REASONS For Passing a General ACT for Reducing the Forfeitures, humbly offered by the Persons Concerned.  
THe persons Forfeited, with the Heirs of such as are Deceased and were Forfeited during the two last Reigns, specially since the first of January 1665. Do humbly crave, that a general act may be past, Rescinding their Forfeitures for the Reasons following, viz.  
First, Because it is evident by His Majesty's Declaration, while Prince of Orange for the Kingdom of Scotland: That the Oppressions, and violent Persecutions, which these persons suffered, as well after as before their Fofeitures, are there set down amongst the principal Motives that induced His Majesty to undertake for the Relief of this Kingdom: And that his said Undertaking was accounted by all good men no less just and Generous, than its success was Happy and Glorious.  
2ly. Because it is no less manifest, that the greater part of the Articles of the Declaration of the Estates against King James; such as the imposing of Oaths contrary to Law, the Oppression of a standing Army in time of Peace: The imposing of Exorbitant Fines, the Imprisoning persons without expressing the Reason: The employing the Officers of the Army as Judges with their Summar Executions; and the like, were but continuations of what was begun in the preceding Reign: And that the Claim of Right adding thereto many more particulars chief ascribable to that Reign, such as the forcing men to Depone in capital Crimes against themselves; The abuse of Torture, the sending of an Army upon any part of the Kingdom in an Hostile manner in time of Peace. The Charging the lieges with Lawborrows at the King's Instance: The Imposing of Bonds without Authority of Parliament. The putting of Garrisons in private men's Houses. The Fining Husbands for their Wives. The Imprisoning and Prosecution of persons for Petitioning the King; doth plainly hold forth, that both the Reigns were Arbitrary, and Oppressive: So that to declare King James to have Forfeit the Right to the Crown for the  Causes, and all other Particulars above set down, to be contrary to Law. And yet not to restore the persons who suffered thereby; and the saddest part of whose Sufferings it was to be made Mad by the said Oppressions, and forced to the Extremity of rising in Arms, would be very inconsequent.  
3dly. Because the Relief of those thus Oppressed, and thereby forced to rise in Arms, being really intended: To think to effectuate the same by Reductions upon Specialties, is neither Advisable nor Practicable, as may easily appear by what follows.  
4ly. Because the persons Forfeited, and now expecting to be Restored, are above five hundred: And all the Specialties that can be found by the greatest stretch of the most subtle Invention, will not afford Relief to Fifty of the said five hundred: So that above four hundred and fifty, and these of the Poorest and most Distressed, must still remain in Misery. Besides, that by the making and allowing of the foresaid stretches to find out Informalities. The Rules, Forms and Practic of the Court of Justiciary, are like to be rendered uncertain and doubtful; which is of far more dangerous Consequence, than any Inconvenience that can be justly apprehended from a general Act.  
5ly. Because when the Design is known and manifest, viz. To Relieve and Restore the foresaids persons Forfeited, to go about to do the same under the colour of Informalities, which can reach but a few; and the greater part of these few very lamely and constrainedly; is but to expose, both the Justice and Prudence of the Kingdom, unless at the same time the Righteousness of these Reductions be by a general Act fairly owned and declared.  
6ly. Because it is well known that the first appearance of His Majesty when Prince of Orange for our Relief and Deliverance, was Light and Joy, and as Life from the Dead to all these Afflicted persons: And that in effect they still are and will perpetually prove the persons most True and Faithful to His Majesty. Whereas their former Persecutors did then sink into Grief and Dispondency, so that it cannot be thought that any true Friend to King William will now offer to oppose these poor men's restitution.  
But the great and common Objection, is, to restore persons who were Forfeited for rising in Arms upon necessary standing Laws, and clear and evident Probation, were to lay down the worst of preparatives to encourage Rebellions for the future.  
To which it is answered, First, That it is earnestly wished that the persons that make this Objection may be well considered, whether they be Biased by particular Interest, or truly, and at the bottom approvers of the late Proceed against King James.  
2ly. It is known Rule, That in Criminals, as to either Condemnations, or Absolutions Precedents and Examples are of no force.  
3dly. That whatever the King and Parliament shall now do by their Sovereign power, upon consideration of particular Circumstances, as to things, can never in Law or Sense be made preparative to hinder the Execution of standing Laws for hereafter: It being most certain, that when ever these Laws shall be transgressed, or contraveened, the alleging of things for a preparative, found by King and Parliament to be distinguished by their Circumstances, would be of no force.  
