se to make intire Faith Which if otherwise were of dangerous Consequence since Persons might forge Extracts of Decreets and Bonds for those years and so ruine whom they pleased in their Estates and Fortunes And whereas it is alledged That the Truth and Veritie of the Decreet 1651 is adminiculated by this that Lieutenant Govain who was forfeited at the same time with Swinton and is contained in the same Decreet was by vertue of that Decreet put to Death by Order of Parliament in the year 1661. IT IS ANSWERED That the Parliament 1661 did not consider that Decreet 1651 as a standing Decreet against Govain upon which he could have been summarly executed but on the contrary he being called before the Parliament that Decreet was given him to see and answer by which it was turned into a Libel and as he was to answer it as a Libel so he did actually give in his Answers to it and the Parliament gave their Sentence against him as upon a Libel and Answers So that Govain's being one of the Persons comprehended in the Decreet 1651 with Swinton is so far from adminiculating the Verity and Truth of that Decreet that it redargues the same For if the Parliament had look'd upon that Decreet as a true and valide Decreet they would have ordained the Sentence therein to be put in Execution against Govain without any further Demurr But having allowed him to see and answer it is a clear Demonstration that the Parliament considered that pretended Decreet only as a Libel and not as a formal standing legal Sentence Especially seing upon the Answers given in by him they passed a new and solemn Sentence against him forfeiting his Life and Fortune ordaining his Arms to be lacerat and delete out of the Herald's Books with all the other Solemnities of a Forfeiture Which it is absurd to think the Parliament either would or could have done if the Decreet 1651 had been looked upon by them as a true and valide Forfeiture it being as repugnant to Sense as contrary to Law for a Man once forfeited to be forfeited over again Whereas it is alledged That the Verity of the Decreet of Forfeiture 1661 is adstructed by the List of the unprinted Acts which bears that there was a Decreet of