ANSWERS FOR THE EARL of LAUDERDALE, TO A PRINTED PAPER, (Entitled, The Case of JOHN SWINTON, In relation to his Father's Forefaulture) and to the pretended Reasons of Reduction of the said Forfeiture, Alleged to be now depending before the Parliament.  
Edinburgh, Printed by the Heir of Andrew Anderson; 1690.   

Answers for the Earl of Lauderdale, to a Printed Paper (Entitled, The Case of John Swinton, in relation to his Father's Forfeiture) and to the pretended Reasons of Reduction of the said Forfeiture, Alleged to be now depending before the Parliament.  
THE deceased John Swinton, being a Person of a considerable Interest and Trust in the Kingdom of Scotland, in Anno 1651. Upon the Invasion of Cromwell, and the English Rebels, Swinton did desert his Sovereign, and Native Country, and abandoned his Charge in the Army; and did join and associate himself with the Usurper Cromwell; for which he and some other Traitors were Cited before the Parliament at Perth; and the matter being remitted by the Parliament to the Committee of Estates; and His late Majesty King Charles the Second being present in the Committee; and the matter being both notourly known, as also sufficiently proven, John Swinton was Forefault in anno 1651. for deserting his Charge in the Army, and joining with Cromwell: Thereafter John Swinton marched with Cromwell to Worcester, and did actually appear in Arms against his Sovereign in Person, when the Royal Family, and his Native Country, were at the last and outmost extremity, where the late Duke of Lauderdale, being taken Prisoner in defence of his Sovereigns Right, and preservation of his native Country from slavery, was thereafter detained three years closely Prisoner in the Tower of London, expecting every hour the stroke of the Executioner; and was kept other three years in a Vault at Portland-Castle, and being transported thence to Windsor-Castle, he was likewise detained Prisoner there other three years: And being Forfeited for his Loyalty by those Regicides, John Swinton did improve his Interest and Power he had with the Usurper Cromwell, (being his great Minion and Trustee, being nominat by him to be a Lord both of Council, Exchequer and Session) to so base and ungenerous ends, that he did persecute those who had faithfully adhered to their Sovereign and Native Country, in their distress, and did procure in his own Favours a Gift of the Duke of Lauderdale's Forfeiture, and thereby did possess a considerable part of his Estate, to the value of one thousand Pounds Sterling per annum, for the space of more than 8 years; the rest of the Duke's Estate being possessed by as notorious Traitors as himself, during all which time, the Duke of Lauderdale's Lady and Daughter, were reduced to such straits and necessities, that they had not Bread to eat, the unjust Invaders of his Estate, neither allowing him any thing out of the same, to maintain himself and his Family, nor yet interposing with the Usurper for an allowance out of the Public: In which condition the Duke lived, till it pleased God to extricate him out of these straits and difficulties, by the happy Restauration of his Native Sovereign King Charles the Second, in anno 1660.  
In anno 1661. John Swinton was sent down Prisoner from London, to be Judged by the Parliament of Scotland; and being convened before the Parliament, His Majesty's Advocate did insist against him, not only upon the former Sentence, and Doom of Forfeiture passed against him in anno 1651. And that the 'samine might be put to further Execution, but likewise exhibited a new Indictment against him, upon several new additional Articles of Treason, and particularly upon his going along with the Rebels to, and being in Arms at the Fight of Worcester against his Sovereign in person: And John Swinton having appeared several times in the Panel, he not only viva voce did acknowledge, but by Defences Written and Subscribed with his own Hand, given in to the Parliament, he confessed his being in Arms at Worcester with the Usurper Cromwell against his Sovereign, but did plead the benefit of the Act of Indemnity in England, which did not at all concern Scotsmen, whereupon the Parliament in anno 1661., did not only Ratify and Approve the former Doom and Sentence of Forfeiture pronounced against the said John Swinton, by the Committee of Estates in anno 1651, but also for the additional Crimes contained in the new Indictment acknowledged by himself, both viva voce before the Parliament, and by the Written and Subscribed Defences Swinton was again Forfaulted: And in the next Session of that same Parliament, the Doom of Forfeiture against Swinton is mentioned and related in the Act of Indemnity, and he and some others are expressly excepted from the Indemnity, as standing Forfault by that same Parliament.  
King Charles the Second was graciously pleased to gift and bestow Swinton's Forfeiture to the late Duke of Lauderdale, not only in consideration of his faithful Services, and great Sufferings, but particularly because John Swinton had taken a Gift from the Usurpers, of a considerable part of the Duke of Lauderdale's Estate: So that there was never any Forfeiture upon more just and important Crimes, nor did ever any Prince Gift a Forfeiture upon more reasonable and equitable considerations. Nevertheless after the Duke of Lauderdale's decease, in anno 1682, when his Family and Representatives were in very hard circumstances, Swinton's Son did impetrat and procure from the late King Charles the Second, upon most false and disingenuous representations, a Commission for enquiring into the Method and Procedure, and the Warrants upon Record of Swinton's Forfeiture: and there being a multitude of frivolous Objections offered by Swinton's Son, and full Answers thereto, by the Earl of Lauderdale, and the Creditors of the deceased Duke of Lauderdale: And both Parties being heard viva voce before that Commission, the Commissioners were fully satisfied, that nothing of moment was instructed, and that the Crimes for which Swinton was Forfeited at Perth, viz. his deserting his Charge in the Army, and joining with the Rebel Cromwell, and his being thereafter in Arms at Worcester, for which he was again Forfeited in the Parliament, 1661. was not only true and incontroverted, but acknowledged by Swinton himself, in his Answers given in to his Indictment, which were Written and Subscribed with his own Hand, as said is: So that if there had been any Informality in the Processes of Forfeiture, as there were none; yet these Informalities could have no effect, and ought not to be regarded: Especially seeing by the 135 Act, Parl. 8. K. Ja. the 6. It is Statuted, that no Forfeiture for Treason against the King, and His Estates, shall be Reduced for any pretended Cause of Nullity, that may be Alleged to have been in the Process, except the Crime be either Remitted by His Majesty, or that it could be purged and acquit by a Trial. Whereupon the Commission was deserted.  
Thereafter the said John Swinton's Son and his Relations, being conscious to themselves, that they could not prevail to Reduce the foresaids two Decreets of Forfeiture, pronounced against his deceased Father, the Crimes for which he was Forfeit being both notour and proven, and acknowledged by himself, they did fall upon another Contrivance, which was in anno 1685, or 1686. to procure an Rehabilitation to Swinton's Children, with a Remission of the Crime, thinking thereby, and by the interest with the Quakers, and others who had then Influence at Court, that they would lay a force upon the Earl of Lauderdale, either to Transact with the said John Swinton for the Estate of Swinton, or if he refused to do the same, they would procure a Recommendation to the next Parliament, to Reduce the Forfeitures upon the former frivolous Objections, and pretended Nullities offered before the Commission: But the Tenor of the Rehabilitation running upon these same false Grounds and Suggestions, which were insinuat to King Charles the Second, when the Commission was obtained in anno 1682. and which being objected against by the Lord Maitland, then at Court, the Letter of Rehabilitation in favours of Swinton's Children, was refused.  
This being a short and true Account of the matter of Fact in relation to the Forfeitures of Swinton, and the Gift thereof in Favours of the late Duke of Lauderdale, and the Contrivances that have been fallen upon of late to quarrel the same: A Paper lately came out in Print, (Entitled the Case of John Swinton of Swinton, in relation to his Father's Forfeiture, with the Reasons of Reduction of the said Forfeiture) shall be made appear to any indifferent person to be Disingenuous, False, Calumnious, and inconsistent with the Laws of this, and all other Nations, both from what has been said before, and what shall be hereafter said in the particular Answers to the Reasons of Reduction.  
It is represented in the said Paper, that the Duke of Lauderdale after the Restauration of King Charles the Second, first entered into the Possession, and then obtained a Gift of the Deceased Swinton's Estate, upon pretence of his being Forfeited by the Committee of Estates, in anno 1651. for his being with the English, albeit there was nothing ever could be made appear to evince that there was ever any such Forfeiture against Swinton in the year 1651. But the pretended Extract of a Decreet in absence, elicit from an Under Clerk ten years after, of which there was never the least Warrant upon Record. And as to the Forfeiture in the year 1661. there was only a Process intented, which never came the length of a Sentence: And Swinton having objected it to the Duke of Lauderdale, in the latter end of the year 1673. There were Methods taken in January 1674. for making up of the Minute's, as if a Sentence of Forfeiture had followed upon the Process, and a Decreet extracted upon the same, 13, or 14 years after the intended Process, and Sir Archibald Primrose, who was then Clerk Register, dealt first with the Earl of Crafurd to sign the said Minute's, albeit 13 years after that Parliament, at least that Session of Parliament was no more in being, and then caused application to be made in behalf of the Duke of Lawderdale, to the Lords of Session, to give their Warrant for Extracting, what he was conscious to himself was so unwarrantably done: And that the Earl of Crafurd had declared under his hand, by a Letter left with his Daughter, Lady Helen Sinclair, how he was prevailed with by the said Sir Archibald Primrose, to so unjustifiable a practice, and which Letter is set down at length in the foresaid Paper; and that the Duke of Lauderdale notwithstanding of his great power, durst not adventure, albeit that he knew his Title to that Estate, to be defective, to put a Crime so calumnious, as was charged upon the Deceased John Swinton, to the Trial of a Parliament, knowing that he would have been able to have Cleared himself: And that the Letter written by the Earl of Crafurd, having been shown to the King, he did grant a Commission to make inquiry in the whole procedor, concerning Swinton's Forfeiture, and to inspect the Records of Parliament, in relation to the same, and to make Report thereof to His Majesty. And the Records of Parliament being inspected, there was nothing found, that related to any pretended Decreet of Forfeiture against Swinton, in the Parliament 1651. And as to the Parliament 1661. all that was found, did appear from the Records of Parliament to be false. But this Earl of Lauderdale, had that influence, upon those, to whom the Commission was direct, as rendered the same ineffectual.  
