<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2011-08-16</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>Alexis Jakobson</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>*Proofed title page(s).
*Reviewed structure.
*Checked division-marking material at heads and feet of divisions (HEADS, CLOSER, OPENER, ARGUMENT, EPIGRAPH, SIGNED, BYLINE, etc.).
*Added TYPEs to DIVs in order to validate.
*Checked for N=""s.
*Checked ^s.
*Checked placement and completeness of PBs.
*Checked for foreign, damage and missing-page GAPs, #, --.
*Checked for LBs, startqs / endqs, q;s, &abque;s, ABBRs and Qs.
*Checked for FIGUREs and decorated initials.
*Checked proofsheets and made corrections found there.
*Corrected <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="2 letters">s etc.
*Converted <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="2 letters">s to GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="[vendor name]".
*Revalidated.</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="B01468">
<STC T="W">A532AA</STC>
<BIBNO T="oclc">51617778</BIBNO>
<VID>175122</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="text">
<PB N="1" REF="1" MS="y">
<HEAD>AN ADDITION TO <HI>SWINTON'S</HI> CASE, in relation to his Father's pretended Forfeiture, upon occa&s;ion of the ANSWER to it publi&s;hed by the Earl of <HI>Lauderdale.</HI></HEAD>
<P><HI>SWINTON</HI> having in his Printed CASE and REASONS of REDUCTION, in relation to his Father's pretended For|feiture, given &s;o <HI>true</HI> and <HI>clear</HI> an account of that Affair to the World, as upon the &s;evere&s;t Scrutiny can be made into the matter of Fact, as repre&s;ented by him, it will be impo&s;&s;ible for his Ad|ver&s;aries ever to convell; he &s;hall not trouble him&s;elf to take &s;o much notice of the <HI>Paper</HI> publi&s;hed by the Earl of <HI>Lauderdale</HI> by way of <HI>An&s;wer,</HI> as to make any <HI>formal Reply</HI> unto it. But the Earl's De&s;ign in that Paper, being only to <HI>ob&s;cure</HI> and <HI>darken,</HI> what he found was &s;et in too great a <HI>Light,</HI> for him by any other method to cope withall; and to render the CAUSE of a <HI>Son</HI> unfavourable, by reflecting upon his <HI>Father:</HI> he &s;hall endeavour to take off, what therein may &s;eem to have any weight with tho&s;e that read it.</P>
<P>AND <HI>in the fir&s;t place,</HI> As to what the Author of the Earl's <HI>An&s;wers</HI> is plea&s;ed &s;o virulently to libel again&s;t the <HI>Fame</HI> &amp; <HI>Reputation</HI> of the decea&s;s'd <HI>Swinton,</HI> in the odious Compari&s;on he makes bewixt him and the Duke of <HI>Lauderdale,</HI> DEBASING the one as a Traitor to his King and Countrey, and EXTOLLING the other as litle le&s;s than a Martyr for both; tho&s;e who &s;hall con&s;ider the An&s;wer the former gave in to the Inditement, exhibited again&s;t him in the Parliament 1661, will (even tho they never knew him) find him of far another <HI>Character,</HI> &amp; very clear from &s;o <HI>black</HI> an Imputation: and one who&s;e
<PB N="2" REF="2"> Deportment in all the Tran&s;actions (whether publick or private) of his Life, are &s;o well known, and have left &s;o <HI>fair</HI> an impre&s;&s;ion in the minds of all that knew him, as what&s;oever the Duke's great Merits were, in relation to his <HI>King</HI> and <HI>Countrey,</HI> the decea&s;s'd <HI>Swin|ton,</HI> were he living, would think he had no great rea&s;on to envy his MEMORY either as to the one or the other.</P>
<P><HI>Whereas it is alledged,</HI> That this <HI>Swinton</HI>'s Brother did procure a Commi&s;&s;ion from the late King <HI>Charles,</HI> for enquiring into the Me|thod, Procedure, and the Warrants upon Record, of <HI>Swinton</HI> their Father's Forfeiture; and there being &s;everal <HI>Objections</HI> of|fered again&s;t the Forfeiture, and <HI>An&s;wers</HI> made thereunto by the Earl of <HI>Lauderdale;</HI> the Commi&s;&s;ioners were convinced, that no|thing of moment was in&s;tructed on the Objector's part, and the Commi&s;&s;ion thereupon de&s;erted.</P>
<P>IT IS ANSWERED, That <HI>Swinton</HI>'s Brother having repre|&s;ented to the late K. <HI>Charles</HI> the clear Grounds of <HI>Nullity</HI> of the For|feiture, and the unju&s;tifiable Methods had been made u&s;e of in the Procedure concerning it; his <HI>Maje&s;ty</HI> found them &s;o convincing, that he was plea&s;ed to grant a Commi&s;&s;ion to the Earl of <HI>Aberdene,</HI> then Chancellor, and &s;everal others, to take tryal of the &s;ame, and to re|port. And accordingly inquiry thereinto being made, and the Parties heard; the Lords of the Commi&s;&s;ion were fully &s;atisfied of the truth of what was objected again&s;t the Forfeiture. But by the influence the Earl of <HI>Lauderdale</HI> had upon &s;everal of them, the Report was delayed: and &s;hortly after, the Earl of <HI>Aberdene</HI> being laid a&s;ide, the Commi&s;&s;ion thereby expired. So that to al|ledge, that the Commi&s;&s;ion de&s;erted upon the account that there was nothing in&s;tructed again&s;t the Forfeiture, is mo&s;t calumni|ous and fal&s;e.</P>
<P><HI>Whereas it is alledged,</HI> That albeit the Warrants of the Decreet 1651 be not produced, yet the Extract mu&s;t make as much Faith as if the Warrants were extant, &s;eing the Lords of Se&s;&s;ion &s;u&s;tain all Extracts out of the Regi&s;ters in the years 1648. 1649. 1650. and 1651. and refu&s;e to grant <HI>Certification</HI> again&s;t any Writs re|gi&s;tered
<PB N="3" REF="2"> tho&s;e years, becau&s;e the Regi&s;ters of tho&s;e years were lo&s;t.</P>
