ANSWERS For the Earl of Argyle and Laird of Inns, To the Representation printed by the Duke of Gordon.  
THE Duke of Gordon pretends by the foresaid Representation, to stoup the bad Impression, which he says has been given of his Cause, without any design to Anticipat his legal Defences; and yet he is so far from touching any Point of the favour that all good Men do and will perpetually retain for the Marquis of Argyles memory; that he only offers a Paper of a few particulars, wherein the Account given by his advisers, hath very little Truth, and as little Consistency.  
The Marquis of A●gyll did certainly Represent one of the most loyal Ancient and worthy Families of the Kingdom, and did eminently possess all these good qualities, which from his Predecessors had descended upon him, and albeit the Motives that did incite his Adversaries to prosecute him in the Year 1661. were, no doubt most violent; seeing nothing could satisfy them, notwithstanding of his then Majesties known inclination to the contrair, save his Blood & Death; yet nothing was either alleged or proven against him, save a few inconsiderable Deeds of that Epidemic Compliance with the English Usurpers; wherein the whole Kingdom and a great part of his Judges were Involved; so that all Men may wonder, as all good Men regrate, that such a strange and severe Forfeiture, the most Groundless of the many hundreds that have been of late Rescinded, should yet for more than eleven Years, since the last happy Revolution, stand Unreduced.  
But to the Representation, It gins with a Story of a Tocher of 30000 lib. contracted by the Marquis of Huntly, with his Daughter to the Lord Drummond; for which, the Marquis of Argyle, and Earl of Southesque, with the Laird of Inns and others, became Cautioners, and that for Relief of this Debt, and of 22000 lib. more, that they were also engaged in, for the Marquis of Huntly to Murray of Skirline; the Marquis of Argyle got security by Infeftment, in the Baronies of Lochquaber and Badenoth; and that the Earl of Southesque Pursuing the Duke of Gordon for Relief of the Half: It was made appear in that Process, that the Marquis of Argyle possessed these Lands from the Year 1644.  
The truth of which Story is, That the Marquis of Argyle was indeed engaged in these Debts, as in several others, for the Marquis of Huntly his Brother in Law, and got Security for his Relief; but had in effect little or no Intromission, till after the Year 165●. at which time, having Counted with Marquis Lewis the Duke of gordon's Father, it appears by the Printed Minute of Contract, that all Intromissions being discounted, the Marquis of Huntly acknowledges himself Debtor to the Marquis of Argyle, in the Sum of 337028. lib. and for Payment of the Annualrents thereof, he Assigned him to as much of his Rents; And likewise, gives the Marquis of Argyle power to Sell Lands for payment of the Principal.  
But so Groundless and Inconsistent is the Duke's Representation in this matter, that First it forgets that the Laird of Inns did truly pay the half of the said's 30000 lib. with Annualrents thereof, to the Earl of Perth, for which having got his Assignment, against the Marquis of Huntly, and the other Cautioners: The Marquis of Argyle, who had taken upon him the whole Debt, did most justly give to the Laird of Inns a Security for the said 15000 lib. with the Annualrents, making then 20000 lib. out of the Lordship of Enzie, a part of the Estate of Huntly, which now the Duke of Gordon so very hardly and unjustly disowns. 2. The Representation makes mention of Southesques process, but concealls that Southesque prevailed in that Process; not because the Marquis of Argyl had got Payment of the Debt by his Intromissions, which had been ridiculous, since thereupon the Duke of Gordon should have been assoilyied; But because the Infeftment of Relief, having been given to the Marquis of Argyl, for Southesque behoof, as well as his own; the Earl of Southesque mentained his Right against the Forfeiture, and the Retour of Quinquennial Possession, whereby the Duke of Gordon thought to have excluded him, by the Marquis of Argylls' Possession, and thus the Earl of Southesque prevailed; but not at all on the account, that the Marquis of Argyl had got Payment by his Intromissions, which was never dreamt of.  
The Representation goes on and alleges, That the Marquis of Argyl did Purchase Beattons apprising; But designedly suppresses, how that the Marquis of Argyl was necessitat to Purchase the same for 5000 lib. sterl. and upwards: And Sir William Dicks apprising for eight Thousand Pound Sterling, and upwards. As likewise, some other Debts, that he might make good his foresaid said Infeftment for Relief; And how that when he had Purchased all these Debts, he was still content to give the Marquis of Huntly his Nevoy, the Benefit of all the Compositions he had made; And that the foresaid Sum contained in the Printed Minute, is the Sum that was found truly due to the Marquis of Argyl, after all deduction.  
