INFORMATION For the Earl of Argyle and the Creditors of the marquis of Argyle, Against The Duke of Gordon and Earl of Aboyne.  
THAT the Forefaulture of the marquis of Argyle, and the taking of his Life in the Year 1661, was a stretch of rigour and severity, that all good Men have ever since ●egrated, is nottourly known to the whole Nation.  
His Life and Fortune were taken away, only for some Deeds of compliance that scarce deserved the name with the English Usurpers, when the whole Nation were subdued by them, and under their obedience; so that the pretended Crime was not only epidemic, but the greatest part of his Judges more Involved therein than he was.  
And of this, that very Parliament that Forfaulted him & took his Life, were so convinced, that they made their Sentence proceed upon aggravations, as they were pleased to call them from the marquis his former Actings, albeit all his said Actings had been Ratified and fully Indemnified by both King and Parliament; so that it was impossible justly to make them so much as an aggravation.  
When the late happy Revolution came, the Claim of Right then made, did certainly point at this case, when it condescends upon the causing Pur●e● and 〈…〉 streatches of old and obsolete Laws, upon frivolous and weak Pretences, and upon lame and defective Probation, as contrary to Law, and thereupon Claims, Demands and Insists, that all Forfaultures Fines, loss of Offices, &c. and rigorous Executions be considered, and the Parties leased Redressed.  
Likeas it is evident, by the 18 Act of the Parliament 1690, Rescinding Forfaultures, since the Year 1665. That none of the Forfaultures therein mentioned, were more groundless, than the foresaid Forfaulture pronounced against the marquis, and that it was in this view; and for the more effectual Reduction thereof, that the said Act was expressly declared, to be without prejudice of any who have been Forfaulted, or otherwise Leased, in the Ring of King Charles the Second, before the said year 1665. to bring in their Processes, or particular Acts before the Parliament, and to crave and receive Redresses according to the merit of their Causes, which imports a clear licence, since that Clause cannot possibly be otherwise understood, and the words as accords of the Law, subjoined to the Clause, is to be only understood of the weight of the merits and reason of the Reduction raised.  
Whereupon the said Earl of Argyle and Creditors of the marquis, who for particular Reasons, had hitherto delayed this Process, have now at length, and towards the end of the forty years Prescription, thought fit to raise Reduction of the foresaid Forfaulture, before His Majesty and Estates of Parliament, and having given in their Bill, contining their reasons of Reduction, and obtained warrant for Citation, by deliverance of Parliament, and the Process having been duly call●d, and Parties Compearing, the Procurators for the Duke of Gordon and Earl of ●boyn, after much shifting and many Declinators, purposely to gain time, did at the last Calling propone the Dilators following.  
First, that by the Act of Parliament K. James 6. Parl. 8. 〈◇〉 135. there could be no Reduction of any Process of Treason, fornullity of Process, unless First, a Remission were obtained. 2. That the Earl of Selkirk Clerk register was not called. 3. That there was no real Right nor Title produced by the Pursuers.  
To all which it is answered, and to the first, The Pursuers might make several Answers, but not to detain the Parliament with such Triflings they answer. 1. That the foresaid Act of Parliament 1584 made in King James's Minority, is certainly so far in desuetude, & that it was never observed in as much as these very Forfaultures, for which it was made were taken away the very next year thereafter without any Remission, and the blackest of Forfaultures incur●●● by the Earl of Huntly and others, for corresponding with the King of Spain to 〈◇〉 Kingdom, and subvert our State and Religion, was reduced in the year 1597 for Nullities of Process without any Remission, and generally it cannot be instanced that ever a previous Remission was required in order to the Reduction of any Forfaulture before King and Parliament. 2. Not only the great Act Rescinding Forfaultures in the year 1690, but all the special Acts Reducing and Rescinding Forfaultures in that Session of Parliament, did proceed without any previous Remission, and tho the same Dilator was proponed in several of these particular Cases, as in the Reducing of Swintouns Forfaulture, yet it was repelled and which could not be called an Act of Legislation, having proceeded upon Application and hearing of both Parties. 3. It is evident that the very intent of the Claim of Right and of the Declaration it the foresaid Act of Parliament 1690, was to bring in both this and all other such Reductions of Forfaultures without necessity of previous Remission. And 4. That by the very foresaid Act of Parliament 1584, there is no necessity of a previous Remission in order to the Reducing of Forfaultures when the Reduction is expressly warranted and allowed by deliverance of Parliament. 5. If it could be pretended that a Remission were requisite in this case, which is absurd, the ample Indemnity in September 1688, does fully satisfy the same, which must operate fully as much as any particular Remmission could do. And albeit the said Indemnity contained an Exception of Forfaultures, Dooms and Sentences thereof, yet that Exception is qualified in these precise words; viz, And that as to the Estates only thereby Forfaulted but without any prejudice to the persons thereby indemnified and their Memories and Posterities against whom the said Sentences and Dooms were pronounced; So that this Dilator is most groundless and frivolous.  
2, As to the second Dilator, that the Earl of Selkirk Clerk Register is not called; It is answered 1. That the Officers of State are called in the ordinary manner, and as is usual in such Cases either before the Lords of Session or any other Court, and there is no necessity either by Law or Custom to call the Officers of State in Parliament, far less such as are out of th● 〈…〉 Deputs Mr. Alexander Gibson of Durie and Jame●… Hamilton both Clerks of Parliament and Session, and who has a special Commission for keeping of the Records are both cited, and the Earl of Selkirk himself is excused from attendanc●… in this Session of Parliament by the Kings special Order.  
3. To the third Dilator viz. no Real Right nor Title produced by the pursuers: It was answered●… No necessity to produce the same, because the Earls interest of Blood for his part was no doub●… sufficient, it being father impossible that there should be any real Right in his person, as Hei●… to his Grand-father, till the Forfaulture be first Rescinded. 2. As to the Creditors there c●… be nothing father required then that they instruct themselves Creditors, by producing 〈…〉 Marquis of Arg●les Bonds and Diligence by Apprising against his Cautioners, which do 〈…〉 both found and instruct their interest sufficiently, neither is there any Reduction craved 〈…〉 Infer●ment in this process, but simply of the Decreet of Forfaulture and Grounds and Warran●… thereof. And 3. For superabundance; if the Defenders must needs have a real Right and Int●… rest produced, the Laird of inns who hath a joint Process with the Earl, produces a Re●… Right and Infeftment in the Lordship of Enzie and Estate of Huntly.  
And thus the Defenders Dilators, scarce worth the proponing, are more then sufficient●… answered, but the Pursuers are hopeful that the High and Honourable Court of Parliament, knowing perfectly the rigour of the marquis his Forfaulture, and perceiving plainl●… that all designed by the Defenders, is to gain time, and drive over the Parliament, wil●… therefore be the more careful to give this Process the due dispatch that it requires both before GOD and Man.