4ly. As these miserable Attempts at Pentland and Bothwell-Bridge were contrary to standing Law, so it is undeniable, that all the lesser attempts made through out the Kingdom after the Prince of Orange his Arrival into England, against King James before the meeting of the Estates; do fall under the same construction: And that all the difference, as to this point that can be made betwixt them, is that (Blessed be God) these had the far better success.  
5ly. As in England they needed not a general Act, so we see that the late Forfeitures have been Reversed and Rescinded upon such slender Reasons, that if there had been need of a general Act, their Parliament had never stood to have past it.  
6ly. Can any man allege, that the Rescinding of Forfeitures for these former Insurrections, can be a bad preparative to encourage Insurrections for the future: But at the same time he must think, that the late great Revolution, may likeways be drawn into a far more mischievous consequence: A thought, which certainly all honest Men must abhor.  
And therefore seeing that the Oppressions of the Forfeited persons are clearly acknowledged by the Claim of Right; their Relief more than insinuate by His Majesty's Declaration, while Prince of Orange: Their Redress expressly assured by the Meeting of the Estates: Their Restitution plainly Assented to by His Majesty's printed Instructions; the manner of their Relief by Specialties evidently impracticable and delusive: And that the Forfeited persons themselves cannot fail to be amongst the truest Friends to King William. What reason can be adduced to hinder their Restitution by a general Act; specially seeing, that the alone publishing of this Representation, may and will undoubtedly cut off the ill consequence of a supposed preparative, to the end of the World.  
But it is farther objected, That as to many of these Forfeitures, there are Donators; and where Donators are, Forfeitures cannot be Rescinded, unless the Donators be particularly called, which at this time hath been omitted.  
To which it is answered. First, That if there were any weight in this Objection, as there is none, It could only be Objected with any probability against the Reductions of particular Forfeitures. But to say, That when the King and Parliament proceeds by virtue of their Sovereign and Legislative Power, to Rescind Forfeitures in general: And that in Prosecution of the States Claim of Right, and after their having Forfeited the late King James for the Causes, and in the manner, we have seen, is neither reasonable nor tolerable.  
2dly. It is denied that Donators need be called to Reductions of Forfeitures in Parliament, per modum justitiae, Because in effect, they have no proper Interest, in as much as all their Interest is only founded in the Gift, which is consequential to the Sentence of Forfeiture; and must of necessity stand or fall as the Sentence is found to be just or unjust: And the Gift being a free Gift of His Majesty, and the King and Parliament together, reviewing the Sentence, whether just or unjust; and His Majesty's Advocate, the proper Contradictor, being always present at such Reductions, to affirm that the Donators must be called to a cognition of this nature to be made by King and Parliament, is evidently unnecessary.  
3 The proper case requiring Donators to be called is when either their gifts are questioned; or there falls in a competition about them; but to think that where the gift is free and gratuitous, as the King's gifts are: That the King, the Author of the gift, with the Parliament, having the Sovereign Authority of the Kingdom: May not review the sentences upon which these gifts proceed: Is obviously unjust and presumptuous.  
4. Let search be made into the records, and it will be found that this point was never before Controverted, for albeit that it may be found that some times a Donator (and it may be two cannot be found) hath been called Ex superabundanti. And it is like for the particular repeating and stating of his intromissions. Yet generally, it will appear that to reductions per modum Justitiae. Donators were not called: Nor is their any ground here to distinguish betwixt Reductions upon the head of irrelivancy, and reductions for want of due probation;  that on the part of these that gave sentence, both are alike unjust. And if it be alleged, that the Donators in the second case should be called: Because he may supply the probation It may be as justly affirmed, that he may be called in the first, because he may add to the accusation; which yet is by all denied. But the true reason of the Parliaments practice in this Case, Is because that Donators have only gratuitous Gifts: And as the King is their Author, so the King and Parliament have the Sovereign Power, and only proper interests to Re-examine all such sentences, They being only pronounced at the King's Advocats instance, and the Authority of the Parliament supplying all Defects.  
But 5. To put this question out of doubt, the records of Parliament do afford plain and almost parallel instances to the Case in hand, that our Parliaments have rescinded forfeitures without calling the Donators, and that by a general Act, where the Case appears to be rather less Favourable, as may be clearly seen in the instance of that general reduction of Forfeitures that was in the Year 1585. And in many other Instances extent in the records of Parliament.  