<P>IT IS ANSWERED, That the pretended Extract of the Decreet 1651. can make no Faith, becau&s;e it is not &s;ub&s;crib|ed by the Clerk Regi&s;ter for the time, as all Extracts of Decreets of Parliament are in u&s;e to be. Neither is it &s;o much as made ap|pear, that Mr. <HI>Thomas Henry&s;on,</HI> who is alledged to &s;ub|&s;cribe that Extract, was Clerk-depute to the Committee of E|&s;tates. And &s;eing there are no Warrants of that Decreet ex|tant, it cannot make Faith. For as to what is a&s;&s;erted of the Lords of Se&s;&s;ion, concerning Extracts for tho&s;e years, it is mo&s;t calumnious; the Lords not &s;u&s;taining &s;uch Extracts, to <HI>&s;atisfie the Production</HI> in <HI>Improbations:</HI> but all they do is, to &s;top the Extract of the Certification for &s;ome <HI>time,</HI> that the Parties may rai&s;e a <HI>Proving of the Tenor,</HI> of any Writ regi&s;tered tho&s;e years; and allow the Parties to make u&s;e of any pretended Extract they have, only as an <HI>Adminicle</HI> in proving the <HI>Tenor:</HI> but do not &s;u&s;tain &s;uch Extracts <HI>per &s;e</HI> to make <HI>intire Faith.</HI> Which if otherwi&s;e, were of dangerous Con&s;equence, &s;ince Per&s;ons might forge Extracts of Decreets and Bonds for tho&s;e years, and &s;o ruine whom they plea&s;ed in their E&s;tates and Fortunes.</P>
<P><HI>And whereas it is alledged,</HI> That the Truth and Veritie of the Decreet 1651, is adminiculated by this, that Lieutenant <HI>Govain</HI> who was forfeited at the &s;ame time with <HI>Swinton,</HI> and is contained in the &s;ame Decreet; was by vertue of that Decreet put to Death, by Order of Parliament, in the year 1661.</P>
<P>IT IS ANSWERED, That the Parliament 1661, did not con&s;i|der that Decreet 1651, as a &s;tanding Decreet again&s;t <HI>Govain,</HI> upon which he could have been &s;ummarly executed: but on the con|trary, he being called before the Parliament, that Decreet was given him <HI>to &s;ee and an&s;wer,</HI> by which it was turned into a <HI>Libel,</HI> and as he was to an&s;wer it as a <HI>Libel,</HI> &s;o he did actually give in his <HI>An&s;wers</HI> to it, and the Parliament gave their <HI>Sentence</HI> again&s;t him, as upon a Libel and An&s;wers. So that <HI>Govain's</HI> being one
<PB N="4" REF="3"> of the Per&s;ons comprehended in the Decreet 1651 with <HI>Swinton,</HI> is &s;o far from adminiculating the Verity and Truth of that Decreet, that it redargues the &s;ame. For if the Parliament had look'd up|on that Decreet, as a true and valide Decreet; they would have ordained the Sentence therein to be put in Execution again&s;t <HI>Go|vain</HI> without any further Demurr. But having allowed him to &s;ee and an&s;wer, it is a clear Demon&s;tration, that the Parliament con|&s;idered that pretended Decreet only as a <HI>Libel,</HI> and not as a <HI>formal, standing, legal</HI> Sentence. E&s;pecially &s;eing upon the An&s;wers given in by him, they pa&s;&s;ed a <HI>new</HI> and <HI>&s;olemn</HI> Sentence again&s;t 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 ab&s;urd 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 Sen&s;e, as contrary to Law, for a Man once forfeited to be forfeited over again.</P>
<P><HI>Whereas it is alledged,</HI> That the Verity of the Decreet of For|feiture 1661, is ad&s;tructed by the Li&s;t of the unprinted Acts, which bears that there was a Decreet of Forfeiture again&s;t <HI>Swin|ton;</HI> and by the Act of Indemnitie, in which with other De|creets, that Decreet of Forfeiture is excepted.</P>
<P>IT IS ANSWERED, That the mentioning of that pretended Decreet of Forfeiture 1661. in the Li&s;t or Index of the unprinted Acts, and the exception thereof out of the Act of Indemnitie, do not in&s;truct that there was &s;uch a For|feiture. For the mentioning of a Title of Law, doth not in&s;truct that there is &s;uch a Law, unle&s;s the Law it &s;elf be extant. Seing in this, as in all other ca&s;es of the like nature, the <HI>Maxime</HI> takes place, <HI>Qu&ocirc;d non creditur referenti ni&s;i constet de relato.</HI></P>
<P><HI>And whereas it is alledged,</HI> That if <HI>Swinton</HI> had been innocent of the Crimes contained in the &s;aid pretended Decreet of Forfeiture 1651, and had had any ground to have que&s;tioned the &s;ame; he would have made Application to the Parliament 1661, or to Parliaments &s;ub&s;equent, for getting the &s;ame reduced.</P>
<PB N="5" REF="3">
<P>IT IS ANSWERED, That it is notourly known, that the Duke of <HI>Lauderdale</HI> being the chief Mini&s;ter of State in this Kingdom, had that Influence upon the Government all his time; that it had been to no purpo&s;e for <HI>Swinton,</HI> to have made any Application for re|ducing of his Forfeiture, &s;o long as the Duke lived. But immediatly af|ter his Decea&s;&s;e, <HI>Swinton's</HI> Son <HI>Alexander</HI> applied to the King, and procured the afore&s;aid Commi&s;&s;ion, for trying the Nullity of the &s;aid Forfeiture, which if it had not been made ineffectual by the Earl of <HI>Lauderdale</HI>'s means, and the Earl of <HI>Aberdene</HI>'s being turned out of Office, to whom, with others, the Commi&s;&s;ion was granted; there had certainly been a Report made, finding the Nullities now al|ledged again&s;t the &s;aid Forfeiture, &s;ufficiently proven as they are now in&s;tructed. But as a convincing evidence, that the decea&s;s'd <HI>Swinton</HI> did never acknowledge the Forfeiture; all was done that he could do, during the Duke's Lifetime, to recover his E&s;tate from him. In order to which, &s;everal of <HI>Swinton's</HI> Friends having made Application to the Duke, they &s;o far prevailed with him, and &s;o con&s;cious was he of the invalidity of his Right; that in the year 1663, he conde&s;cended to accept of 5000 <HI>lib. Sterling:</HI> and was content to allow as a part of that Summ, the three years Intromi&s;&s;ion he had had with the Rent of the E&s;tate of <HI>Swinton;</HI> and look'd upon the Remainder as &s;ufficient to &s;atisfie and compen&s;e any Intromi&s;&s;ion <HI>Swinton</HI> had had with that part of the Duke's E&s;tate that he had po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ed the time of the <HI>Engli&s;h</HI> U&s;urpation. Which matter of Fact, if need were, could be proved by &s;everal Per&s;ons of quality, who communed betwixt the Duke of <HI>Lauderdale</HI> and <HI>Swinton</HI> at that time, and particularly by the Earl of <HI>Tweddale:</HI> and that the rea&s;on why that Communing did not take effect, was the Duke &amp; <HI>Swintons</HI> differing in the Compu|tation of <HI>Swinton's</HI> Intromi&s;&s;ion: the Duke computing it to amount to 5000 <HI>lib. Sterling,</HI> &amp; <HI>Swinton</HI> contending it amounted but to 4000 <HI>lib.