THE Duke of Gordon pretends by the foresaid Representation, to stope the bad Impression, which he says has been given of his Cause, without any design to Anticipat his legal De­fences; and yet he is so far from touching any Point of the favour that all good Men doe and will perpetually retain for the Marquiss of Argyles memory; that he only offers a Paper of a few parti­culars, wherein the Accompt given by his advisers, hath very little Truth, and as little Con­sistency.

The Marquiss of A [...]gyll did certainly Represent one of the most loyal Ancient and worthy Fami­lies of the Kingdom, and did eminently possess all these good qualities, which from his Predeces­sors had descended upon him, and albeit the Motives that did incite his Adversaries to prosecute him in the Year 1661. were, no doubt most violent; seeing nothing could satisfie them, notwith­standing of his then Majesties known inclination to the contrair, save his Blood & Death; yet nothing was either alledged or proven against him, save a few inconsiderable Deeds of that Epidemick Com­plyance with the English Usurpers; wherein the whole Kingdom and a great part of his Judges were Involved; so that all Men may wonder, as all good Men regrate, that such a strange and severe Forfaulture, the most Groundless of the many hundreds that have been of late Rescinded, should yet for more than eleven Years, since the last happy Revolution, stand Unreduced.

But to the Representation, It begins with a Story of a Tocher of 30000 lib. contracted by the Marquiss of Huntly, with his Daughter to the Lord Drummond; for which, the Marquiss of Argyle, and Earl of Southesque, with the Laird of Innes and others, became Cautioners, and that for Relief of this Debt, and of 22000 lib. more, that they were also ingaged in, for the Marquiss of Huntly to Murray of Skirline; the Marquiss of Argyle got security by Infeftment, in the Barronies of Lochquaber and Ba­denoth; and that the Earl of Southesque Pursuing the Duke of Gordon for Relief of the Half: It was made appear in that Process, that the Marquiss of Argyle possest these Lands from the Year 1644.

The truth of which Story is, That the Marquiss of Argyle was indeed ingaged in these Debts, as in several others, for the Marquiss of Huntly his Brother in Law, and got Security for his Relief; but had in effect little or no Intromission, till after the Year 165 [...]. at which time, having Compted with Marquiss Lewis the Duke of Gordons Father, it appears by the Printed Minute of Contract, that all Intromissions being discounted, the Marquiss of Huntly acknowledges himself Debitor to the Mar­quiss of Argyle, in the Sum of 337028. lib. and for Payment of the Annualrents thereof, he Assigned him to as much of his Rents; And likewise, gives the Marquiss of Argyle power to Sell Lands for payment of the Principal.

But so Groundless and Inconsistent is the Dukes Representation in this matter, that First it forgets that the Laird of Innes did truly pay the half of the saids 30000 lib. with Annualrents thereof, to the Earl of Perth, for which having got his Assignment, against the Marquiss of Huntly, and the other Cautioners: The Marquiss of Argyle, who had taken upon him the whole Debt, did most justly give to the Laird of Innes a Security for the said 15000 lib. with the Annualrents, making then 20000 lib. out of the Lordship of Enzie, a part of the Estate of Huntly, which now the Duke of Gordon so very hardly and unjustly disowns. 2. The Representation makes mention of Southesques proces, but con­cealls that Southesque prevailed in that Process; not because the Marquess of Argyl had got Payment of the Debt by his Intromissions, which had been ridiculous, since thereupon the Duke of Gordon should have been assoilȝied; But because the Infeftment of Relief, having been given to the Mar­quess of Argyl, for Southesque behoof, as well as his own; the Earl of Southesque mentained his Right against the Forfeiture, and the Retour of Quinquennial Possession, whereby the Duke of Gordon thought to have excluded him, by the Marquiss of Argylls Possession, and thus the Earl of Southesque prevailed; but not at all on the account, that the Marquiss of Argyl had got Payment by his In­tromissions, which was never dreamed of.

The Representation goes on and alledges, That the Marquiss of Argyl did Purchase Beattons Appry­sing; But designedly suppresses, how that the Marquiss of Argyl was necessitat to Purchase the same for 5000 lib. sterl. and upwards: And Sir William Dicks Apprysing for eight Thousand Pound Sterling, and upwards. As likewise, some other Debts, that he might make good his fore­said said Infeftment for Releif; And how that when he had Purchased all these Debts, he was still con­tent to give the Marquiss of Huntly his Nevoy, the Benefit of all the Compositions he had made; And that the foresaid Sum contained in the Printed Minute, is the Sum that was found truely due to the Marquiss of Argyl, after all deduction.