This being the sum of John Swinton's Case, as he's pleased to term it; It is Answered thereto, 1ᵒ. That it is most false and calumnious, that the Duke of Lauderdale did enter to the possession of the Estate of Swinton, before he obtained the Gift of Forfeiture: For the deceased John Swinton being Forfeited by the Committee of Estates, in anno 1651. who had power from the Parliament, then sitting at Perth, to discuss the relevancy, and probation of the Indictment, raised against the said deceased John Swinton and others, and to decide and determine therein, as fully in all respects, as the Parliament sitting in pleno e●● sessu, might have done: After the King's Restauration, that same Committee being appointed by the King to meet in anno 1660. to manage the public concerns of the Kingdom, until a Parliament was called, they amongst other things, did Sequestrate the said John Swinton's Estate, whom they knew they had Forfeited in anno 1651. and did appoint George Hume of Kaimes, to intromet with the Rent of the said Estate, and to be comptable to the King, or Lords of Thesaury. And the Duke of Lauderdale did not intromet with a six pence thereof, until the Martinmass 1661. which was long after, both the last Sentence of Forfeiture, and his Gift thereof from his Majesty. 2ᵒ. As to the Decreet of Forfeiture in anno 1651. Although the Warrants thereof were lost, with several other public Records coming down from London in anno 1660. yet the Extract thereof must make as much Faith, as if the Warrants thereof were yet extant, seeing it is notourly known, that the Lords of Session sustains all Extracts out of the Registers of these years 1648, 49, 50, and 51. and refuses to grant Certifications against any Writs Registrat these years, because the Warrants of the Registers of these years were lost: But that which puts the truth and verity of this Decreet, beyond all question is this, that Lieutenant Govan who was Forfeited at that same time with John Swinton, and contained in the same Decreet with him, was put to death by Order of the Parliament, in anno 1661. by virtue of the first Sentence in anno 1651; as is evident by the last Minute's upon the Margin of that Decreet, anno 1651. Ordaining the Sentence of Death to be execute against him, conform to the said Decreet; and which Minuts are Subscribed by the then Precedent of the Parliament, 1661. So that to Redargue the Faith and Verity of that Decreet of Forfeiture, were to accuse the Parliament of manifest Injustice, and lay an Imputation upon the Parliament, of putting a Man to death upon a false Decreet, which the meanest Judicature in Scotland could not be guilty of, far less the Supreme Judicature of the Nation: and it is obvious to any man's sense, that if this Decreet had been false, Lieutenant Govan when he was called before the Parliament, and received the Order, and Sentence of Death, would have reclaimed against the Faith and Verity of that Decreet; so that the Parliaments Approbation of this Decreet of Forfeiture, by executing of Govan, and his not reclaiming against the same, and the Parliaments again approving thereof in the last Sentence of Forfeiture against Swinton, in anno 1661. are unanswerable Documents of the Verity and Faith of the said Decreet.  
3o. For astructing the Verity of the Decreet of Forfeiture in anno 1661. there needs no more be said, but that the List of the Unprinted Acts of the first Session of the Parliament, anno 1661. contains both the Decreet of Forfeiture against John Swinton, and he Ratification in favours of the late Duke of Lauderdale, of the Gift of Swinton's Forfeiture: And in the Act of Indemnity, which was passed in the second Session of that same Parliament, the Decreet of Forfeiture against John Swinton, is particularly excepted therefrom, which beyond all question doth adminiculat and astruct the Verity of the said Sentence and Doom of Forfeiture, and that the same was made up after the year 1673. appears evidently to be false, because the person who Scrolled that Decreet of Forfeiture, whose name was Brown, was put out of Haystoun's Service and Writing-Chamber in anno 1663., and was dead before the year 1670. And the Registers of the Decreets of Forfeiture were all Written in one Book by David Plenderleith, before the year 1669. and delivered in to the Register, and amongst which is insert the same Sentence of Forfeiture against Swinton, so that the falseness of that assertion is evident, that the Parliament 1661. did not proceed to a Sentence upon that Process, raised against Swinton, and that there were never Decreets Extracted till the year 1674. and Sir Archibald Primrose was known to be a person of such Integrity, and so Cautious in all his Actings, that although he be loaded by John Swinton with sinistrous and indirect Methods, in making up of the Minutes of the said Decreet, and procuring a Warrant for Extracting the same, not sparing his Reputation now after his death, to attain his unjust ends, which he durst not in the least adventure upon while he was alive: Yet by what has been said, and by the following Answers to John Swinton's pretended Reasons of Reduction, it shall be made evident and clear, he did nothing in this Affair, but what he was warranted both from the Records of Parliament, and Laws of the Kingdom. 4ᵒ. As to that pretence, that it was thought strange that the Duke of Lauderdale, being a man of such power, durst not adventure to put a Crime so Calumniously Charged upon John Swinton, to the Trial of a Parliament. It is Answered, It is thought more strange, that John Swinton being innocent of these Crimes, as is pretended in the said Paper, for which he was Indicted and Convict, both by the Committee of the Estates, 1651. and Parliament 1661. should have suffered the Duke of Lauderdale to possess his Estate during his Life, who died but in anno 1679. and did never make application either to the Parliament, 1661. or to any other Parliament that was keeped since, for Redressing that pretended Injury that he received by the Duke of Lauderdale's pretended unjust possession of his Estate, or for Vindicating himself of those notorious Crimes whereof he was Indicted and Convict: And if there was no Sentence of Forfeiture pronounced against the said deceased John Swinton, how came this John Swinton to Address to, and Employ his Interest with the Quakers and others in England, who had influence on His Majesty for a Commission, for enquiring into the said Forfeiture, and procedor thereof; and when this could take no effect, for a Rehabilitation to the deceased John Swinton's Children, and for a Remission of the Crime to the deceased John Swinton himself; for if there was no Decreet of Forfeiture against John Swinton, there needed no Commission for enquiring thereunto, neither was it necessary to have desired a Rehabilitation in favours of his Children; and if he was not guilty of Treason, there was no need of a Remission: And how came the deceased John Swinton in his Speech before the Parliament, 1661. to endeavour to extenuat his Gild, by pretending that the Ambition of his younger years having entered him too early into public Employment, did make him Act these things, which if they were to do, he would rather with the one hand strike off the other, than be guilty of them; and that he spoke this, can be made appear by many Witnesses, yet alive: And if he had been as innocent of the Crimes for which he was Forfeited, as is pretended by his Son's Paper, would he have used such an expression as this? which clears, that he was not only guilty of the Crimes, but likewise that he was sensible of his Fault. But the truth is, John Swinton does sometime run to one Shift, and sometime to another, as he thinks will help forward his present Design, and notwithstanding of his pretended simplicity, he resolves calumniari audacter ut aliquid adhereat. 5ᵒ. As to that Alledgance, that the Earl of Lauderdale had such Influence upon these to whom the Commission was direct in anno 1682, as rendered the prosecution thereof ineffectual. It is Answered, That this is very suitable to the rest of his Alledgances, and is a gross Reflection upon those nominat in the Commission, some of them being as eminent persons, and of as known Integrity as is in the Kingdom: and the Alledgance is most Calumnious, for as the Commission was impetrat and obtained by John Swinton, and his Friends their importunity; so it's very notour, that the Commissioners named in the said Commission, were John Swinton's very good Friends for the most part, and whom by his Power and Influence at Court for the time he procured most of them so to be named and appointed, and that the World may judge how the Earl of Lauderdale was stated with the most part of the Commissioners, their Names are subjoined at the end of their Answers.  
This being in short the Answer to John Swinton's Case, as it is stated before his pretended Reasons of Reduction, except to the deceased Earl of Crafurd's Letter, (which will come in more properly afterwards in the Answer to the Objection against the Minute's.) The next thing that falls in to be considered, are his pretended Reasons of Reduction.  
To the first Reason whereof being against the Decreet of the Committee of Estates in anno 1651, and bearing, that it is a Decreet in Absence, not subscribed by the Clerk Register for the time, but by Mr. Thomas Henderson pretended Clerk to that Committee, from whom an Extract was elicit in anno 1661., ten years thereafter, and whereof there is no Warrant extant in Records of Parliament.  
It is Answered, 1ᵒ. That it is notourly known that Mr. Thomas Henderson who Subscribes the Extract of the Decreet of Forfeiture, pronounced by the Committee of Estates in anno 1651, to whom the Parliament had remitted these Processes of Forfeitures, was Clerk to the said Committee of Estates, and the Extract of the Decreet bears, not only the Forfeiture of John Swinton, but of several other persons, and amongst the rest Lieutenant Govan, who upon the same Decreet was Execute, as appears by the minutes in anno 1661. upon the Margin thereof, the last Minute whereof is ordaining that Decreet of Forfeiture to be put to further execution against Govan, and is Subscribed by the Precedent of the Parliament 1661., and the Sentence of Death was accordingly execute against him thereupon, though his Crimes were far less obvious and notour than these of John Swinton's; and Clerks to Committees of Estates, or Criminal Courts, or any of the Registers Deputs, do grant authentic and valid Extracts, although not subscribed by the Clerk Register; and it is a mere Calumny that the Extract was elicit from Mr. Thomas Henderson in the year 1661., and it is an intolerable imputation and reflection upon the Parliament, to say, that they would upon the same Extract have ordained Govan to be Execute, and ratified and approven the Forfeiture contained in this Extract against John Swinton, if the Extract had not been both true and warrantable; and the truth is, the whole particulars that are contained in the said Extract were then recent and fresh in the Memories of a great part of the Members of the Parliament 1661., who had been Members of the Committee of Estates in anno 1651, and who had pronounced that Decreet of Forfeiture against Swinton and others therein contained. 2o. Swinton in his Answers, Written and Subscribed by himself, given in to the Parliament 1661., therein endeavours to extenuat his Gild in joining with the Usurper Cromwell, and going with him to Worcester, pretending it was because he was out of the Protection of Law, which Words can not otherways be understood than of the Decreet and Sentence of Forfeiture pronounced against him in anno 1651, neither does he in his Answers deny that he was Forfeited in anno 1651, which is a clear demonstration of the verity and truth of the foresaid Decreet. 3o. Whereas it is pretended, that there is no Warrant upon Record of the said Decreet. It is Answered, That it is notour and universally known, that the Warrants of that year, and of several other years of the Registers, were lost coming down from London in anno 1660, and that Extracts forth of the Registers make as much Faith as if the Warrants thereof were yet extant, the Lords of Session always sustaining such Extracts out of the Registers of these years, and refusing to grant Certifications against any Writs that are Registrat these years▪ because the Warrants thereof were lost in manner foresaid; and if this Preparative should be sustained or be encouraged to reduce Decreets or Acts of Parliament, which are Corroborat by other public Acts of subsequent Parliaments, relative thereto, upon Pretences that the Minute's or Warrants thereof are not extant, than the most part of His Majesty's Prerogatives asserted by the Acts of Parliament, and all Decreets of Forfeitures, whereupon Annexations to the to the Crown have followed, or Donations to the Liedges may be all called in question and redargued upon the same pretences; and therefore the foresaid Decreet of Forfeiture in anno 1651 being unquestionably astructed as to the verity thereof by the Parliament 1661., their homologating the 'samine in putting the Sentence of Death to execution against Govan by virtue thereof, and by their ratifying the 'samine in so far as concerns Swinton, and acknowledged likewise by Swinton in his Answers, the same cannot now be redargued upon the pretence of the want of the Records which were lost in manner foresaid.  