</HI> Which clearly evinces, that as the Duke did not look upon the Forfeiture as valide and legal, &s;o he never intended to make further u&s;e of it, than to be repayed of what he conceived <HI>Swinton</HI>
<PB N="6" REF="4"> had intrometted with of that part of his E&s;tate which he had po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ed under the <HI>Engli&s;h.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Whereas it is alledged,</HI> That <HI>Swinton</HI> in his An&s;wers given in to the Parliament 1661. endeavours to extenuate his Crime, in joyn|ing with the U&s;urper <HI>Cromwel,</HI> and going with him to <HI>Worce&s;ter,</HI> pretending he was out of the Protection of the Law; which could only be under&s;tood of the Decreet of Forfeiture 1651. And that in his An&s;wers before the <HI>Parl.</HI> 1661. he doth not deny his being then forfeited.</P>
<P>IT IS ANSWERED, That <HI>Swinton</HI> by his mentioning in his An&s;wers, that he was <HI>out of the Protection of the Law,</HI> did not under|&s;tand he was &s;o by a Decreet of Forfeiture 1651. But that he being then denounced for not Compearance, the Denounciation did put him out of the Protection of the Law. And that Expre&s;&s;ion cannot be otherwi&s;e under&s;tood, &s;eing in his An&s;wers he makes no mention at all of that pretended Decreet of Forfeiture, 1651. And it is mo&s;t ab&s;urd and ridiculous to pretend, that <HI>Swinton</HI>'s not denying in his An&s;wers before the <HI>Par.</HI> 1661. that there was &s;uch a Decreet in the year 1651. is an evidence of the verity of it. For 1. the An|&s;wers being made to the Inditement, and there being no mention in the Inditement of the Decreet 1651. he was not obliged to an&s;wer, nor take notice of any thing but what was in the In|ditement. 2. His An&s;wers could not bear a denying of the Decreet 1651. becau&s;e his An&s;wers were given in to the Inditement, before the Decreet 1651. was produced, or made u&s;e of again&s;t him. Se|ing it appears by the Lord <HI>Pre&s;mennen's</HI> Diary, the 15 of <HI>May,</HI> that <HI>Swinton's</HI> Dittay with his An&s;wers were then read before the Parliament: and that the Lord Advocat opponed the Dittay, and <HI>produced the former Decreet of Forfeiture against him.</HI> And it ap|pears by a Copy of the &s;aid Decreet delivered to <HI>Swinton,</HI> by <HI>Al|exander Reid</HI> the Advocate's Servant, that it was not delivered to him till the 17 of <HI>May,</HI> it being marked upon the back with the &s;aid <HI>Alexander Reids</HI> hand, that it was given to <HI>Swinton</HI> the 17 of <HI>May,</HI> to an&s;wer the 24. Whereas it is evident by the Minute on the
<PB N="7" REF="4"> Margent of <HI>Swinton</HI>'s An&s;wers, that the &s;aid An&s;wers were given in by him upon the 14 of <HI>March</HI> 1661. and given up to the Advo|cate to &s;ee, which was two Months before the Decreet 1651. was produced. And <HI>Swinton</HI> being upon the 15 of <HI>May</HI> allowed to &s;ee and an&s;wer to that Decreet, he was never thereafter called before the Parliament, and &s;o had never an occa&s;ion to make any An&s;wer to it.</P>
<P><HI>Whereas it is alledged,</HI> That the Author of <HI>Swinton</HI>'s Ca&s;e does &s;how his Ignorance and Di&s;ingenuity, in a&s;&s;erting that the <HI>Restriction</HI> in the Decreet 1651. re&s;tricting the Sentence to the Puni&s;hment of <HI>John Hume</HI> to the Death, takes off the ef|fect of the Sentence, as to <HI>Swinton,</HI> and all the re&s;t; &s;eing the Doom of Forfeiture was &s;olemnly pronounced by &s;ound of Trumpet, and tearing the Arms of tho&s;e forfeited; and by &s;everal reiterated Acts, forfeiting them, as to Life, Heretage, and Moveables: and that <HI>Swinton</HI> did not pretend to, or found upon any Re&s;triction of that Sentence, when he was brought before the Parliament 1661.</P>
<P>IT IS ANSWERED, That the Penner of the Earl of <HI>Lauderdale</HI>'s An&s;wers doth gro&s;ly bewray a&s;well his Ig|norance as Di&s;ingenuity in the &s;aid Alledgance. For the Re&s;triction in the Decreet is plain and expre&s;s, which is &s;ubjoyned after the pretended Sentence, which the King and Committee of E&s;tates, for Rea&s;ons and Con&s;iderations moving them, did re&s;trict to the puni&s;hment of <HI>John Hume</HI> to the Death. Which Re&s;triction be|ing in <HI>general Terms,</HI> mu&s;t be under&s;tood to relate to all the fore|mentioned Per&s;ons, and &s;o clearly takes off the effect of the Sen|tence, as to <HI>Swinton</HI> and all the re&s;t, until it &s;hould be recon&s;i|dered by the King and Parliament. And there was very good rea&s;on for the Re&s;triction, and that the Sentence &s;hould have been in&s;tantly put in execution again&s;t <HI>John Hume:</HI> becau&s;e the Crimes libelled again&s;t him were mo&s;t atrocious, being <HI>his keeping a Cor|re&s;pondence with the Enemie, his di&s;covering the condition of the Ca&s;tle of</HI> Edinburgh, <HI>by throwing a Letter over the Wall to the Enemy,</HI> &amp;c. and