The Representation alleges, That the Marquis of Argyle could nor justly give Inns a Security out of the Lordship of Enzie for the foresaid 20000 lib. Because Argyl himself had got payment for it by his Intromissions, but this Paragraph contains so many Falsehoods: That it is a wonder to see them in Print. For First, It says that the Marquis of Argyl was in Pessession of 9000 Marks a Year of the Estate of Huntly, from the 1644. to the 165●. and so was paid by his Intromissions; which is so far from truth, that it was in the Year 165●. that the foresaid Printed Minute passed betwixt Argyl and Huntly, and where Huntly confesses himself to be so vastly his Debtor. 2. The Representation denys that Inns paid the 15000 lib. with Annualrents thereof, to the Earl of Perth; Yet Inns doth actually produce the Earl of Perths' Receipt and Assignation for his relief after distress, by the outmost legal Diligences, which no Man can believe, could be given without Payment. 3. The Representation says, That the Marquis of Argyle had Right to no other Debts of the Family of Huntly, save the foresaid Tocher of 30000 lib. and the Debt of 22000 lib. due to Skirlin, since it is certain and can instantly be Instructed that he had Right to Sir Thomas. Nicolsons, Sir William Dicks, Mrs. Wakfield, and several others extending to a Vast Sum. 4. Esto, The Marquis made Opposition to Beatouns Infeftment, yet that doth only confirm the necessity he was in to satisfy Beatoun before he could obtain his own Payment and Relief. And, 5. By what is said the Honourable Court of Parliament may perceive how absurdly the Representation would make Inns his Right a contrivance betwixt him and the Marquis of Argyle, since Inns truly paid the Money to the Earl of Perth, and Argyle did justly give him a Security for the same out of the Estate of Huntly as having taken on him that Debt for the Marquis of Huntly, and included it in the foresaid Sum contained in the Printed Minut.  
The Representation to take off the Earl of Argyles just Claim of Debt against the Family of Huntly upon the foresaid Printed Minute, alleadges things so inconsistent that it is almost a shame to repeat them; For first, it says that the Marquis of Argyle had that Kindness for his Nevoy the Marquis of Huntly, as to cover Huntlys Possession in regard his Father had been Forefaulted from the English Usurpers, and yet immediately it subjoins, That the Marquis of Argyle hereby getting access to Huntley's Charter Christ, had the Opportunity to make use of retired Bonds and out of the product of Huntlys Estate. to compone Huntlyes' Debts at his pleasure, than which there can be nothing more ungrate, Unreasonable and absurd. 2. It says that the Marquis of Argyle was highly in Favours with the English, whereas all Men that remember these times know that the Marquis of Argyle was the Man of his Quality in Scotland that was most suspected by the English; And that instead of Favours he could never so much as obtain Justice of them, and if he had been so much in Favour with the English, and had been so ill intended towards the Family of Huntly, what should have hindered him to have taken Possession of the whole Estate of Huntly either by virtue of the Forfeiture, or by virtue of Beatouns expired apprising whereof he had then Right in his Reison. But, 3. The best account that can be given for the Marquis of Argyles Vindication in Relation to the Estate of Huntly, are the Marquis of Argyl his own Words when Arraigned before the Parliament 1661., which are these: For the Estate of Huntly I had nothing in it but for my own absolutely Necessary Relief, and was ever most willing to part with any Interest I had therein, getting his Friends who trofess much Zeal for the standing of the Family Engaged for Warrandice to me of any Portion that should fall to me, for my Satisfaction, and to Evidence that I was no means to harm the Family, I stood with my Rights betwixt all Fines and Forfeitures and Accounted for any thing I could receive, and to manifest yet farther that the burden of that Family was not from any extrinsic Cause of themselves I have under the old Marquess' own Hand, and his Sons George Lord Gordon, who was a very worthy Young Nobleman the just Inventary of their Debts amounting to about Ten Hundreth Thousand Marks in the Year 1640.  
These being the Words of the Marquis, having his Death certainly in his View will no doubt be much better believed then this Groundless Representation. 4. How unjust then the Representation is to allege that the Earl of Argyle hath nothing to Claim of the Estate of Huntly, and that he should content himself with the Title of Earl and the Gift of 15000 lib. yearly, which he got out of his own Estate upon the Marquis of Argyls Forfeiture, and let the remainder of his Estate go for the Payment of Huntlys Debt, all Men may Judge.  
The Duke of Gordon and the Earl of Aboyne possess no less than 5000 lib. sterl. yearly free of Debt, by virtue of the Marquis of Argyls Forfeiture: And yet this Paper has the Confidence to say that the Earl of Argyle should content himself with 15000 Lib. Scots of his Grandfather's Estate, and let the rest go for the Payment of the Marquis of Huntlys Debt, who ever heard the like!  
The Representation ends with some Reflections upon the Printed Minute 1653; stating the Debt due by the House of Huntly to Argyle; And 1. It alleadges, that the Writer thereof is not designed, but the Writer is Named and may still be Designed; besides that the Paper is Subscribed by both Parties and many honourable Persons. 2. It alleadges, That Marquis Lewis was not Infeft as Heir to his Father, nor could he indeed be Infeft; because his Father was then Forefaulted, but what could the Marquis of Argyle do more for the Marquis of Huntly, than to keep him in the Possession of his Estate, notwithstanding of his Father's Forfeiture, and fairly to state the Debt due to him by the Marquis of Huntly, when he might have Possessed the Estate Irredeemably without either Compt or Reckoning. 3: The Representation again alleadges the Marquis of Argyles Power with the English and over the Marquis of Huntly his Nevoy, and that he possessed the whole Estate of Huntly for nine years except only 7000 Marks a year, which are all three false: For the Marquis of Argyle, as hath been said, was in no Favour with the English, nor had the Marquis of Huntly and dependence upon him, but was a Man for himself, and behaved as absolutely as any of his Predecessors. And all the Possession that the Marquis of Argyle obtained, was to have the Chamberlands obliged to pay him his Annualrents as the Printed Minute bears, and which Annualrents he never got.  
So that upon the whole, this Representation for the Duke of Gordon is in effect much more against him.