To the second reason of Reduction, bearing, That the King and Committee of Estates for reasons and considerations moving them, did restrict the Sentence of Punishment to the said John Hume (who was one of the persons forfeited in the said Decreet) to the Death, which takes off the effect of the Sentence as to Swinton and all the rest, till it should be reconsidered by the King and Parliament. It is Answered, That by this reason appears either the gross ignorance of the Libeler, or his disingenuity, if not both; for the Doom of Forfeiture is most solemnly pronounced by sound of Trumpet, and tearing the Arms of those forfeited, and by reiterate and ingeminat Clauses forfeiting the Traitors as to Life, heritage and Movables, which is expressed and repeated as to John Swinton, and the exception is taxative, and relates only as to John Hume, who by the former part of the Doom was forfeited as to Life, Lands, and heritage also, and which is evident by the exception which restricts the Sentence as to John Hume, that his punishment should only be Death when apprehended, and the Escheat of his Movables, and the Liferent of his Lands; and both Swinton and Govan do not so much as pretend to, or found upon any restriction of that Sentence, when they were brought before the Parliament 1661., which certainly they would not have neglected, if their Restriction had been extended to them, and the Decreet and Sentence was considered by the Parliament 1661. as not containing any such restriction in their favours, when they did not only ordain Govan to be execute by virtue thereof, which was accordingly done; but also when they did repel Swinton's Answers, as being no ways relevant, and did ratify and approve the foresaid Decreet, and forfeited him of new for the new additional and supervenient Crimes whereof he was Indicted.  
To the third reason of Reduction, bearing, That by the late Claim of Right in the Meeting of Estates, It is Declared, that the causing Pursue and Forfeit persons upon frivolous and weak Pretences, and upon lame and defective Probation, is contrair to Law, and that the Crimes libelled against John Swinton were such, being both irrelevant and calumnious.  
It is Answered, 1ᵒ. That if the Crimes of Deserting of the King's Army by a Commissionat Officer, and going in to the common Enemy, who at that time had invaded the Kingdom, and having their residence and daily resorting and conversing with the said public Enemy be irrelevant to infer the Crime of Treason, than it is not known what can be found relevant to infer that Crime: For 1ᵒ. by Law and the Custom of Nations de re militari, who ever accepts a Military Commission or Charge, he cannot at his pleasure dismiss or exauterat himself; and Swinton having acknowledged, and it being proven against him that he received his Charge in the Army from the King and Committee of Estates, he could not lose himself, or his cingulum & sacramentum militare fine missione, and without his Majesty and Committee of Estates their Licence and Warrant; and his pretended giving up of his Commission, (which in his Answers to the Parliament 1661., was by intimating the 'samine to the Chancellor, and to Gilbert Ker,) that they received the 'samine off his hands, doth not excuse, much less warrant his withdrawing from his Charge, whereupon the Law, though he had proceeded no further, put this construction and character of Desertion, and having gone to the Enemy's Quarters sine comm●● tu, Law goes further to put the Character upon him of being transfuga & hostis; and whatever may be his Pretences of his being taken Prisoner and carried to the Enemy's Quarters, where he was some time detained Prisoner, yet they are undoubtedly nothing else but Excuses, to palliate his treasonable designs against his King and Country; for if he had not had a design to join with the Enemy, what could move him to that side of the Water and place of the Country where the Enemy was lying, his Family being on the other side, and where he could not Escape, being taken by the Enemy; but the true reason was, he was afraid that the Treaties and Correspondence which he had with the Enemies before should be discovered and he punished for the same, and if he had been kept as a Prisoner with the Enemy, is it possible that they would have suffered him to wear his Sword who had been in Arms against them, especially when they had disarmed all the Gentlemen in the Country, and would suffer none to wear Swords but those who who were actually in their own Service. And whatever might be Alleged against simple Converse, and being present with an Enemy, as not relevant to infer the Crime of Treason, yet this Converse being qualified as is Libelled, viz. the deserting of his Charge in the Army, his going to the place where the Rebels were, his residing and frequent resorting with them, with his after Carriage in going in with the Usurper to Worcester, which he acknowledges in his Answers, that he did it at the desire of the Usurper; by the Construction of all Law, and by the Laws of this Kingdom is relevant to infer the Crime of Treason, and that of the highest nature. 2ᵒ. The foresaid Decreet being ordained by the Parliament to be given out to him to see the 15th of May 1661., and to give in his Answers thereto again that day eight days, and accordingly the said John Swinton having gotten up the said Decreet to see, he returned the 'samine without any Answers, which certainly he would not have done if he had been innocent of these Crimes libelled against him in the said Decreet, or if the Decreet of Forfeiture had not truly been pronounced against him: and seeing that the Decreet of Forfeiture 1651 is not only ratified by the Parliament 1661. as to John Swinton, but thereupon the said Lieutenant Govan was excecute as aforesaid, it is high and bold insolence in John Swinton to have libelled such a reason of Reduction, by questioning the relevancy of his Father's Indictment, which in effect is of no less import than to accuse both the Committee of Estates 1651, and the Parliament 1661. of high and manifest Injustice, and upon the matter is an impugning of the Authority of the Estates and Parliament, which by the Law is declared Treason.  
To the fourth Reason of Reduction, viz. That the foresaid Decreet is defective in the Probation, the Decreet neither condescending upon the Witnesses that were examined against him, nor upon what they deponed, but only that the King and Committee of Estates have found the Libel relevant and sufficiently proven, without expressing what way the same was proven; So that the whole Probation of that Decreet, resolves in the simple assertion of one Clerk, without any authentic Document or Probation in record, which in Law is no Probation at all.  
It is answered. 1st. That the Decreet is opponed, bearing expressly Sir Thomas Nicolson's compearance, who was then King's Advocate, before the King and Committee of Estates; and desiring that His Majesty and the said Committee would consider the relevancy of the said Libel and Indictment with the Depositions of divers famous Witnesses, Received, Sworn, and examined thereanent: So that the Decreet condescends that the manner of Probation was by Witnesses: And it is neither Practice nor Form, to condescend upon the Witnesses names in any Decreets, but only to condescend upon the manner of Probation, whether the 'samine be by Witnesses, Writ, or Oath of Party. 2ly. After that Sir Thomas Nicolson had desired the King and Committee of Estates to consider the relevancy of the Libel, and the Witnesses Depositions; the King and the said Committee did find the Libel as it was raised against the said John Swinton. viz. That he being employed as Leiutenant-Collonel, and having had the charge of one Troop of Horse, did desert the said Charge, and did go in to the Common-Enemy, who had invaded the Kingdom, and did oppress the same, and had frequent Residence with, and did resort to the said Common Enemy divers and several times since in the Town of Edinburgh, Cannongate, and Lieth, relevant to infer the Pain and Punishment of High-Treason, and found the 'samine proven by the Depositions of divers famous Witnesses, Sworn, Admitted, Examined and Deponed, as was clearly known to His Majesty and the Committee of Estates: And therefore, the King and Committee did pronounce the sentence of Forfeiture against him; so that it is most calumnious to allege, that the foresaid Decreet does only bear, that the Libel against Swinton was found relevant and sufficiently proven, without expressing what way the famine was proven, or that Witnesses were adduced for proving thereof. And the former Answer is repeated, that the Authority of a Parliament is not to be impugned, nor are Decreets of Forfeiture to be reduced upon any pretended Nullity or informality of Process, till first the Crime be purged, and the Party by a Remission be rehabilitat, as is clear by the 135 Act. Parliament 8 King James the 6. And as to that part of the foresaid Reason of Reduction, viz. That there is no authentic Document of the Probation upon record, the 'samine is so fully answered before, that it is needless to repeat it here in this place.  
To the fifth Reason of Reduction, viz. That the Duke of Lauderdale, after he had got an Gift of the said John Swinton's Forfeiture upon the Decreet 1651, he did cause raise a new Indytment before the Parliament 1661., wherein was Libelled the same Crime, in the very same Words as it was Libelled against him in anno 1651: And did design him John Swinton of Swinton, which was an implicit passing from the said Decreet, and an evident Demonstration, that it was looked upon by the Duke as no Decreet, it being obvious and clear by Law and Common Sense; that a man that is once forfeited, cannot be again forfeited, seeing by the first Forfeiture in the construction of Law, he is no more in being, and can have no Estate to forfeit.  
It is answered, 1st. That this Reason hath the same Truth in it as the rest of the Reasons have, for the Duke of Lauderdale's Gift to Swinton's Forfeiture, was not till May 1661.; And by their own acknowledgement, the Lords of the Articles did upon the seventh of February 1661., Ordain Swinton's Indytment to be given up to him to see and answer; And his appearance before the Parliament, was upon the 27 of the same Month, which was three months before the Duke of Lauderdale obtained the Gift of John Swintons Forfeiture. 2o. Although Lauderdale had caused raise the Indytment after his obtaining the Gift of Forfeiture, which is most calumnious, and had therein designed him John Swinton of Swinton, and had Libelled the same Crimes against him, which were in the former Decreet 1651. Yet it cannot be inferred either from Law or Reason, that it was a passing from the former Decreet, for the designing John Swinton of Swinton is of no moment, that being his ordinary Designation, and a wrong Designation could neither prejudge the King nor his Donatar, and there is nothing more ordinary, than to design Persons by their former Titles or by their Estates which they formerly had right to, whether they had lost the 'samine by Forfeiture, or had sold or disposed upon the 'samine. 3ly. Although the King's Advocate did narrate the same Crimes in the new Indytment before the Parliament 1661., for which he was formerly forfeit in anno 1651, with several other new Crimes: As particularly his going in with the Usurper and Rebels to Worcester, and appearing there in Arms against his King and Prince, which was a Gild and Crime of an higher Nature, than the deserting of his Majesty's Service; yet it did no ways lose nor enervate the former Sentence and Decreet, which was so justly pronounced against him in anno 1651. And the King's Advocate did not insist against the said Deceased John Swinton upon the Crimes mentioned in the former Decreet to forfeit him a new upon the 'samine, but did insist upon the Decreet 1651; as Probatio probata, and that the said Decreet might be ratified and approven: and accordingly the Parliament did ratify and approve the 'samine. As also did of new forfeit him for his being in Arms at Worcester against the King, which was the only new additional Article insisted upon against him, so that the first Decreet was so far from being passed from, that the same was ratified and approven, and the Libelling of the Crimes in the first Decreet in the last Indytment, was to show a long series and continued Tract of the said John Swinton, his treasonable Crimes, and not at all to pass from the former Decreet: The King's Advocate expressly desiring the 'samine to be ratified by the Parliament. 4ly. Although a forfeited Person in the construction of Law, be reputed nullus et civiliter mortuus, yet that is only in odium of himself, and cannot be made use of in prejudice of the King, or his Donatar, or any other Person; And although a former Sentence might imped and debar him, from having Personam standi in judicio, yet it cannot hinder, why he may not be Accused, endited and Sentenced for Crimes perpetrat be him after the first Sentence: And if the last Crimes deserves a greater Punishment than the first Crimes, for which he was formerly Sentenced, the punishment which he was to undergo by the first Sentence, may be changed and altered, and the punishment discerned in the last sentence, may be inflicted upon him: As for Example, if any Person were sentenced to die as a Murderer, and after his Sentence he should escape out of Prison, and commit the Crime of Treason, by the first Sentence he is repute nullus et civiliter mortuus, and hath not Personam standi in Judicio: yet it cannot be controverted, but he may be endited of new again for Treason, and the punishment of Treason inflicted upon him accordingly.  