<PB N="8" REF="5"> the Probation was clear again&s;t him, he having <HI>acknowledged</HI> the Crime, before the Court-Mar&s;hal and Mini&s;ters of the Ca&s;tle. Whereas there was nothing libelled again&s;t <HI>Swinton,</HI> except only his pretended de&s;erting of the King's Army, and his frequent re|&s;idence with, and re&s;orting to the Enemy in the Town of <HI>Edin|burgh, Cannongate</HI> and <HI>Leith,</HI> which could infer no Crime, far le&s;s the Crime of Trea&s;on: &s;eing <HI>Swinton</HI> did not de&s;ert the Army, but laid down his Charge, which was taken off his hand, and given to another; and all the conver&s;e he had with the Enemy, was in the quality of a Pri&s;oner. And as an unan&s;werable evidence that it was not de&s;igned any Execution &s;hould pa&s;s upon the &s;aid pre|tended Decreet 1651. till it &s;hould be recon&s;idered, as to the re&s;t of the Per&s;ons therein-mentioned; when <HI>Govain</HI> was brought before the Parliament 1661, he was (as hath been &s;aid) ordained <HI>to &s;ee and an&s;wer</HI> that Decreet, not as a <HI>&s;tanding</HI> Sentence again&s;t him, but only as a <HI>Libel:</HI> and the Parliament upon con&s;ideration of that Decreet as a Libel, proceeded to a Sentence again&s;t him. As al&s;o when that Decreet was produced, and made u&s;e of again&s;t <HI>Swinton,</HI> he was allowed <HI>to &s;ee and an&s;wer it.</HI> All which clears beyond contradiction, that the Re&s;triction was looked upon to take off the effect of that pretended Sentence in the year 1651. as to <HI>Swinton</HI> and all the re&s;t, (except <HI>Hume,</HI>) before it &s;hould be recon&s;idered by the King and Parliament. Neither doth that pre|tended Decreet bear, that the Solemnities by &s;ound of Trum|pet, and tearing of Arms, were u&s;ed in <HI>pre&s;ence</HI> of the Committee of E&s;tates, as is u&s;ually done in the ca&s;e of all &s;olemn Forfeitures: but only bears, <HI>an Order for performing of tho&s;e Solemnities,</HI> which never appears to have been actually done. And it is frivolous and inept to pretend, that <HI>Swinton</HI> did not found upon that Re&s;tri|ction in his An&s;wers to the Parliament 1661. &s;eing the Decreet 1651. was not mentioned in the Inditement, nor was that Decreet founded upon by the King's Advocate, nor made u&s;e of by him a|gain&s;t <HI>Swinton,</HI> for two Months after <HI>Swinton</HI>'s An&s;wers were given
<PB N="9" REF="5"> in; as is clear by the Minute upon the An&s;wers, and <HI>Pre&s;mennan</HI>'s Diary.</P>
<P><HI>Whereas it is alledged,</HI> That by the Law and Cu&s;tom of Nati|ons, who&s;oever accepts of a military Commi&s;&s;ion or Charge, he cannot at his plea&s;ure di&s;mi&s;s or exauctorate him&s;elf. And <HI>Swinton</HI> having accepted of a Charge in the Army from the King and Com|mittee of E&s;tates, he could not di&s;engage him&s;elf without their leave.</P>
<P>IT IS ANSWERED, That it is a great Mi&s;take that an Officer in an Army may not quit his Charge and Commi&s;&s;ion when he plea&s;es: and it appears, that what Lawyer &s;oever the Author of the Earl of <HI>Lauderdale</HI>'s An&s;wers may be, he is not a Souldier. For every one knows, that knows any thing of military Affairs, that a commi&s;&s;ioned Officer may give up his Commi&s;&s;ion, and liberat him&s;elf when&s;oever he thinks fit to do &s;o. Which being a thing of &s;uch ordinary, and univer&s;al Practice; it is &s;trange how a|ny man &s;hould have the confidence to controvert it.</P>
<P><HI>And whereas he asks the question,</HI> What could (whil&s;t his Family was on the other &s;ide) have moved <HI>Swinton,</HI> to come to this &s;ide of the Water, where the Enemy lay, and where he could not e&s;cape being taken; if he had not had a De&s;ign to have joyn|ed with the Enemy?</P>
<P>IT IS ANSWERED, That the decea&s;s'd <HI>Swinton</HI> gives a clear account hereof in his An&s;wers, before the Parliament 1661, <HI>viz. That after he had intimated to the then Chancellor, at</HI> Stirling, <HI>the laying down of his Charge, de&s;iring him to acquaint the Committee of Estates with the &s;ame; and at the &s;ame time intimated it to Collonel</HI> Gilbert Ker <HI>his immediat Superior Officer,</HI> Crafurdland <HI>was put into his Place.</HI> And that <HI>before he came to this Part of the Countrey where his E&s;tate lay, and where his Bu&s;ine&s;s called him; he was up|on the Place where Collonel</HI> Ker's <HI>Regiment was, where he did actu|ally &s;ee</HI> Crafurdland <HI>in his Charge: and that his Occa&s;ions leading him to</HI> Berwick-&s;hire, <HI>where the only E&s;tate he had lay; he was &s;eized upon and made Pri&s;oner by a Party of the</HI> Engli&s;h, <HI>and car|ried to their General's Quarters: and having given an account to
<PB N="10" REF="6"> him of his Occa&s;ions in the&s;e Parts, the General declared to him, al|tho he was his Pri&s;oner, yet he &s;hould have liberty upon his Parole, to go to his Lodging, and about his Affairs.</HI> And both the manner of his quiting his Charge, (as thus related,) and that he was taken Pri&s;oner, and thus brought in; <HI>he po&s;itively offered him to prove</HI> be|fore the Parliament: which was unque&s;tionably <HI>relevant</HI> to liberat him from the lea&s;t Su&s;pition of having any De&s;ign to joyn with the Enemy, and his Family was not on the <HI>other</HI> &s;ide, but <HI>this</HI> &s;ide of <HI>Forth</HI> at that time, and under the Power of the Enemy.</P>
<P><HI>And whereas it is alledged,</HI> That the Decreet 1651, being ordained by the Parliament to be given up to <HI>Swinton</HI> to &s;ee, the 15 of <HI>May</HI> 1661. and he ordain'd to give in his An&s;wers thereunto again&s;t that day eight days. And that accordingly he having got up the Decreet to &s;ee, <HI>he returned the &s;ame without any An&s;wers:</HI> which he would not have done if he had been innocent of the Crimes libelled a|gain&s;t him in the &s;aid Decreet.</P>