The Representation alledges, That the Marquiss of Argyle could nor justly give Jnnes a Security out of the Lordship of Enzie for the foresaid 20000 lib. Because Argyl himself had got payment for it by his Intromissions, but this Paragraph contains so many Falsehoods: That it is a wonder to see them in Print. For First, It says that the Marquiss of Argyl was in Pessession of 9000 Merks a Year of the Estate of Huntly, from the 1644. to the 165 [...]. and so was payed by his Intromissions; which is so far from truth, that it was in the Year 165 [...]. that the foresaid Printed Minut past betwixt Argyl and Huntly, and where Huntly confesses himself to be so vastly his Debitor. 2. The Representation denys that Jnnes payed the 15000 lib. with Annualrents thereof, to the Earl of Perth; Yet Jnnes doth actually produce the Earl of Perths Receipt and Assignation for his relief after distress, by the outmost legal Diligences, which no Man can believe, could be given without Payment. 3. The [Page]Representation says, That the Marquess of Argyle had Right to no other Debts of the Family of Huntly, save the foresaid Tocher of 30000 lib. and the Debt of 22000 lib. due to Skirlin, since it is certain and can instantly be Instructed that he had Right to Sir Thomas. Nicolsons, Sir William Dicks, Mrs. Wakfield, and several others extending to a Vast Sum. 4. Esto, The Marquess made Opposition to Beatouns Infeftment, yet that doeth only confirm the necessity he was in to satisfie Beatoun before he could obtain his own Payment and Relief. And, 5. By what is said the Honou­rable Court of Parliament may perceive how absurdely the Representation would make Innes his Right a contrivance betwixt him and the Marquess of Argyle, since Innes truely payed the Money to the Earl of Perth, and Argyle did justly give him a Security for the same out of the Estate of Huntly as having taken on him that Debt for the Marquess of Huntly, and included it in the foresaid Sum contained in the Printed Minut.

The Representation to take off the Earl of Argyles just Claim of Debt against the Family of Huntly upon the foresaid Printed Minut, alleadges things so inconsistent that it is almost a shame to repeat them; For first, it says that the Marquess of Argyle had that Kindness for his Nevoy the Marquess of Huntly, as to cover Huntlys Possession in regard his Father had been Forefaulted from the English Usurpers, and yet immediately it subjoyns, That the Marques of Argyle hereby geting access to Huntlies Charter Christ, had the Opportunity to make use of retired Bonds and out of the product of Huntlys Estate. to compone Huntlyes Debts at his pleasure, than which there can be nothing more ungrate, Unreasonable and absurd. 2. It says that the Marquess of Argyle was highly in Favours with the English, whereas all Men that remember these times know that the Marquess of Argyle was the Man of his Quality in Scotland that was most suspected by the English; And that instead of Favours he could never so much as obtain Justice of them, and if he had been so much in Favour with the English, and had been so ill intended towards the Family of Huntly, what should have hindered him to have taken Possession of the whole Estate of Huntly either by vertue of the Forfeiture, or by vertue of Beatouns expired Apprysing whereof he had then Right in his Reison. But, 3. The best account that can be given for the Marquess of Argyles Vindication in Relation to the Estate of Huntly, are the Marquess of Argyl his own Words when Arraigned before the Parliament 1661, which are these: For the Estate of Huntly I had nothing in it but for my own absolutly Necessary Relief, and was ever most willing to part with any Interest I had therein, getting his Friends who trofess much Zeal for the standing of the Family Ingadged for Warrandice to me of any Portion that should fall to me, for my Satisfaction, and to Evidence that I was no means to harm the Family, I stood with my Rights betwixt all Fines and For­feitures and Accompted for any thing I could receive, and to manifest yet farder that the burden of that Family was not from any extrinsick Cause of themselves I have under the old Marquess's own Hand, and his Sons George Lord Gordon, who was a very worthy Young Nobleman the just Inventary of their Debts amounting to about Ten Hundreth Thousand Merks in the Year 1640.

These being the Words of the Marquess, having his Death certainly in his View will no doubt be much better believed then this Groundless Representation. 4. How unjust then the Represen­tation is to alleadge that the Earl of Argyle hath nothing to Claim of the Estate of Huntly, and that he should content himself with the Title of Earl and the Gift of 15000 lib. yearly, which he got out of his own Estate upon the Marquess of Argyls Forfeiture, and let the remainder of his Estate go for the Payment of Huntlys Debt, all Men may Judge.

The Duke of Gordon and the Earl of Aboyne possess no less then 5000 lib. sterl. yearly free of Debt, by vertue of the Marquess of Argyls Forfeiture: And yet this Paper has the Confidence to say that the Earl of Argyle should content himself with 15000 Lib. Scots of his Grand-Fathers Estate, and let the rest go for the Payment of the Marquess of Huntlys Debt, who ever heard the like!

The Representation ends with some Reflections upon the Printed Minut 1653; stating the Debt due by the House of Huntly to Argyle; And 1. It alleadges, that the Writer thereof is not designed, but the Writer is Named and may still be Designed; besides that the Paper is Subscribed by both Parties and many honourable Persons. 2. It alleadges, That Marquess Lewis was not Infeft as Heir to his Father, nor could he indeed be Infeft; because his Father was then Forefaulted, but what could the Marquess of Argyle do more for the Marquess of Huntly, than to keep him in the Possession of his Estate, notwithstanding of his Fathers Forfeiture, and fairly to state the Debt due to him by the Marquess of Huntly, when he might have Possest the Estate Irredeemably without either Compt or Reckoning. 3: The Representation again alleadges the Marquess of Argyles Power with the English and over the Marquess of Huntly his Nevoy, and that he possest the whole Estate of Huntly for nine years except only 7000 Merks a year, which are all three false: For the Marquess of Argyle, as hath been said, was in no Favour with the English, nor had the Marquess of Huntly and dependence upon him, but was a Man for himself, and behaved as absolutely as any of his Predecessors. And all the Possession that the Marquess of Argyle obtained, was to have the Chamberlands obliged to pay him his Annualrents as the Printed Minut bears, and which Annual­rents he never got.

So that upon the whole, this Representation for the Duke of Gordon is in effect much more against him.