The first Reason of Reduction against the Decreet of Forfeiture in anno 1661. Is in effect an Answer to the several Articles of John Swinton's Indictment, of which the Earl of Lawderdale does not think himself obliged to take any notice but only in so far, as that Reason either denys, or extenuats the Crime, for which he was of new Forfaulted thereby, viz: his going along with the Usurper in Arms to Worcester) the remnant Branches of that Reason relating to the other Crimes whereof he was likewise guilty; but were not insisted upon against him, And therefore are waved by the Earl; though even as to these it is thought very strange how any person can have the impudence to assert that John Swinton's complying with an Usurper, taking Offices and Places from him, who had invaded his native Country with an Army of Sectaries, had murdered his just and Lawful Sovereign, the most eminent Persons, faithfullest Subjects, and best Patriots of the Kingdom, sitting in a Pretended Parliament, called by that Usurper, and Arch-Traitor, where all these horrible and detestable proceed were approven; renouncing and abjuring his Native Prince, and declaring his Native King, or any other of the Royal Family not capable to succeed in the Royal Government, were not treasonable Crimes. Therefore to that part of the first Reason, against the third Article of John Swinton's Indictment, for which he was now Forfaulted by the Parliament 1661., to wit, his being in Arms at Worcester; and which part of the Reason bears, that it was denied, as it was conceived; and that if it could be made appear that he was at Worcester, he could have instructed, that he was there as a Prisoner; and if he had been in Arms, as he was not; yet this being a Crime alleged to have been committed in England, it was remitted by the English Indemnity.  
It is Answered, 1. That this is manifestly redargued by the deceased John Swinton's answers Written and Subscribed with his own hand, given in to his Indictment in the Parliament 1661. Acknowledging, that he was at Worcester, and that he went there at the desire of the Usurper: But for his excuse, he says, the Usurper could have commanded him along with him as a Prisoner; but acknowledges, that the Usurper used not that as an Argument with him to persuade him to go; and that was after he had met with what he then looked upon as hard measure from the King and Country, being out of the Protection of Law, and that he went i● no other Capacity, but as a traveller, having no other Arms than Travellers use; By which, 1ᵒ. It is proven, that he was personally present at Worcester, and that he went there at the Usurpers earnest entreaties and importunities; which show that there was great intimacy betwixt him and the Usurper. 2ᵒ. That he had conceived a prejudice against his King and his Country by the Sentence of Forfeiture pronounced against him in anno 1651. which he styles the hard measure he met with, and his being out of the protection of the Law. 3o. That he was there personally in Arms, such as a traveller uses to ride with, viz. Sword and Pistol, which are all the Arms could be carried by any single Horseman there; And although he denys that he drew either Sword or Pistol, or did join with any Troop or Regiment; yet his being present with the Enemies in Arms, is a sufficient demonstration of his joining with them, against his King and Country, and is per se relevant in Law, to infer the Crime of high Treason, it being very difficult to prove a man's particular Actings in an Army, who had no remarkable Charge, and his serving the Usurper at that time, is sufficiently cleared by the rewards that the Usurper gave him afterwards: And the good Services which are pretended that Swinton did to his Countrymen at that time, is an evident demonstration of his intimacy and interest with the Usurper; and which could not be done by a prisoner.  
2ᵒ. As to that Alledgance, that the Crime being committed in England, it was remitted by the English Indemnity. It is Answered, that the English Act of Indemnity did extend no further than to the King's English Subjects, and not to any Subjects who were Scots-men; for as no Law made by the Parliament of England could hinder the Parliament of Scotland to proceed against Traitors and Rebels, who were Scots-men: so no Indemnity passed in the English Parliament could Indemnity a Scots-man's Crimes, or could hinder the Parliament of Scotland from proceeding against them; albeit they had been particularly Indemnified by the Parliament of England. And all that is now represented for John Swinton, in this reason of Reduction being entirely under the Parliaments consideration, at the time and by them found relevant and proven to infer the Crime of treason; And what is now alleged being then proponed and repelled by the Parliament, cannot now be drawn in question, And as to which the former Answers are repeited.  
To the last part of the first Reason of Reduction insisted upon, against the said Decreet 1661. viz. That the Decreet is lame and defective in its probation? albeit it bears, to proceed upon John Swintons' Judicial Confession, yet there is no such Confession extant in the Records of Parliament, other than what is contained in his Written defence, which are so qualified, that it could never be a ground of Forfeiture.  
It is Answered, 1ᵒ. That a Judicial Confession emitted before so High and Supreme a Court as a Parliament, makes full Faith without being Subscribed; and the assertion of the Parliament, and their Act thereupon, is a full and sufficient Probation: And although a Judicial Confession emitted before an Inferior Judge, such as Commissar or Sheriff, does not make Faith, unless it be Signed by the Party; yet a Judicial Confession emitted before the Lords of Session, which is a Supreme Court, and so marked and Minuted by the Clerk, does make as great Faith, as if it were Subscribed and Signed by the Party: And it cannot be denied that John Swinton compeared before the Parliament, and viva voce confessed these horrid and detestable Crimes of Treason and Rebellion, that he was guilty of, and particularly of his being in Arms at Worcester with the Usurper, against his native King, for which he did blame his Ambition in his younger years, which prompted him to these Treasonable Acts, and as a Remorse and Abhorrence of them, he said, if they were to do, he would rather with the one hand strike off the other, than be guilty of them; upon which Confession, the King's Advocate took Instruments. 2ᵒ. He did not only confess the Crimes Libelled and insisted on viva voce, but in his Answers, written and subscribed by himself, given in at the same time to the Parliament, he did acknowledge the same; and although in his Answers he did endeavour to excuse and qualify these Crimes, to procure the Commiseration of the Parliament, that his Life might be spared, yet the Parliament did most justly Repel his Answers, and proceeded, and gave Sentence of Forfeiture against him, and the excuses and qualifications adjected, are so far from being extenuations of his Crimes, that they rather do aggravat the same, being Insinuations of the great favour, interest and intimacy he had with the Usurper as is evident by the Answers themselves, hereto subjoined; So that the Decreet of Forfeiture, proceeding not only upon a verbal Confession emitted viva voce; But also upon a Written Confession, Subscribed by John Swinton himself, the same cannot now be Invaliditate, or drawn in question, upon the pretence that it is lame and defective in its probation.  
The second Reason against the Decreet of Forfeiture 1661. is, that the Minute's are Forged and False upon the pretended Grounds following, viz. That albeit there be a considerable time interveening betwixt the Minute's dated the 7 of February, 15 of May, and 12 of July 1661. Yet it appears by ocular inspection, that they are all written at one and the same time, and with the same Pen and Ink, and being compared with the minutes upon the end of the Indictment, Subscribed by Glencairn, which are the true Minute's, they are much more recent and fresh. 2ᵒ. All the three Minute's, which are on the Margin of the Indictment, being Signatures of the Procedure of the Parliament in pleno consessu, the first thereof which is on the 7 of February, 1661. bears the giving in of the said Indictment against the said John Swinton, than Panel, with the former Decreet in anno 1651. and craving that the said Decreet might be Ratified, and the new Indictment found Relevant, and admitted to Probation: The King and the Estates of Parliament are said to ordain before Answer, the new Indictment to be given up to John Swinton to see and answer; and yet it is evident by the Records of Parliament, that the Articles sat the 7th of February, and not the Parliament, and Ordained the same thing that the Parliament Ordained, to wit, The giving up of the Indictment to John Swinton; and by Robert Hamilton's Diary, one of the Senators of the College of Justice, and then one of the Clerks of the Parliament: It is evident, that upon the 27 of February, John Swinton having formerly received his Indictment, was brought that day to the Bar, and after his Dittay was read, he was appointed that day 15 days, to give in his Legal Defences; (neither was that Term before Answer) either the stile of Parliament, or any Court at that time, being introduced since, nor was it at all in this case intelligible, it being impossible that an Indictment could be considered before it was given up, and seen by the party, by which it is clear, as is pretended, that the forsaids minutes are forged. 3o. The second of the saids Minute's being dated the 15 of May 1661. appears, as is pretended to be false by ocular inspection, and to have been made up after the year 1670. upon these Grounds, First, When the Clerk that writes the Minute's, thinking upon the year, wherein the said's minutes were made up by him, which by the Earl of Crafurd's Letter appears to have been in the year 1674. he did first write the figure 7, and correcting it afterwards, he mends it thus, 6 Secondly, By this Minute, dated the 15 of May, John Swinton is made compearing, and Judicially confessing, that he went with Cromwell and his Army to Worcester, and was with him in that Battle, whereas there was no such Judicial Confession made, and if it had been made, he had certainly Subscribed it; and Robert Hamilton's Diary bears only, That the said 15 of May John Swinton's Dittay, with his Answers, were read, and he also heard speak verbally for himself, and that the Lord Advocate opponed the Dittay, and produced the former Decreet of Forfeiture against him, which de facto was never produced till that time, though the first Minute falsely bear it to be produced upon the 7 of February; and which former Decreet the Panel desiring to see, the Parliament assigned him Friday come eight days, to say what he could say, which last part of the foresaid Minute, does also bear, That the Panel was ordained to see the foresaid Sentence of Forfeiture, and to answer Friday come eight days, but with this difference, that the Minute bears upon the Pannel's desiring to see the said Decreet, it was then given up to him, whereas it is evident by Alexander Reid his hand, who was Servant to the Lord Advocate, written on the back of the Copy of the said Decreet, delivered to Swinton, that it was not given up to Swinton to see till the 17 of May; by which it is evident, that Swinton did not make any judicial Confession that day, there being no vestige upon Record, either subscribed by him or the Precedent; and it were absurd, if he had emitted any judicial Confession, that any further diet should be assigned to him to answer, since confessus pro condemnato habetur.  
