Answers for Colonel Sir John Hill, Lieutenant Colonel John Forbes, and John Forbes writer in Edinburgh. To the petition presented be [sic] Allan Cathcart, James Meinzies, and Thomas Hamiltonn, late captains of the said Colonel Hill's regiment.

Answers for Colonel Sir John Hill, Lieutenant Colonel John Forbes, and John Forbes writer in Edinburgh. To the petition presented be [sic] Allan Cathcart, James Meinzies, and Thomas Hamiltonn, late captains of the said Colonel Hill's regiment.

Table of contents

ANSWERS for Colonel Sir JOHN HILL, Leiutenent Colonel JOHN FORBES, and JOHN FORBES Writer in Edinburgh. TO The Petition presented be Allan Cathcart, James Meinzies, and Thomas Hamiltonn, late Captains of the said Colonel Hill's Regiment.

[Page]

ANSWERS for Colonel Sir JOHN HILL, Leiutenent Colonel JOHN FORBES, and JOHN FORBES Writer in Edinburgh. TO The Petition presented be Allan Cathcart, James Meinzies, and Thomas Hamiltonn, late Captains of the said Colonel Hill's Regiment.

WHereas the Petitioners alledge, That the saids Colonel his Leiutenant Colonel, and John Forbes as Agent for the Regiment, uplifted the Regiments full Pay, and as yet has not compted for a great part thereof, as to the Petitioners proportions, qua Captains for themselves and Companies; And therefore craving Compt and Payment of what is justly due to them, &c.

Answerd, That 1mo. The Petition and Desire thereof is unintelligible, and impracticable to give Obedience to what is thereby craved; In respect that the Petitioners their Claim is altogether indefinit and illiquid, not condescending upon the Commencement of their Service, and Endurance thereof, nor upon the particular Summs due to them, and yet unpayed. So that esto The Persons Complained of, were charged with Horning in the Terms of this Petition, they should not know what Summ to pay, or how to give Obedience. And that therefore the Petitioners ante omnia ought to be special in their Claims, whereby it would appear, that they have no ground to creat your Lordships or Others this Trouble, summarly by such a Clamorous Bill.

2do. Esto the Petitioners were Special in their Claim, and the Colonel and Others, duely Cited, yet neither he nor his Leiutenent Colonel. or Agent would be found Lyable to the Petitioners. For 1mo. John Forbes the Agent is Comptable only to the Colonel; By whose Orders, he Dispenses the Regiments Money, and makes payment to the Respective Companies, and other uses of the Regiment, and accordingly he has so done, as per the Collonels last Discharge in April by past, for all the said John his Intromissions with the Regiments Money, preceeding March 1698. 2do. As to the Colonel, he oppones these very Petitioners, their Discharges of their full payment for themselves, Subalterns and Companies to the said John Forbes, for the Moneth of February last, and all proceedings. In contemplation whereof, and of the like Discharge from every Captain and person else Concerned, the Collonel did give him the said General Discharge; So that the Petitioners having Acknowledged their full payment, as said is, they were in the wrong to present any such Petition.

And 3tio. Quoad the Leiutenent Collonel, the Petitioners doe most Injuriouslie Acclaime any thing of him; Not only because of their saids Generall Discharges that outerly preclude them every manner of way, But likewise that the Lieutenent Collonel medles not farder then to Receive what is due to himself, from the Agent by the Collonels order, and accordingly he has Acknowledged himself payed, as per his Generall Discharge, also to the Agent for all by gones preceeding the beginning of March last. And seeing there can be no nothing more Injurious then to Load Mens Reputations with your Lordships, as alledged Guilty of keeping up the Petitioners Pay, while the Contrair Appears, by the Evident Demonstration aforesaid.

It is Humbly Hopt your Lordships will Refuse the desire of the Petitioners Bill with a Repremand, for not better minding their saids Discharges, and good Offices done them by so Obliging a Colonel, as they knew from ther Experience; Sir John Hill was to all his Officers and them in particular.

Information about this book

Title statement

Answers for Colonel Sir John Hill, Lieutenant Colonel John Forbes, and John Forbes writer in Edinburgh. To the petition presented be [sic] Allan Cathcart, James Meinzies, and Thomas Hamiltonn, late captains of the said Colonel Hill's regiment.

Edition statement

1700

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2009-10 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

B01411

ID [STC]

Wing A3465BA

ID [STC]

ESTC R172386

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

52613273

ID [OCLC]

ocm 52613273

ID [VID]

175746

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. B01411)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 175746)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English Books, 1641-1700 ; 2749:9)

Source

— Answers for Colonel Sir John Hill, Lieutenant Colonel John Forbes, and John Forbes writer in Edinburgh. To the petition presented be [sic] Allan Cathcart, James Meinzies, and Thomas Hamiltonn, late captains of the said Colonel Hill's regiment.,

Extent

1 sheet ([1] p.)

s.n.,. [Edinburgh? :: 1700]. (Caption title.) (Place and date of publication suggested by Wing (2nd ed.).) (Reproduction of original in: National Library of Scotland.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.