Scots Magazine, December 1, 1744

Scots Magazine

December 01, 1744

View full pageStart a free trial

Issue date: Tuesday, December 1, 1744

Pages available: 37

Previous edition: Sunday, November 1, 1744

Next edition: Friday, January 1, 1745 - Used by the World's Finest Libraries and Institutions

About Scots Magazine

Publication name: Scots Magazine

Location: London, Middlesex

Pages available: 23,128

Years available: 1739 - 1798

Learn more about this publication


  • 2.13+ billion articles and growing everyday!
  • More than 400 years of papers. From 1607 to today!
  • Articles covering 50 U.S.States + 22 other countries
  • Powerful, time saving search features!
Find your ancestors now
Start your Genealogy Search now
See with your own eyes the newspapers your great-great grandparents held.

View sample pages : Scots Magazine, December 01, 1744

Get access to these newspapers Plus 2.13+ billion other articles

OCR Text

Scots Magazine (Newspaper) - December 1, 1744, London, Middlesex 541 The SCOTS D EC E 1744 ROC E E DI N os of the Political continued from fiomdfpetcb made iy Plinius a the bara3er ef the Lard My Little when I feconded the motion now under your Lordftups that I fliould have oc cafion to ftand up again in vindica of that motion i becaufe I thought idanger and the remedy ap tnt and I hare yet heard nothing that induce me to alter my Bat I think myfelf obliged to nd up to not only the claufe ivcd but the whole tenor of our from the beginning to this very it only fince the but even be from the fragments of Saxon laws tranfmitted to it is e that the forfeiture or confifcation oods and was a puniftiment ifad upon many as well as trea L and as to by the very nature the became forfeited by becaufe all the lands in England re held by homage and and ilequently became forfeited by the te ns of any or even a that was contrary to that nage and fealty which he had fwore to lis forfeiture of goods 1 is therefore a puniQiment t muft be allowed to be coeval at lead h the fettlement of the Saxons in this And as allthe lands in England are d ultimately of the crown as the King very mans lord fabjeft that was guilty of could exempted from this any er way than by the favour of the my is fo clear from the ks of our both ancient and mo and alfo from our that I i furprifed to hear it that the for feiture of a mans eflate for was contrary to the fpirit of oar And I was equally furprifed to hear it deemed contrary to reafon or common juftice if Lords would bat they could not mifs feeing the difference betweena childs fuffering and a childs being puniflied for the crimes of the The I hall would be contrary to as well as common juftice but the former is a which cannot be Inflid what puniihment youwill upon the the child muft fuffer by it more or left j a child often fuffers by the misfortunes of the father and mnft unlefs God Almighty upon every fiich occa alter the whole courfe of and work in order to prevent an innocent childs fuffering by thofe mif which the perhaps by his own has brought upon It is therefore equally abfurd to that a child ought not to fuffer by the crimes of the as to that a child ought not to fuffer by the misfortunes of the Both proceed from thenecefla ry confequence of things as the lat ter cannot be prevented without altering the common courfe of the for mer cannot be prevented without altering the moft fundamental maxim of which is that of inflicting adequate punilh mentj upon But in my do children fuffer by the punim ment of now fo much com plained of In nothing but in the proper ty which they might perhaps have fucceed ed if the father had died innocent of Can they in this be proper ly faid to fuffer I know it is commonly that children have a natural right to fucceed to their fathers this be it is not properly If children had a natural right to fucceod A M ;