3o. This Minute of the 15 of May 1661. Ordains Swinton to see and answer, as said is▪ against the 24 of May, and yet neither doth the Decreet bear, That Swinton was again called, nor any thing at all of this matter of Fact, that he was ordained to see the former Decreet, upon the 15 of May, and to answer thereunto against the 24. which those that framed the Decreet did industriously omit, as overseeing the inserting thereof would have inferred a Nullity against it, nor was he ever called before the Parliament, that day, or any time thereafter.  
4ᵒ. As to the third and last Minute, which is upon the 12 of July 1661. It is alleged, That the falsehood thereof is manifest, in so far as 1ᵒ. It makes Swinton compearing that day as a Panel, whereas it is certain he did not compear that day, nor at any time after the 15 of May. 2ᵒ. By the said Minute not only the foresaid pretended Decreet of the Committee of Estates 1651. is Ratified, but Swinton is declared of new, guilty of the Crime of Treason, upon his judicial Confession; and yet there is no such judicial Confession extant, but what was so qualified as cleared him. 3. It makes the Parliament Ratify the said pretended Decreet, without his being heard upon his Defences against the same, though a day was assigned to him for that effect. 4ᵒ. The Minute has none of the Solemnities of a Sentence of Forfeiture, not bearing Read, Voted, Touched with the Sceptre, or any Warrant for publication by sound of Trumpet, or Tearing of Arms, and the Signatures of Sentences, and Dooms of Forfeiture, after the Voting and Touching thereof, are always written on a paper a part, distinct from the Process, and signed by the Chancellor, or Precedent of Parliament, which was not observed in this case.  
5ᵒ. All the said's three Minute's are subscribed by the late Earl of Crafurd as Precedent of the Parliament 1661. with these Letters adjected to his Subscription, I. P. D. P. as if they had been Subscribed by him in that Parliament in praesentia Dominorum Parliamenti, whereas the Earl's Letter, which a little before his death, he wrote to the deceased John Swinton, in the year 1674. discovers not only that they were not signed by him till then, which was 13 years after, but that they were not so much as written.  
6ᵒ. After the saids Minutes were made up by Haystoun and Craufurd's Subscription impetrat thereto, Sir Archibald Primrose the Register, thought himself not in Tuto to give any Extract thereof under h● s hand to the Duke of Lauderdale, till upon a Petition given in by the Duke to the Lords of Session, bearing, that the said Sir Archibald scrupled to give any such Extract, which clearly shows, the falseness of these Minutes; And although he was conscious to himself of the same, yet to gratify the Duke of Lauderdale, he prevailed with the Earl of Craufurd to sign them, so many Years after the Parliament 1661.  
The Reasons of Falsehood against the Minutes being fully set down: It is Answered thereto in order as follows, viz. To the first Reason against the Minutes, that albeit the 'samine were written at one and the same time, yet it imports not, it being notourly known to all Persons, who are versant in Bussiness, that Clerks do ordinarily write their first Minutes upon Papers a part, or Scrolls, & thereafter, or when the affair in Debate is brought to a close, and Decreet pronounced thereintil, they are in Use to transcribe the Minutes, and subjoin the Interloquitor or Sentence: And it is no Argument, that they appear much more Fresh and Recent than the Minutes Signed by the Earl of Glencairn upon the end of the Indytment, to infer from thence, that they were made up long after, for the goodness or badness of Ink will make Writ seem old or new, and some Ink will retain its Colour fresh for 20, 30, or 40 Years, Whereas other Ink will lose its Colour, and appear old in three or four Months. But 2ly. The Allegiance is most Calumnious, that the Minutes do appear to be Recent, or of the same Ink; and although it did, yet it is Notour, that the writings of a Clerk, who hath one fixed and habitual Character, will look so like to his other Writings, though at a different time, that a Man will not be able to distinguish the difference; But especially, where they used to be served and furnished with one kind of Ink from one place; which Clerks, who have much Writing, are ordinarily in use to do, whereas the Writings of other Persons not used nor habituat with Writing, and with the same Ink are easily distinguishable.  
To the 2d Reason of Falsehood against the first Minute, It is Answered, That although the Clerk of the Process should have mistaken, and placed the Figure 7 for 27. yet that cannot infer any nullity in the Minute; for suppose the day had been left blank, the month and year being condescended upon, doth not render a Minute or any other Paper null; so neither can a Clerk's mistaking, or inserting one day for another, seeing the matter of Fact cannot be controverted, viz. That Swinton did compear before the Parliament upon the 27th of February, it being acknowledged by themselves, and is also evident by Robert Hamilton's Diary; and it is a pitiful Argument to conclude from this mistake, that the Minutes were forged and made up by Haystoun; for it Haystoun or Sir Archibald Primrose had been guilty of forging the Minute's, they would have been much more exact, and would not have given them a Date, which might have been so easily Canvelled by the Date of the minutes Subscribed by the Earl of Glencairn upon the end of the Indictment, being of the same Date of the Minute in question, which Haystoun could not but know, he being Clerk to the Process, and having the Grounds and Warrants of the same in his custody, which certainly he would have perused very exactly, if he had designed a Forgery of the Minute's, and could not fall into so gross a mistake; and it is notour to any, who are versant in business, that Clerks, especially in the throng of business, such as was in the Parliament 1661. do fall in mistakes of this nature: So that in all this pretended Forgery, there being nothing but a quibbling on the Date of a Minute, wherethrough the inadvertence of a Clerk, in the throng of business, and without any design, the Figure 7 is set down in place of 27, the 'samine can never arise to any matter or moment, thereby to redargue a true matter of Fact, viz. That John Swinton did compear before the Parliament, the 27th of February, and that his Indictment was read, and that he gave in Answers thereto, acknowledging the Crime; far less to overturn a solemn Decreet of Parliament. 2ᵒ. As to the Criticism upon the words, Before Answer, that it was not the Style of Courts at that time. It is Answered, That it was introduced in Courts long before that time, as may be observed in Durie's Decisions; and it was very proper and pertinent to insert it in the Interloquitor of Parliament, in regard that John Swinton having formerly gotten out his Indictment, and appointed to Answer the 'samine against the 26th of February: And having compeared before the Parliament upon the 27th, and the Advocate having insisted against him, and craved, that not only the former Decreet of Forfeiture might be Ratified, but also that the new Indictment might be found relevant: The Parliament being resolved to indulge the Panel a further day, did notwithstanding of the Advocats desire, ordain Swinton before Answer, to see the new Indictment, and give his Legal Defences, which was both proper and pertinent. And as to the last part of that Reason, that these words, Before Answer, were not intelligible in that case, it being impossible that an Indictment could be considered before it was given up and seen by the Party. It is Answered, that the same is very intelligible, if John Swinton will take notice that the Parliament refused upon the Advocats desire to Ratify the former Decreet of Forfeiture, which very justly they might have done, without allowing him a further time, and might have ordained that Sentence to be put to execution against him, as they did to Govan: And therefore the words (Before Answer) ordaining him to give in his Legal Defences, before they would Ratify the former Sentence, or consider the relevancy of the new Indictment, were most properly adjected, and are very intelligible to any ingenuous or disinteressed person.  
To the third Reason of Falsehood, being against the second Minute, dated the 15th of May, 1661. and first Branch thereof: It is Answered, 1ᵒ. It doth not appear ever to have been the 7th Figure; and there is only a stroke of a Pen drawn through the 6th Figure, which might have been done through inadvertency, or a mistake of the Clerk at the time: And if this pretended Vitiation were compared with the Margin of Govan's Libel, where palpably the Date is Vitiat likewise, through mistake and inadvertancy of the Clerks, that it cannot be determined whether the Date be 13, 18, or 19 Any indifferent person will easily conclude this pretended Vitiation not to be upon design, or a Forgery: And in effect it is so improbable, pitiful, and inconsistent a pretence, that it deserves not the least Answer; and it is not at all Vitiat, as it is set down in John Swinton's Paper.  
To the second Branch of that Reason concerning John Swinton's Judicial Confession, it is so fully Answered in the Answer to the last part of the first Reason of Reduction, that it is needless here to repeat it. But as to that part of it founded upon Robert Hamilton's Diary, which John Swinton makes use of to Canvel the Faith of the former Minute, bearing, That the first Decreet of Forfeiture against Swinton in anno 1651. was produced, and that Robert Hamilton's Diary doth not make mention of any Judicial Confession emitted by John Swinton that day. It is Answered, That Robert Hamilton not being Clerk to the Process, was not obliged to mark so fully all that was done, as Haystoun who was Clerk thereto: And by comparing Robert Hamilton's Diary with the Journals of Parliament, it will be clear and evident, that he did only Minute these things that were most remarkable in every Affair that came in before the Parliament, and did not Minute so fully as those who were Clerks to every particular Process. And Swinton having given in his Defences and Answers to the new Indictment: And likewise having Judicially acknowledged his Crime; that which was most remarkable that day, was Swinton's compearing, giving in his Defences, and speaking verbally for himself; in which words, speaking verbally for himself taken notice of by Robert Hamilton's Diary, is certainly included his Judicial Confession, mentioned and taken notice of by Haystoun in his Minute: And it is of no weight, that the Minute bears the Decreet of Forfeiture to be given up to him that day; and yet by the Note written by Alexander Reid's Hand, upon the back of the Copy of the Decreet delivered to John Swinton, it appears not to have been given up till the 17th of May thereafter; For the Clerk might very well have marked, that the foresaid Decreet was given up to him, it being so appointed by the Parliament. And although it had not been given up till the 17th day thereafter, it cannot at all derogate from the Faith of the Minute's, and there must be more Credit and Faith given to the minutes of a Clerk, than to any Notes of the Advocats Servant upon the back of the Copy of the Decreet delivered to Swinton, which was no part of the Process kept by the Clerk, and might have been put on by the Advocats Servants mistake or inadvertancy, or might have been a double of the Decreet given to John Swinton thereafter, when the Principal Decreet was gotten back from him. And as to that pretence, that it was absurd to assign him a further Diet after a Judicial Confession, since in Law Confessus pro condemnato habetur. It is Answered, That it was very consistent with the Parliaments Procedure in that Process, because John Swinton not only being endited upon new Crimes committed by him in anno 1651. But likewise the Decreet in anno 1651. being to be Ratified and Approven, his Judicial Confession being only in relation to these new and supervenient Crimes, the Parliament might very well assign him another day, as they did upon his desire, to give in his Answers to the Decreet 1651.  