There is another question here moved whether Transactions, and Compositions, made by the Persons Forfeited, or their Friends for them, with their Donators, can be declared void and the sums paid, or agreed to be paid in composition, ordained to be restored, and some incline to think that this cannot be in respect that here is a Transaction which is an express bargain on the account of the Hazard, and the Faith of such Transactions is so established by Law, that they cannot, be called in question, But on the other Hand it is to be considered, That the difference of Transactions from other Bargains. Is that by a Transaction some thing doubtful and litigious betwixt two parties is agreed, and the pretence of the one party Remitted or Discharged for some consideration to be given by the other, which being a method and expedient to terminate, and put an end to pleas, the Law has been more careful to preserve and establish such agreements. But by this it also plainly appears that the Bargains and Compositions made with Donators, were in effect no Transactions. But plain Bargains of purchase, for there being neither Res, not Lis Dubia in the Case, both the sentence and gift of Forfeiture being cl●a● according to the Law for the time, It is evident that the Bargains that the Donators made, were direct bargains of Sale, for as high a price as they could get. And that they were alike ready, to make over their gifts, either to the Forfeited Persons, or to Strangers which of them did bid most. So that if they sold these Estates within the Worth, It was not on the account of any pretention the buyer might have either to the Estate or the price of it, But merely from the common odium, and uncertainty of all Forfeitures, which made them content to take what they could get from any hand whatsomever. 2ly This may be yet farther cleared if the case be put of the Donators selling and disponing upon a Forfeit Estate to a stranger. In which case it cannot be questioned but if the Forfeiture came to be reduced the Person Forfeited would be reponed to his Estate, and the stranger purchaser have recourse upon his warrandice against the Donator: How then the forfeit Person or his Friends purchase should be thought in this point to differ from the purchase of a stranger is evidently inconceivable. It's granted if the Bargain had been expressly made with this Condition that no eventor revolution tho' reducing the Forfeiture should give ground of repetition, that then condition should be kept, the Bargain in this case being a plain Bargain of hazards as of a Jactus retis, or the like. But than what composition in Scotland whether with friend or stranger was so concluded. 2ly Suppose a Bargain had been so made yet it most be fairly and honestly made without Fear, Force, or Concussion, which Leads to a third Argument viz.  
3. Esto, That the compositions for Forfeitures had been made upon these express terms (as yet we know none in Scotland were) that the parties Forfeited should not repeat their money tho' the Forfeiture should come to be reduced, yet even in this case if this Bargain was agried to out of extreme necessity, The party Forfeited having no other remedy to prevent the starving and Ruining of himself and his Family, can any rational man deny but that this extremity going over by a happy change of times, the Person who was thereby forced should be relieved of his Bargain, and reponed against it. But so it is that this is directly our present case, It being undeniable that the forfeit Persons or their Friends who of late componed for their Estates with Donators did do it meetly for preventing the utter Ruin of themselves, their Families and Creditors, For being pressed with the severity of a Forfeiture and rigid Donator that left them nothing, what stronger Fear, Force, and Concusion could men be under, so that if Law restore against Bargains made throw fear and Force, as we know it doth, certainly Restitution in the case in hand is the most Just that ever was heard of, specially if it be considered that this Restitution is now demanded from King and Parliament, whose Sovereign power may and aught in equity to grant it tho' in the strike Law, it were more doubtful as indeed it is not.  
4. Not to mention how at this time the whole Kingdom is most happily relieved and Discharged of Bonds and Subscriptions, and even of Oaths. (which in Law are more binding than transactions) formerly imposed tho' by a necessity far inferior to that whereby these compositions were extorted, do we not see how that by the Act Debtor and Creditor 1661. The Faith of private bonds was upon for less considerations altered and superseded, and even express bargains concerning proper wodsets clearly innovat. and Renunciations upon agreement Discharged If then the Parliament did at that time think fit upon bare Reasons of conveniency to make such stretches upon private Bargains fairly concluded, can any Rational Man think that compositions so visibly extorted upon such unjust grrounds as the late Forfeitures were should now be sustained.  
5. Was it not upon this most just Consideration, that his Majesty in his printed Instructions allows his consent to be given to what the Parliament should propose for restitution to be made of Fines, or Compositions for fines or Forfeitures, from those who had the Benefit of them; so that indeed it may Justly be wondered, how that after the Oppressions we have see, and the force that men have been laid under to redeem their Estates, from them by giving often more than the half to such as assisted to spoil them, any should have the confidence either to call such compositions legal transactions, or to plead that they ought still to be regarded as binding, specially after that his Majesty hath so clearly declared himself in this point.  
But 6ly And lastly and for superabundance, it is certain that in many Cases the Donators did compound or sell the Estates Forfeited without any consent of the Party Forfeited, And farther it can be made appear in some Cases, that men did always refuse to consent to the Bargain, so that to allege a transaction in these Cases, to bar them or their Friends from Repetition were most absurd.  
In Respect whereof the general Act ought to pass as it is conceived, and unanimously voted by the Committee of Parliament.