<P>IT IS ANSWERED, That the decea&s;s'd <HI>Swinton</HI> ne|ver got the Decreet it <HI>&s;elf</HI> to &s;ee, but only a <HI>Double,</HI> marked on the back by <HI>Alexander Reid</HI> the Advocate's Servant: and which this <HI>Swinton</HI> has yet to &s;how, and now produces. And albeit he was ordained upon the 15 of <HI>May,</HI> to &s;ee and an&s;wer that Decreet again&s;t that day eight days: yet he never was thereafter called be|fore the Parliament to give in his An&s;wer to it. And &s;o it is fal&s;e, that he gave back the <HI>Decreet</HI> without making any An&s;wer: &s;ince he could not give <HI>back</HI> what he never <HI>received;</HI> and could make no An&s;wer to the <HI>Copie</HI> which he did receive, unle&s;s he had been <HI>called</HI> to do &s;o.</P>
<P>AND here it cannot but be taken notice of, that how cautious &s;oever tho&s;e who framed the Draught of the Decreet again&s;t <HI>Swin|ton,</HI> which is pretended to have pa&s;&s;ed in the Parliament 1661. to <HI>omit</HI> out of it that Ordinance of Parliament, whereby upon the 15 of <HI>May</HI> 1661. <HI>Swinton</HI> was ordained to &s;ee the Decreet 1651. and to give in his An&s;wer to it again&s;t that day eight dayes (be|ing
<PB N="11" REF="6"> the 24.) the Earl of <HI>Lauderdale</HI> is not only forced in this place of his An&s;wers, to acknowledge there was &s;uch an <HI>Ordinance,</HI> but afterwards, <HI>(tanta e&s;t vis veritatis,)</HI> to acknowledge, when he comes to quible upon the forged Minute of the 12 of <HI>July</HI> 1661, that <HI>Swinton did not compear that Day,</HI> and con&s;equently was never cal|led before the Parliament, after the 15. of <HI>May.</HI> And it is left to all judicious Peru&s;ers of what is now publi&s;hed on either hand, in relation to this My&s;tery of Iniquity, (wherethrow the decea&s;s'd <HI>Swinton</HI> and his Family have been &s;o great Sufferers, and for &s;o long a time;) to con&s;ider, whether it be pre&s;umable, that he being a Pri&s;oner in the Tolbooth of <HI>Edinburgh,</HI> within <HI>Call</HI> of the Place where the Parliament &s;ate, and a Term having been a&s;&s;igned him, to give in an An&s;wer to that pretended Decreet 1651. the Parlia|ment, (for the <HI>Honour</HI> and <HI>Ju&s;tice</HI> of which, the Earl takes upon him now to be &s;o much concerned,) would, without calling <HI>Swinton</HI> to <HI>give</HI> his An&s;wer, have proceeded to a Sentence again&s;t him, albe|it the matter had been but of a <HI>civil</HI> import; or tho there had been no &s;uch Term <HI>a&s;&s;igned,</HI> would have proceeded to a Sentence a|gain&s;t him, in a Cau&s;e that was <HI>Capital,</HI> and in a Crime of <HI>Trea&s;on,</HI> without calling him to the Bar, to hear the &s;ame pronounced. Which to &s;uppo&s;e, were the highe&s;t Reflection upon the Honour and Ju&s;tice of a Parliament, that ever Man was guilty of.</P>
<P><HI>Whereas it is alledged,</HI> That the Decreet 1651, bears that the Libel was found relevant, and proven by the Depo&s;itions of di|vers famous Witne&s;&s;es, as was clearly known to his <HI>Maje&s;ty</HI> and the Committee of E&s;tates. And therefore the Decreet cannot be &s;aid to be without Probation, &s;eeing the way and the manner how the Libel was found proven, is conde&s;cended upon.</P>
<P>IT IS ANSWERED, That it &s;eems the Author of the Earl of <HI>Lauderdale</HI>'s An&s;wers, has not con&s;idered the Decreet. For as to that part thereof that concerns <HI>Swinton,</HI> the Libel is found <HI>re|levant</HI> and <HI>proven:</HI> but the manner of Probation, whether by Witne&s;&s;es or otherwi&s;e, is not expre&s;&s;ed neither as to him, nor any other contained in the Decreet, except <HI>John Hume;</HI> as to whom the
<PB N="12" REF="7"> Libel is found proven by a <HI>mi&s;&s;ive Letter,</HI> and his own <HI>Confe&s;&s;ion.</HI> And albeit in the end of the Decreet, it bears that the Libel was <HI>&s;ufficiently verified and proven, by the Depo&s;itions of &s;everal famous Witne&s;&s;es &s;worn, examined,</HI> &amp;c. the&s;e are but words of Stile in De|creets of ab&s;ence, and are not to be regarded. Seing in that part of the Decreet, where the Committee of E&s;tates had the Libel and Probation, under their con&s;ideration; it bears on|ly, that the Libel was <HI>&s;ufficiently proven:</HI> without conde&s;cending upon the manner of Probation, whether by Writ or Witne&s;&s;es. And as a convincing evidence, that there was neither <HI>Writ</HI> nor <HI>Wit|ne&s;&s;es</HI> adduced for proving of the Crime libelled again&s;t <HI>Swinton;</HI> (which if there had been, the &s;ame would have been expre&s;s'd;) the manner of Probation again&s;t <HI>John Hume,</HI> being by a <HI>Letter under his hand,</HI> and by his <HI>own Confe&s;&s;ion,</HI> the &s;ame is particularly <HI>expre&s;s'd</HI> in the Decreet. And certainly <HI>pari ratione,</HI> if there had been any Probation led again&s;t <HI>Swinton,</HI> whether by Writ or Witne&s;&s;es, the &s;ame would have been likewi&s;e expre&s;s'd and conde&s;cended upon.</P>