To the third Branch of that Reason, It is Answered, that there was no necessity to insert in the last Decreet of Forfeiture, that he had gotten up the former Decreet to see, unless that Swinton had returned the 'samine with particular Answers; and although it had been insert, it would infer no nullity in the Decreet, although John Swinton never appeared before the Parliament thereafter; for having neglected to give in his Answers, the Parliament might, and did very warrantably proceed both to Forfeit him upon the new Indictment, and to Ratify and Approve the first Decreet.  
To the fourth Reason of Reduction being against the third and last Minute. It is answered, 1ᵒ. That the Minute is opponed, bearing no such thing as Swinton's compearance that day, but it doth only bear, that the Parliament having considered that member of the new Indytment of Treason pro tempore insisted on with the Pannals answer in Writ, and Viva Voce, and judicial confession, desire of the Lord Advocate with the former Decreet of Forfeiture, they repelled the said's Answers given in in Write, and viva voce as no ways relevant, and found the formentioned Article and Member of the foresaid new Indytment insisted upon relevant, and proven without making any mention of the Pannals Personal Compearance. And as to that part of the Reason, denying any judicial Confession to be emitted by Swinton, or extant in Process, the former Answers are opponed. 2ᵒ. Although there was a day assigned to the said John Swinton, to give in his Answers against the first Decreet, yet there was no necessity to call him before the Parliament thereafter; unless he had given in his Answers, which he not having done as he was appointed and ordained, the Parliament did very justly proceed to pronounce a Sentence of Doom and Forfeiture against him upon the new Indytment, and to ratify the former Decreet of Forfeiture in anno 1651. And the deceased John Swinton, returning the said Decreet without any Answer, was a clear and convincing Argument, that he intended to make none against the said Decreet, being conscious to himself, that it was justly pronounced against him: So that there was no necessity to call him when the Parliament advised his new Indytment, and pronounced Sentence upon the 'samine, especially considering that by the quality adjected to the sentence, he was recommended by the Parliament to His Majesty as to his Life. 3o. As to the last part of that Reason anent the want of the Solemnities, as Read, Voted, Touched, Warrant for publication by sound of Trumpet, and tearing of Arms; which certainly would not have been omitted, as is pretended, if any Sentence of Forfeiture had been truly passed. It is Answered, 1ᵒ. That it is admired with what Confidence it can be asserted, that there was no Decreet of Forfeiture passed in that Parliament against John Swinton in the Year 1661., but that it was made up in the Year 1670, or thereafter, seeing amongst the list of the Imprinted Acts of the first Session of the Parliament 1661., there is Insert, not only a Decreet of Forfeiture against John Swinton, but also a Ratification of John Swintons Forfeiture, in Favours of the late Duke of Lauderdale; And in the Act of indemnity, which was passed in the second Session of that same Parliament, the Decreet of Forfeiture against John Swinton, is particularly excepted, and by the Decreet of Parliament in anno 1661., John Swinton being recommended to the King as to his Life, he was ordained to be kept Prisoner in the Castle of Edinburgh, till his Majesty's pleasure was fully known: So in prosecution of that part of the Decreet upon the sixteen of July 1661., within four days after the Decreet, the Commissioner subscribes a Warrant to the Magistrates of Edinburgh, to deliver the Person of John Swinton to the Captain of the Castle of Edinburgh, or his Lieutenant, and whereupon Mercer Lieutenant of the Castle gave his Receipt, which will appear by the Register of the Tolbooth, and Warrants thereof; all which being joined with the Duke of Lauderdale's Possession of Swinton's Estate, conform to the foresaid Decreet of Forfeiture, do fully Adminiculat and astruct the Verity of the said Doom and Sentence of Forfeiture. 2ᵒ. As to the want of the Solemnities, it is Answered, that it is known that Sir Archibald Primrose was a man so Exact and Cautious, that he would not have put a Decreet and Sentence of Parliament in the List of the imprinted Acts, nor would he have given an Extract thereof under his hand had not the foresaid Sentence been both Voted and Read; the hazard thereof, and of forging a Decreet of Parliament, being no less, than his Life and Fortune. And it is evident, that the Parliament having considered the Process, & having repelled the Defences, which were formerly given in, both in Write and Viva Voce: And having likewise considered his Confession, formerly mentioned, they behoved to Read and Vote the 'samine, these being solemnia sententiae latae quae semper et necessario inesse presumuntur, etiamsi non expressa. And as to the tearing of his Arms and sounding of the Trumpet, there was no necessity thereof, that Solemnity having been performed in the first Decreet of Forfeiture in anno 1651. And the Touching of Decreets of Forfeitures, is no ways , that being only a Solemnity adhibit to public Laws, to signify the Royal Assent, but not at all to Sentences and Decreets betwixt or against private Persons, except by the Forfeiture, the Lands of the forfeit Person be annexed to the Crown: And if any such Solemnity was used in any other Decreets of Forfeiture, it was ex superabundanti, there being no such thing required by our Law.  
To the fifth Reason of Reduction, being against the whole Minutes, It is Answered. 1ᵒ. That esto it were true, that the Earl of Crafurd did sign these Minutes at the time condescended upon in his Letter, yet he does not at all therein question the Truth of the said's Minutes, and of the Sentence of Forfeiture, and John Swinton's making use of this Letter, to Canvel the Truth of the Minutes, is the greatest Imputation and Reflection upon the Honour, Integrity, and Ingenuity of the Deceased Earl of Crafurd: For can any Man in Sense or Reason think, that the Earl of Crafurd who was a Man of such Honour and notour Ingenuity, to have had accession to the Signing and Forging of Minutes, which were false: And the Earl of Crafurd being Precedent when the Sentence was past, he might very warrantably have Signed the Minutes & Interloquitors, although never so long after, & their not being signed till anno 1674, as they pretend, is neither a Presumption, that they were false and forged, and made up at that time, nor yet is a nullity upon which the Decreet may be drawn in Question: And it is notourly known, that Sir Archibald Primrose was a Man of such Integrity, that he would not have had the least accession to such a villainous Action, as forging of Minutes in a Process of Treason, which was to ruin a Man both in his Life and Fortune, and necessarily would in danger his own. And Sir Archibald Primrose, nor Haystoun, were not so much obliged to the late Duke of Lauderdale, as could induce them to forge and make up Minutes to gratify him, neither did Swinton, nor any of his Relations while Sir Archibald Primrose or Haystoun lived, take upon them the confidence, to allege that these Minutes were Forged or made up by them, but they have fallen upon this Device since their Death, thereby to make some specious Pretext, to be reponed against the Decreets so justly pronounced against the said John Swinton. 2ᵒ. The Subscriptions of Persons in Office must make Faith, otherways there can be no Security nor Certainty to People in their Rights; and where a person is Functus and Exauterate, it is ridiculous to think, that either his private Letter or Assertion should unhinge public Laws and Sentences, especially such as are founded upon undeniable Evidences, both as to the Relevany and the matter of Fact, otherways it should be in the power of any Precedent of the Parliament, or other Judge at one dash to defeat and obliterat all the public Acts and Sentences they have made and passed in their Office, and this Letter was impetrat by the importunity of John Swinton from the Earl of Crafurd, and was never made use of, nor produced while Sir Archibald Primrose lived. 3o. Although the Minute's and Interloquitors had not been signed by the Earl of Crafurd, yet it is no Nullity, there being no special Law nor Custom requiring the famine at that time, and the Minute's and Interloquitors of the other Processes of Forfeiture against Guthrie, Govan, Arkindlass, and others in that Parliament, are not signed by the Chancellor or Precedent, neither are there any of the Minute's or Decreets of Forfeiture in that Parliament so formal as these Minute's and Decreet against John Swinton, which will be evident by inspection of the Records; and the method and way of managing that Process was advised by Sir John Nisbet of Dirltoun, who was one of the greatest and eminentest Lawyers and Formalists in the Nation; and it can be made appear, by persons yet living, who were in Haystouns Chamber at that time, that this Decreet and Procedure thereof, was made use of as an Example in extracting other Decreets of Forfeitures, which were pronounced in that and subsequent Parliaments.  
To the Sixth and last Reason of Reduction, bearing, that Sir Archibald Primrose did not think himself in tuto to give Extracts under his hand of the saids Minute's, until application was made by the Duke of Lauderdale to the Lords. It is Answered, That it seems the Drawer of the Paper has forgot himself, for in the state of his Case at the end of the first Page, he says, that Sir Archibald Primrose did cause application to be made to the Lords of Session in behalf of the Duke or Lauderdale, to give their Warrant for extracting what he was conscious to himself was so unwarrantably done; and in this Reason he alleges, that application was immediately made by the Duke of Lauderdale upon Sir Archibald Primrose's scrupling to give out Extracts of the Minute's, which is very inconsistent with what he says in the state of his Case, that application was made by Sir Archibald Primrose; but the truth is, the Duke of Lauderdale truly desired the 'samine might be by Warrant of the Lords, to make the Extract the more authentic, and in case that the Minute's should be put out of the way (which the deceased Swinton neither wanted Cunning nor Art to do, if opportunity offered,) to be an Adminicle for proving and making up the tenor of the Minute's, the late Duke of Lauderdale desired an Extract of the Minute's, and John Swinton's Answers also, which was the only ground of scruple that Sir Archibald Primrose had, because it is not ordinar for Clerks to give the Extracts of Minute's, Interloquitors, or Answers, but only of Decreets, and therefore Sir Archibald Primrose as an exact and cautious Clerk, did scruple to give the Extract, either of the Minute's, or of Swinton's Answers, till the Duke of Lauderdale made application to the Lords for that effect; and it is ridiculous Nonsense, to think that the Lords Warrant to Sir Archibald Primrose for extracting of the Minute's could have made them true, if they had been false and forged by himself, of freed him from the punishment due to Forgers; and it is an injurious and calumnious Reflection upon the memory of Sir Archibald Primrose, to allege that he was conscious to himself of the falsehood of these Minute's.  
From all which it is most evident and clear, that both the Decreets of Forfeiture against John Swinton did proceed upon most relevant grounds in Law, and upon most legal and full Probation in matter of Fact, and for which (and the other Crimes acknowledged in his Answers, but were not insisted upon at the time) if he were of new to be indicted, he would be again Forfeit by the standing Laws of the Kingdom. And these Decreets and Minute's thereof being considered, and compared with most of all the other Decreets of Forfeiture passed in that and subsequent Parliaments, there will be none found either more relevantly libelled, or so formal as to the Minute's, and so securely buckled, either as to the Form of Process, or Probation thereof.  
And there is nothing in the printed State of John Swinton's Case, and in his pretended Reasons of Reduction, but what is either Calumnious in matter of Fact, or altogether Irrelevant in point of Law, and are Reflections in the highest degree upon the Honour and Authority of these Parliaments; and it is the height of Boldness and Insolence for John Swinton to crave Reduction of his Father's Forfeiture by way of Justice, which is a downright Accusing and Taxing of the Parliament and their Sentences with Injustice, to which the Sentences of the Lords of Session are not obnoxious or subject, and far less the Sentences of Parliament, which is the Supreme and Sovereign Court of the Nation: And such a Preparative as this, is of most dangerous Consequence, both as to the Interest and Security of His Majesty and His Subjects; especially seeing by many ancient standing Laws and Acts of Parliament, Decreets of Forfeiture are not to be reduced per modum justitiae upon any pretended nullity of Process till the Crime be purged, and that there be a special Remission of the Crime for which the Forfeiture proceeded; and albeit His Majesty's Bounty cannot be limited to restore any person by way of Grace, yet by such a Restitution, neither His Majesty's Donatar, nor the Interest of any third Party is prejudged; and it was upon these Considerations, that all the former Commissions that were appointed to make Enquiry into this Forfeiture came to no Issue, and were rendered ineffectual.  
In respect whereof, the Earl of Lauderdale ought to be Assoilzied from the said pretended Reasons of Reduction.  
Follows the Names of these who were appointed in anno 1682, by a Commission under the Great Seal to take Trial and Enquiry anent the deceased John Swinton's Forfeiture. 

Sir George Gordon of Haddo, Chancellor.  
William Marquis of Queensberry, Thesaurer.  
John Marquis of Athol, Privy Seal.  
James Earl of Perth, Justice General.  
Sir David Falconer, Precedent of the Session.  
Sir George Mckenzie of Tarbat, Clerk Register.  
John Drummond of Lundin, Thesaurer Deput.  
Sir George Mackenzie of Rosehaugh, Lo. Advocate.  
Sir John Lockhart of Castlehill,  
and Sir John Murray of Drumcairn, Senators of the College of Justice.     

John Swinton's Answers to his Indictment, given in to the Parliament, 1661. written & subscribed with his own hand.  
ANSWERS by way of Defence, for John Swinton of Swinton, to the Indictment of Treason, whereof he stands accused by the King's Advocate, at the instance of the King, before the King's Commissioner and Parliament, adhering to what was offered by him to the Commissioner, the 27th of the last Month, by way of Information, and protesting, that if need be is, according to the than grant of the Commissioner and Parliament, (intimat by the Chancellor as Precedent) he may be further heard to speak in their presence, by way of Information, or otherways; in obedience to their Command, he (having liberty and allowance from the Lords) doth singly and plainly answer by way of Defence in Write; Thus, waving all dilator Defences, even such as the Law allows him, either as to what might be said to the Informlaity of the Process, or to what he might say why he ought to be left to the common proceed in Law, before the Court ordinary to be Tried, by the known Laws of this Nation, which is the common Benefit and Security of every Subject to plead, specially in this time of peace and settlement; As also waving what he might have to say in that known Maxim of Socii criminis. And even this way of pleading by Writ, and severals of that kind, he doth with his own consent, without disputing, homologat the Jurisdiction of the Court of Parliament, not so much as excepting against any one from being his Judge in this matter, being willing it should receive a plain and clear issue, even in this way, being about to give his Answer to this Court, thus constitute of the Representatives of King and people, whatever may be the debateable Consideration, how far the King or people distinctly considered, are subject to, or above the Law: Yet here taking them Collectively, there is more to be said for these proceed, that run not so properly in the Channel of Law, specially if the Parliament being thus Constitute in these Trials, shall proceed not only by virtue of their Executive Power, but also of their Legislative: And as this states a vast illimited power, (as it were in the Parliament) So it calls upon all and every one of them, in the dread of the Living God, to consider what they do in these things, that they judge not for men, but for the Lord, who is indeed Supreme; and therefore as he declines not the Law of his Native Country, but may in his subsequent Answers, say somewhat to that, why he ought to be Assoilzied, and acquitted from the Indictment: Yet being to answer before a Court, that (it is like) will not look upon themselves as so strictly tied to the Letter of Laws, as the extraordinary Courts of Justice must be, as having a large and mixed power comprehensive of Law, Equity and Reason, and it may be reason of State too, so to speak; and a power incontrollable, to execute their Determinations, whether the jure, or not, he shall leave to the judgement of that in every one of their Consciences, wherein as they weigh and consider it in the coolness of their minds, they will own that de jure it is Supreme; The higher power to which every knee must bow, and aught to be subject to, in heaven and earth; to which the King and people must give an account, even the light of Christ in every of their Consciences, the Law written in their hearts; the Faithful Witness for God, that discovers to man his Thoughts, that brings him many times after his first sleep to consider what shall be the end of Pride, Lust and Vanity, that which oppresseth this Just Witness, which is the Foundation of Society of all just Laws, the vinculum that ties man to God, and one to another, even that which leads to the Love of God, and to love our Neighbour as ourselves, and stablisheth that grand Principle of Justice, to do as one would be done by, is the Foundation of all just Magistracy, is the Line and Rule of true Judgement, proper to be minded and headed, and turned to by the Commissioner and Parliament, and every Member of it. To this Rule, Law and Judge, the Defender submits and appeals in this matter, even the Light and Witness for God in their Consciences: And as to what he shall offer to them of the Law of this Nation, (which is or aught to be Founded on this) Equity or Reason, he shall leave it to this Witness near them, and in their hearts, the Eternal and Engrafted Word, Christ the Light, that enlightens every man that is come into the World; To this he shall leave it, as the last appeal, and let him stand Justified or Condemned, according as the Judgement shall be given in this Law, which is only in this case, (and as they are constituted) capable to bind a Parliament, who may, it is like, look upon themselves as to men, and Letter of Laws as Supreme, which he doth not think unproper or unserviceable for the Parliaments Consideration, to be thus offered in limine, which they will find of the greater necessity and use for them, to mind upon the account of the King's Honour and Safety, the Nations and their Own, the Foundations of all Laws, (outward) Government, Magistracy having been so perplexed and involved, intrinched upon, brangled, shattered, and a general Consternation; The minds of men by reason of these things, much estranged, engaged in Animosities and Factions, and that through their departing from this just Law, and principle in themselves; So that is impossible for them, going by another Rule than this, as the Supreme, to be guided in a safe and healing Path, so as they may be a Blessing to themselves, and the people over which they are, and have comfort in their Work when they have done; This is his Advocate in all their Consciences, and to this he shall commit what he hath to say by way of Defence, here to stand or fall, to be cleared, acquitted, or condemned, having a place in the Light and power of God, to receive whatever shall be the issue of this matter, as from his own hand, not minding man nor men, laid down at quiet in his will, standing in that which is out of the fear of man, in the fear and dread of the living God.  
And so to proceed to his Answers, The Defender denys the Indictment, as it is conceived: As to the first part of the first Article of the Indictment, (passing the general part of it, and the Acts of Parliament therein mentioned some of them being only Statutory, none of them meeting the particulars Charged against the Defender, or any one of them strictly taken, as all Laws are to be in this case especially, and where the Pursuer shows, how in particular way of application, they do, and doth condescend, it may receive a particular Answer) The Defender doth deny this Article, and all of them as they are conceived; Yet doth not deny but that he sat in the Parliament 1649. Whether he did Vote to the Rescinding of that Act of Parliament 1648. relating to the Engagement, he doth singly declare, That he doth not remember, neither can he say how far he Voted, or consented to the putting out of any Officer of State, Judges or others, their places, or any thing else, particularly Charged in this Article, the thing is so long ago; but supposing it were clearly proved that he was a Voter in both these, or in any thing else Charged against him, as acted by him as a Member of that Parliament, affirmatiuè; It is offered by way of Defence, That he came and sat in that Parliament by a Commission from his Country, and they were not only owned by the Nation as a Parliament for the time, but also by the King in that capacity, he receiving Commissioners from them as the Parliament of the Nation, Treating with Him as such, a Treaty concluded, one of the Articles of which was a Ratifying of that Parliament, and their proceed, with an engagement to complete it in a more formal way, at his home coming, which was done by an Act of _____ of _____ of _____ date, particularly by the King and Parliament: Much might be said upon other Mediums, but this is so strong, so full and clear, to Assoilzie the Defender from that part of the Libel, as it may suffice.  