<P><HI>Whereas it is alledged,</HI> That the Duke of <HI>Lauderdale</HI> did not rai&s;e a new Inditement before the Parliament 1661 again&s;t <HI>Swinton, before</HI> he obtained the Gift of <HI>Swinton</HI>'s Forfeiture, &s;ince he ob|tained not the Gift till <HI>May</HI> 1661, and the Inditement was given to <HI>Swinton</HI> in the Month of <HI>February</HI> before. And that albeit the Duke had cau&s;ed rai&s;e a new Inditement, after his obtaining of the Gift, and had libelled the &s;ame Crimes again&s;t <HI>Swinton,</HI> &amp; had de|&s;igned him <HI>John Swinton</HI> of <HI>Swinton;</HI> yet that was no pa&s;&s;ing from the former Decreet 1651. there being Crimes added that were committed after the year 1651. and it being ordinary to de&s;ign Per&s;ons by their former Titles, a wrong De&s;ignation could not prejudge the King nor his Donatar. And that the King's Ad|vocate did not in&s;i&s;t again&s;t <HI>Swinton</HI> upon the Crimes mention|ed in the former Decreet, to forfeit him of new again, upon tho&s;e Crimes; but did in&s;i&s;t upon the Decreet 1651, as <HI>probatio probatae,</HI> and that the &s;aid Decreet might be <HI>ratified and approven,</HI> as it
<PB N="13" REF="7"> was by the Decreet 1661. and <HI>Swinton</HI> al&s;o <HI>of new</HI> forfeited, for his being in Arms at <HI>Worce&s;ter</HI> again&s;t the King, which was the only new additional Article in&s;i&s;ted upon again&s;t him. And that altho a forfeited Per&s;on in the Con&s;truction of Law, be reputed <HI>civiliter mortuus,</HI> &s;o that he hath not <HI>per&s;onam &s;tandi in judicio;</HI> yet that is only <HI>in odium</HI> of him&s;elf, but cannot prejudge the King nor his Donatar, nor hinder a Party for|feited committing Trea&s;on after the Forfeiture, to be forfeited of new: no more than a Murtherer's being &s;entenced to die, as a Mur|therer, could hinder him, if e&s;caping out of Pri&s;on after Sentence, he &s;hould commit Trea&s;on; to be forfeited, notwith&s;tanding of the former Sentence &s;tanding again&s;t him for the Murther.</P>
<P>IT IS ANSWERED, 1. That albeit the Duke of <HI>Lau|derdale</HI>'s Gift of the Forfeiture was after <HI>Swinton</HI> had received his Inditement before the Parliament 1661. yet it is notourly known, that the Duke de&s;ign'd to have the Gift before that time, and accor|dingly thereafter procured it. And albeit the Gift was obtained <HI>after</HI> the Inditement was given to <HI>Swinton;</HI> yet &s;eing it was <HI>before</HI> the pretended Forfeiture 1661. it was <HI>ip&s;o jure</HI> null: &s;ince by the <HI>Claim of Right,</HI> it is declared, that <HI>the di&s;po&s;ing of Forfeitures be|fore Sentence, is contrary to Law.</HI> 2. The rai&s;ing of a new Libel again&s;t <HI>Swinton</HI> before the Parliament 1661, being for the &s;ame pretended Crimes, for which it is alledged he was forfeited by the Decreet 1651. albeit there were other Crimes added in the Libel, yet that was a clear <HI>pa&s;&s;ing from</HI> the Decreet 1651, as what <HI>eo ip|&s;o</HI> was look'd upon as <HI>no</HI> Decreets it being ab&s;olutely incon&s;i&s;tent in Law, to forfeit a man twice for one and the &s;ame Crime. And the de&s;igning the Defender <HI>John Swinton</HI> of <HI>Swinton</HI> was an evi|dent Demon&s;tration, that he was neither con&s;idered nor looked upon as a forfeited Per&s;on. For tho in ordinary Di&s;cour&s;e, Men in &s;uch Circum&s;tances may be de&s;igned by their former Titles; yet it is ri|diculous to pretend, that was ever done <HI>in instrumentis publicis,</HI> or can be done in an Inditement of <HI>Trea&s;on:</HI> in which the Conclu&s;ion being to forfeit <HI>Life</HI> and <HI>E&s;tate,</HI> the de&s;igning the Party by an <HI>E|&s;tate,</HI>
<PB N="14" REF="8"> mu&s;t nece&s;&s;arly infer an acknowledgment in the Drawer of the Inditement, he had that E&s;tate to forfeit, and con&s;equently th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="2 letters"> it was not forfeited <HI>before.</HI> And this is a thing &s;o vulgarly know<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="2 letters"> that if <HI>Swinton</HI> had been looked upon as a forfeited Per&s;on, the King's Advocate could not have committed &s;o gro&s;s a Mi&s;take, as to have given him the De&s;ignation OF <HI>SWINTON.</HI> And albeit ordinarly Errors in De&s;ignation do not prejudge thr<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="2 letters"> Parties; yet in this Ca&s;e, if there had been an Error, (what in <HI>rei veritate</HI> there was not,) it behoved to prejudge the King and his Donatar, being made u&s;e of to evince, that the Go|vernment did not look upon <HI>Swinton</HI> then, as a forfeited Per&s;on. 3. The King's Advocate did not make u&s;e of the afore&s;aid De|creet 1651. as a Probation of the Inditement 1661. but libe<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 letter"> the pretended Crimes, without re&s;pect to, or &s;o much as making mention of the Decreet 1651. And when the &s;aid Decreet was thereafter produced, <HI>Swinton</HI> was allowed to <HI>&s;ee</HI> and <HI>an&s;wer</HI> i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 letter"> as a Libel, and &s;o it could not be made u&s;e of as a Probation. 4. As to that Pretence, that the Parliament did <HI>ratifie</HI> and <HI>ap|prove</HI> the Decreet 1651, and <HI>of new</HI> forfeited <HI>Swinton,</HI> for being in Arms again&s;t the King at <HI>Worcester;</HI> it is what is ab&s;olutly in|con&s;i&s;tent, and <HI>repugnantia in adjecto,</HI> to <HI>ratifie</HI> a former Forfeiture and of new to <HI>forfeit,</HI> And in this Ca&s;e, the former pretend|ed Decreet 1651 <HI>could</HI> not be ratified: becau&s;e by giving a <HI>new</HI> Inditement to <HI>Swinton</HI> for the &s;ame Crimes, it was <HI>pa&s;&s;ed from.</HI> So that if there had been any Ratification of it, &s;uch a Ratification could import no more but the ratifying of a <HI>Libel,</HI> which can ne|ver have the <HI>effect of a Forfeiture.</HI> 5. A man that is forfeited, is not only <HI>civiliter mortuus,</HI> not having <HI>per&s;onam &s;tandi in judicis,</HI> but al&s;o being forfeited, he has <HI>no E&s;tate,</HI> both his <HI>Per&s;on</HI> and <HI>E&s;tate</HI> in the Con&s;truction of Law being <HI>extinct:</HI> and therefore being forfeited <HI>once,</HI> he can neither <HI>quoad vitam,</HI> nor <HI>quoad bo<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="2 letters"></HI> be forfeited a <HI>&s;econd</HI> time. And the In&s;tance of a Murtherer com|mitting Trea&s;on, after his being condemned for the Murther; is mo&s;t impertinent, and ab&s;urd: there being a va&s;t difference betwixt
<PB N="15" REF="8"> &s;uch a one, and a Per&s;on that is forfeited. For a Man that is &s;en|tenced for a Murther, his <HI>E&s;cheat</HI> only falls, which carries the Right to his <HI>Movables:</HI> but his <HI>Lands</HI> and <HI>heretable</HI> E&s;tate &s;till remain with him&s;elf, and go to his Heirs. And therefore if a Per|&s;on &s;entenced for Murther, &s;hould make his E&s;cape, and there|after commit Trea&s;on; he may be forfeited, and his Forfeiture will carry the Right to his Lands and heretable E&s;tate. But it is not &s;o in the ca&s;e of a Per&s;on forfeited, who what Crime &s;o|ever he commit after, is incapable either as to Life or Fortune of a higher Puni&s;hment.</P>
<P><HI>Whereas it is alledged,</HI> That <HI>John Swinton,</HI> by his An&s;wers gi|ven in to the Parliament 166<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 letter">. doth acknowledge, that he was at <HI>Worce&s;ter,</HI> and that he went thither at the de&s;ire of the U&s;urper, which &s;ufficiently proves the Crime again&s;t him.</P>
<P>IT IS ANSWERED, That <HI>Swinton</HI>'s An&s;wers are opponed, which bear expre&s;ly, that <HI>he did deny that Article of the</HI> Indite|ment, <HI>as it was conceived.</HI> And tho he acknowledges that he was at <HI>Worce&s;ter,</HI> yet he declares it was as true <HI>he went thither through the earne&s;t Intreaty and Importunity of him, that</HI> (though he doth ingenuou&s;ly acknowledge he could not &s;ay, he u&s;ed that as an Argu|ment;) <HI>could have</HI> commanded <HI>him along&s;t with him as his</HI> Pri&s;oner, <HI>and who&s;e Pri&s;oner he was upon the matter: and that he went in no other capacity than a Traveller. And that if it &s;hould have been made ap|pear, that ever he joyned &s;o much as in any</HI> Troop, <HI>or carried any</HI> Charge, <HI>or that upon any occa&s;ion there, in the Battel or otherwi&s;e, he did draw a</HI> Sword, <HI>or loo&s;e a</HI> Pi&s;tol; <HI>he admitted</HI> all, <HI>or any</HI> one <HI>of the&s;e</HI> relevant of con&s;ent, <HI>to inferr the Conclu&s;ion of the Inditement.</HI> And as an evident Demon&s;tration that <HI>Swinton</HI> was not at <HI>Worce&s;ter, hostili animo,</HI> or out of any de&s;ign to act again&s;t the King, or to the prejudice of his Native Countrey; he declares in his An&s;wers, <HI>he could &s;ay, in the pre&s;ence of the SEARCHER OF ALL HEARTS, that he thought, if the Parliament &s;hould find the Inditement again&s;t him, upon that</HI> &s;ingle Head <HI>of his being at</HI> Worce&s;ter, (<HI>as he doth look u|pon that as the</HI> Principal, <HI>and all the rest but as</HI> Acce&s;&s;ories, <HI>even in the
<PB N="16" REF="9"> intention of the Libeller;) and the Sentence that &s;hould pa&s;s, as to Life and E&s;tate, were ready to receive its</HI> la&s;t <HI>Con&s;ummation; he could</HI> receive <HI>and</HI> ly down under <HI>it, with a more</HI> chearful Heart, <HI>than he en|joyed any time he was at</HI> Worce&s;ter, <HI>to &s;ee and be Witne&s;s of the</HI> Re|proach <HI>of his Countrey, and the</HI> Di&s;tre&s;s <HI>his Countrey men were un|der.</HI> Which Confe&s;&s;ion being <HI>&s;o qualified,</HI> and particularly that he was there as a <HI>Pri&s;oner,</HI> it cannot be <HI>divided:</HI> and &s;o did not prove that Article of the Inditement, and could never inferr any Crime again&s;t him, far le&s;s the Crime of Trea&s;on.</P>
<P><HI>And whereas it is alledged,</HI> That the <HI>Engli&s;h</HI> Act of Indem|nity did extend no further than to the King<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 letter">s <HI>Engli&s;h</HI> Subjects, and not to <HI>Scot&s;men.</HI> And as no Law made by the Parliament of <HI>England,</HI> could hinder the Parliament of <HI>Scotland</HI> to proceed a|gain&s;t Traitors who were <HI>Scot&s;men;</HI> &s;o no Indemnity pa&s;s'd in the <HI>Engli&s;h</HI> Parliament, could Indemnifie <HI>Scot&s;mens</HI> Crimes, or could hinder the Parliament of <HI>Scotland</HI> to proceed again&s;t them, albeit they had been particularly indemnified by the Parliament of <HI>England.</HI></P>
<P>IT IS ANSWERED, That as by the Law of Nations, Crimes may be <HI>judged</HI> and <HI>puni&s;hed</HI> in the Place where they are <HI>com|mitted;</HI> &s;o Per&s;ons committing Crimes, may be <HI>indemnified</HI> by the Supream Authority where the Crimes are committed: &s;eing <HI>a judicando &amp; condemnando, ad condonandum &amp; remittendum, vale<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 letter"> con&s;equentia.</HI> And therefore, as the decea&s;s<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 letter">d <HI>Swinton</HI> in his An|&s;wers urgeth (with no le&s;s <HI>elegancy</HI> of Expre&s;&s;ion, than <HI>force</HI> of Rea|&s;on,) this being a Crime alledged to be <HI>COMMITTED</HI> in <HI>England, TRIABLE</HI> in <HI>England, PARDONABLE</HI> in <HI>England, PARDONED</HI> in <HI>England,</HI> and that by him AGAINST WHOM the offence was <HI>committed;</HI> that <HI>Engli&s;h</HI> Act of Indemnity, if he were guilty, behoved to free him. Which being <HI>general,</HI> and &s;o <HI>comprehen&s;ive,</HI> not only indemnifying all his Maje&s;ties Subjects in <HI>England,</HI> and <HI>Ire|land,</HI> and the Dominions thereunto belonging; but al&s;o <HI>the Sub|jects of all OTHER his Maje&s;ties's Dominions;</HI> it mu&s;t nece&s;&s;arly comprehend <HI>Scot&s;men,</HI> that had committed Crimes in <HI>England.</HI>