As to the other Branch of the first Article of the Indictment, wherein the Defender is Charged with several other particulars, as his Voting to, and carrying on the Murder of Montrose, Huntly, and others; and all these Charged upon him, as he was a Member of the Parliament 1649. It not being remembered, That what was done in most, if not in all these particulars, was done by that Parliament, that sat in the month called March, One thousand six hundred and fifty, which (whatever else might be pleaded to warrant its Indictment,) was the time appointed by the Act of Parliament of _____ 1648, conform to the Act of Parliament _____ for constituting Triennial Parliaments; so his Defense to that part of the Charge is, (repeating also here that part of his Defense to the former, the Treaty, and the Act of Ratification passed by the King and Parliament,) that he as he came there by virtue of a Commission from his Country, so he came to a Parliament that stood upon a more unquestioned Foot in Law, and in these particulars, he is not, nor cannot be charged as acting any other ways than in the Capacity as he was a Member of Parliament; and by way of Information, he hath said somewhat towards clearing himself from the Odium that hath been cast upon him in these things, and might say more, and may if there be opportunity, yet this shall suffice by way of Defense. To the second Article of the Defenders Charge, as to the first part of it, he doth simply deny it, and admits it of consent relevant to be proven, and though he should be acquitted of this Indictment upon this Trial, he doth hereby consent and declare, that if ever hereafter it can be made appear, that he was Guilty of betraying his Trust, let the conclusion of the Indictment take place against him, or the worst of Punishments can be devised. As to the second Branch of the second Article of his Charge, he doth deny it as it is conceived, though he doth not deny but as he received his Charge from the Committee of States, he did to the then Chancellor in the Committee-Room at Stirling, declare his laying down of his Charge, desiring him to intimat the same to the Committee, and at the same time did intimat the same to Colonel Gilbert Ker his immediate superior Officer, and forthwith Crafurdland was put into his place: This he thinks he is able to prove instanter (if need beiss,) as also before ever he went to that part of the Country where his Estate lay, and where his Business called him, he was upon the place where Colonel Ker's Regiment was, where he actually did see the foresaid Crafurdland in his Charge, he being occasionally there for clearing some things with his Officers, and others relating to his former Charge, this was not under some Weeks (if not Months) after he had laid down his Charge, and the other in the possession of it, so that it can never be said with any colour that he deserted his Charge, as the word is commonly received and accepted, and as the import of it is in this place of the Charge. It is also true, that his Occasions leading him towards Berwick-shire, where the only Estate he had lay, he was Seized upon and made Prisoner by a Party of the English, carried to their General's Quarters, and having given an account to him of his Occasions in these parts, he did declare to him, that though he was his Prisoner, yet he should have liberty upon his Parol (or so) to go to his Lodging and about his Affairs. That he was taken Prisoner and thus brought in, he offers him to prove (if need be,) and though through the General's Permission he had liberty to go into the Country with his Family, and as the necessity of his own Affairs or the countries' did require (whose Condition then was much distracted and oppressed) He came to Edinburgh sometimes, he having a ready access to the General, through the forementioned opportunity, and he forward enough to oblige him, which he can truly and singly say, that (according as the State he was then in could admit) he laid him out to the outmost for preserving of that part of the Country and every individual in it, as he had access and opportunity; and if this can be called joining with the Enemy, as this Case is circumstantiated, or that by any Law of God or Man it can ever be charged upon him as a Gild specially to infer the conclusion of the Indictment, let all sober Men judge. To the third Article of the Indictment, he doth deny it as it is conceived, though it is true that he was at Worcester, and as he was there, it is also true he went thither through the earnest Entreaties and Importunities of him, that (though he doth ingenuously declare, that he cannot say that he did use that as an Argument) could have commanded him along with him as his Prisoner, and whose Prisoner he was upon the matter, and this after he had then met with that he then looked upon as hard measure from the King and Country out of the protection of Law, these temptations he was under, and yet he went in no other Capacity than as a Traveller, no other Arms than a Traveller; and if it shall be made our that ever he joined so much as in any Troop, or carried any Charge, or that in any occasion there, the Battle or otherways, he did draw his Sword or lose a Pistol, he admits all or every one of these relevant of consent to infer the conclusion of the Indictment. It is known how greatly useful his there being was to his Countrymen, not only of his nearest Relations whom he found deadly wounded, but many others, the particulars whereof needs not to be mentioned, he having indeed a sufficient reward in the work itself, doing it upon a free and single intention, never thinking of making use of it upon such an occasion as this. Only this he can say in the presence of the searcher of hearts, that he thinks if the Parliament should find the Indictment against him upon that single Head of being at Worcester, as he doth look upon that as Principal, and all the rest but Accessories (as it were) even in the intention of the Libeler, the Sentence passed as to Life and Estate, and it ready to receive its last Consummation, he could receive it, and lie down under it with a more cheerful heart, than he enjoyed any time he was at Worcester, to see and be Witness of the reproach of his Country, and the distress his Countrymen was under. His Defence is, that it was in England the Crime,  it was, was committed where it is properly try able, and where the King (in whose Name, and by whose Advocate this Indictment is prosecute) hath Indemnified the Defender from it; And that he hath so done, will appear by the express words of the 5th Clause of the Act of Indemnity. And though it may be Objected that this is an English Law; It is adduced in the case of Crime committed in England, tryable in England, pardonable in England, pardoned in England, and that by him against whom the offence was committed,  it was, the Defender actually a Prisoner in England, and from thence sent hither a Prisoner, brought hither in an English Frigate; so that as to this Crime, in this case, as it is circumstantiated, it is pleadable, and by the Defender Pleaded as his Defence. And this is mainly to be minded in this particular of the Indictment, That the Defender (when he could have shunned it) was taken in England, was kept 19 Weeks and upwards closely Prisoner there; was sent from England hither by the King's Authority, to receive a Trial in his own Country, for such things as he is chargeable with at the instance of the King, as acted here in his own Country. For it can never be understood, that the King in Honour, Justice, or Equity, would send him down out of England, to be tried for his Life and Estate here, for a Crime committed so many years ago in England, and which he hath absolutely and freely Remitted there, as fully, as if the Defenders Name and Surname were particularly expressed, as Indemnified, and that particular Act of his being at Worcester, expressly remitted; by reason whereof he ought to be Assoilzied from this Article of the Indictment. As to the 4th Article of the Indictment, It is denied, as it is conceived, though he doth not deny but he was in a Parliament of England by a Call and Commission from his Country, the Nation having so far submitted to the Union with England, that they sent their Deputies to several Parliaments. By what Law this is Criminal (specially as it is circumstantiated) when the Pursuer shows, it may receive an Answer. To the other Branch of the Article, The Defender doth ingeniously declare, he doth not remember that he was at any such Vote of renouncing the King and his Family, neither doth he think he was; however, if he was, it was in England: And if it should be proven, as he is confident it will never be, he repeats his Defence adduced in the Case of Worcester. To that Branch of the Article, His receiving Employments from Oliver Cromwell and others, as one of the Commissioners for Administration of Justice, and one of the Council: That part of the Article is so far confessed by him, that he was in these Employments, but never in these, nor in any, till his Country Nationally had submitted (stopping for the good of the Nation to the necessity of the time) to the Authority of England. And as things were then stated, he doth believe, it was looked upon by the Nation as for the good and service of the Country, that Countrymen were admitted to, and did act in these Employments; and that it was looked upon as no dis-service or disadvantage to his Country at that time, that the Defender was one: And he can truly say, that the service of his Country was none of the least inducements, to engage him in the accepting of, and continuing to these Employments. And if ever it can be made appear, that he sought after one or either of them, let it infer the Conclusion of the Summons, as relevant of consent. What the tendency of his way in these Employments was, towards the service or dis-service of his Country, let his greatest Enemy Witness in this day, he shall not in these things bear Witness for himself; the more narrowly, and particularly his way in these things shall be inquired into, it shall be the less disadvantage to him. And as to the insinuations of the great profits and advantage he hath had, he shall only give it this Answer, which is single truth, that notwithstanding  he received one way or another, he can solemnly declare, and doth, that though he were not chargeable by the King, nor any other, as to his Estate, or any Charge relating thereto, upon the account of his acting in these things, but were cleared of all these, he is two thousand Pounds Sterling and upwards more in debt than he was left by his Father, when be died in the year 52. occasioned through his Expenses in tumbling about in these matters: This he mentions only upon this occasion, that it may appear he hath not enriched himself in these times, but indeed even in that way half endangered the destroying of that Estate conveyed to him by his Ancestors. And now having given these plain Defences to the Articles of the Indictment, wherein he hath endeavoured to contract much of what might be said, not only by way of Information, but also by way of Defence peremptory, being purposely omitted; though they may be looked upon as so formal (as it may be judged) need were, yet let them be weighed in the just Balance, the eternal Rule of Righteousness, and the Defender doubts not, but by that Law which is Supreme, the Law of this Nation, the Law of Nations, Equity and Reason; nay, admitting Reason of State also in its place, to have its own weight, as this matter now stands before the Parliament, and is circumstantiated, it being remembered by the Commissioner and Parliament, that it was not early the Defender became engaged in the Public Transaction of these times, as is manifest by the Indictment itself, the Parliament in Justice will find the Answers relevant, to elide the Indictment, and to Assoilzie the Defender.  
Sic Subscribitur J. Swinton. Extractum de Libro Actorum, per me A. Primrose Cls. Reg.   

Minuts of John Swinton's Process of Forfeiture in anno 1661.  
EDinburgh 7 February. 1661. Sir John Fletcher His Majesty's Advocate, having given in, and repeated in presence of the Parliament, the Libel and Indictment pursued by him for His Highness' Interest, against John Swinton, Pannal: Together also with the Decreet of Forfeiture pronounced by the Committee of Estates, as having Power by Act of Parliament for that Effect against the said Pannal, Dated at Ferth the second day of April 1651. He craved that the said Decreet of Forfeiture might be ratified, and approven by the Estates of Parliament, and Ordained to be put to Execution. And without Prejudice thereof, Further craved, that the said new Indictment might be found Relevant and admitted to his Probation. The King's Majesty, and Estates of Parliament before Answer, ordains the new Indictment to be given up to the said John Swinton, Pannal: He being in Prison within the Tolbooth of Edinburgh, to the Effect, he may see the 'samine,, and answer thereto 15 May 1661. The Pannal having seen the said new Indictment, and given in Answers and Objections there against Extant lying in Process; And who being Personally present, and heard speak for himself Viva Voce in open and plain Parliament, did judicially Confess and Acknowledge, That he went in Company with Oliver Cromwell, with that Army to Worcester, and was with that Army at the Battle of Worcester: Whereupon His Majesty's Advocate asked Instruments, and declared, that he insisted allannerlie pro tempore upon that part of the said new Libel, bearing that the Pannal did go along with the said Usurper, In Arms in the Army of Sectaries libelled: and was actually at Worcester, upon the 3d of September 1651 years, and did Fight in Hostile manner against his Majesty and Army of Scotsmen, at the least was with the said Usurper, with his said Army of Sectaries in Arms as said is, and that he Treasonably Assisted, Countenanced and promoted all the said Usurper his wicked and treasonable Purposes and Designs; Likeas the said Lord Advocate repeated his former Desires, and not only craved, that the said Decreet of Forfeiture might be approven, and ordained to be put to Execution: But likeways, that the Pannal may be again found and declared to be guilty of the Crime and Liable to the Pain and Punishment of Treason: And to be Discerned and ordained to underly the 'samine. The Pannal craved to see the former Sentence of Forfeiture, which was given up to him to see and give in his Answers upon Friday come eight days, being the 24 of May instant; & to allege why the 'samine should not be put to Execution, with certification etc. 12 July 1661. His Majesty and Estates of Parliament, having considered that Member of the new Indictment of Treason pro tempore insisted upon, with the Pannals Answer in Writ, and Viva Voce, and Judicial Confession and Declaration, desire of the Lord Advocate, with the former Decreet of Forfeiture. They repelled, and repels the saids Answers and Objections made & given in in Writ, and Viva Voce as no ways Relevant, & finds the forementioned Article & Member of the said new Indictment insisted upon, relevant and proven by the said Pannal his judicial Confession; And therefore not only ratifies and approves the former Decreet of Forfeiture against the said John Swinton, Pannal, but also of new finds and declares, that the said Pannal is guilty of the said Crime of Treason; And has incurred the said Pain and Punishment of High Treason etc. And recommends to the King's Majesty his consideration, the putting the Sentence and Decreet to Execution against the said Pannal, In so far as concerns his Life allannerlie, and ordains the Person of the said Pannal to be keeped in Prison within the Castle of Edinburgh, till His Majesty's pleasure be further known thereanent.  
Sic subscribitur Crafurd Lindsay, I. P. D. Parl. Extractum de libro Actorum per me. A. Primrose, Cls. Reg.  
FINIS.