<PB N="17" REF="9"> And therefore they could not be pur&s;ued for the &s;ame, before the Parliament, or any other Judicatory in <HI>Scotland.</HI></P>
<P><HI>And whereas it is alledged,</HI> That a judicial Confe&s;&s;ion, emitted before a high Court of Parliament makes full Faith, albeit not &s;ub&s;cribed. And <HI>Swinton</HI> did not only emit a Confe&s;&s;ion <HI>viva vo<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 letter">e</HI> before the Parliament, but al&s;o in his An&s;wers, which are &s;ub&s;cribed by him, he acknowledged his being at <HI>Worce&s;ter</HI> with the King's Enemies.</P>
<P>IT IS ANSWERED, 1. That it is denyed, that <HI>Swinton</HI> did emit any judicial Confe&s;&s;ion of the Crimes libelled before the Parlia|ment, and there is no ve&s;tige of any &s;uch Confe&s;&s;ion extant up|on Record. 2. It is a great mi&s;take in the Author of the&s;e An|&s;wers, to a&s;&s;ert that a Confe&s;&s;ion, albeit judicially emitted before the Parliament, &s;hould make Faith, without being &s;igned, either by the <HI>Party,</HI> or the <HI>Pre&s;ident</HI> of Parliament: it being again&s;t the Principles of Law, and incontroverted Cu&s;tom of all Courts of Judicature what&s;oever, (whether <HI>&s;upreme</HI> or <HI>&s;ubaltern</HI>) to ad|mit judicial Confe&s;&s;ions, without being &s;igned either by the Parties them&s;elves, or by the Judge that pre&s;ides. 3. As to any pretended Confe&s;&s;ion in <HI>Swinton</HI>'s An&s;wers; the former An&s;wer is op|poned, that it is <HI>qualified,</HI> and cannot be <HI>devided,</HI> but mu&s;t be taken as it &s;tands: and which &s;o taken, could never have inferr'd a Crime again&s;t him, much le&s;s the Crime of Trea&s;on.</P>
<P>As to what is alledged again&s;t the <HI>Rea&s;on</HI> of <HI>Reduction,</HI> foun|ded upon the <HI>Nullitie</HI> and <HI>Fal&s;hood</HI> of the Minutes; the MI|NUTES them&s;elves, that REASON of <HI>Reduction,</HI> and the Earl of <HI>CRAWF&V;RD</HI>'S LETTER, are opponed, which the Penner of the Earl of <HI>Lauderdale</HI>'s ANSWERS, finds &s;uch <HI>rugged, &s;tubborn,</HI> and <HI>untoward</HI> Peeces to deal withall; as all the pitiful <HI>Shifts</HI> and <HI>Eva&s;ions</HI> he tortures him&s;elf with, to &s;hape an An&s;wer to them, &s;erve but to demon&s;trate to the World that they neither ARE, nor CAN be an&s;wered.</P>
<P><HI>And whereas it is alledged,</HI> That albeit the <HI>Interlocutories</HI> had not been &s;igned by the Earl of <HI>Crawfurd,</HI> yet that is no <HI>Nullity,</HI> there
<PB N="18" REF="10"> being no &s;pecial Law nor Cu&s;tom requiring the &s;ame at that ti<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="2 letters"> And the Minutes and Interlocutories of the other Proce&s;&s;es of <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="3 letters">+feiture again&s;t <HI>Govain, Guthrie,</HI> and others pa&s;&s;ed in that Parliame<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="2 letters"> are not &s;igned by the Chancellor, nor Pre&s;ident.</P>
<P>IT IS ANSWERED, That the Alledgence is mo&s;t <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="2 letters">+lumnious. For it was the con&s;tant Cu&s;tom of the Parliament 16<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="2 letters"> and hath been in other Parliaments, both preceeding and &s;ub<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="2 letters">+quent, for the Chancellor or Pre&s;ident, as they &s;ign all the <HI>W<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="2 letters">+rants</HI> for the ACTS and STATUTES that pa&s;s in Parliame<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="2 letters"> &s;o they are in u&s;e to &s;ign all Minutes, that are <HI>Warrants</HI> for D<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="2 letters">+CREETS and SENTENCES; as is evident from the RECORD<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 letter"> and particularly, in the Minutes of tho&s;e very Sentences again&s;t <HI><GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="2 letters">+vain</HI> and <HI>Guthrie,</HI> in the Parliament 1661. mentioned in the <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="2 letters">+ledgence: &amp; of tho&s;e in the &s;ame Parliament, pronounced again&s;t <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 word"> Marque&s;s, and late Earl of <HI>Argile,</HI> (then Lord <HI>Lor<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 letter">) Ardkingla&s;s,</HI> &amp;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 letter"> And it were again&s;t Sen&s;e to think, that a Minute of a <HI>Clerk</HI> &s;hou<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="2 letters"> take away a Man's Life and Fortune, without being &s;igned <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 word"> the Chancellor, or Pre&s;ident of Parliament.</P>
<P>IN RESPECT OF ALL WHICH&punc; <HI>Swinton</HI>'s REASONS OF REDUCTIO<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 letter"> (which are in&s;tantly verified and in&s;tructed; <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 word"> ought to be <HI>&s;u&s;tained:</HI> and the ACT given in <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 word"> him, <HI>reducing</HI> the afore&s;aid two pretended Decree<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 letter"> of Forfeiture, ought to <HI>pa&s;s,</HI> and he to be <HI>re&s;tor<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="2 letters"></HI> again&s;t the &s;ame by WAY OF JUSTICE&punc;</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
