many antient 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 Majesties Bounty cannot be limited to restore any person by way of Grace yet by such a Restitution neither His Majesties 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 rendred 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 Tryal and Enquiry anent the deceast John Swinton's Forfeiture Sir George Gordon of Haddo Chancellor William Marquess of Queensberry Thesaurer John Marquess of Athol Privy Seal James Earl of Perth Justice General Sir David Falconer President of the Session Sir George Mckenzie of Tarbat Clerk Register John Drummond of Lundin Thesaurer Deput Sir George Mackenzie of Rosehaugh Lo. Advocat Sir John Lockhart of Castlehill and Sir John Murray of Drumcairn Senators of the Colledge of Justice John Swinton's Answers to his Inditement given in to the Parliament 1661. written subscribed with his own hand ANSWERS by way of Defence for John Svvinton of Svvinton to the Inditement of Treason whereof he stands accused by the King's Advocat 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 Moneth by way of Information and protesting that if need be is according to the then grant of the Commissioner and Parliament intimat by the Chancellor as President 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 Defenses 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 proceedings in Law before the Court ordinary to be Tryed 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 proceedings that run not so properly in the Channel of Law specially if the Parliament being thus Constitute in these Tryals shall proceed not only by vertue 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 Supream and therefore as he declines not the Law of his Native Countrey but may in his subsequent Answers say somewhat to that why he ought to be Assoilzied and acquitted from the Inditement Yet being to answer before a Court that it is like will not look upon themselves as so strictly tyed 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 de jure or not he shall leave to the judgment of that in every one of their Consciences wherein as they weigh and consider it in the coolness of their minds they will owne that de jure it is Supream The higher power to which every knee must bow and ought 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 tyes man to God and one to another even that which leads to the Love of God and to love our Neighbour as our selves 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 Judgment 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 ought to be Founded on this Equity or Reason he shall leave it to this Witness near them and in their hearts the Eternal and Ingrafted 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 Judgment 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 Supream 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
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 Minuts in anno 1661 upon the Margine thereof the last Minut whereof is ordaining that Decreet of Forfeiture to be put to further execution against Govan and is Subscribed by the President 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 authentick and valid Extracts although not subscribed by the Clerk Register and it is a meer Calumny that the Extract was elicit from Mr. Thomas Henderson in the year 1661 and it is an intollerable 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 contain'd 2o. Swinton in his Answers Written and Subscribed by himself given in to the Parliament 1661 therein endeavours to extenuat his Guilt in joyning 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 no 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 furth 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 publick Acts of subsequent Parliaments relative thereto upon Pretences that the Minuts or Warrants thereof are not extant then the most part of His Majesties 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 vertue 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 Libeller 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 reiterat and ingeminat Clauses forfeiting the Traitors as to Life Heretage and Movables which is exprest 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 Heretage 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 vertue thereof which was accordingly done but also when they did repell Swinton's Answers as being no ways relevant and did ratifie 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 Kings 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 dayly resorting and conversing with the said publick Enemy be irrelevant to infer the Crime of Treason then 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
Decreet it being obvious and clear by Law and Common Sense that a man that is once forfeited cannot be again forfeited seing 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 acknowledgment 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 Moneth which was three moneths before the Duke of Lauderdale obtained the Gift of John Swintons Forfeiture 2o Altho 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 Altho the King's Advocat 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 Rebells to Worcester and appearing there in Arms against his King and Prince which was a Guilt and Crime of an higher Nature than the deserting of his Majesties Service yet it did no ways loose nor enervate the former Sentence and Decreet which was so justly pronounced against him in anno 1651. And the King's Advocat did not insist against the said Deceast 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 ratifie 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 past from that the same was ratified and approven and the Libelling of the Crimes in the first Decreet in the last Indytment was to shew 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 Advocat expresly desiring the samine to be ratified by the Parliament 4ly Altho 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 altho a former Sentence might imped and debar him from having Personam standi in judicio yet it cannot hinder why he may not be Accused Indyted 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 decerned 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 Indyted of new again for Treason and the punishment of Treason inflicted upon him accordingly The first Reason of Reduction against the Decreet of Forfaulture in anno 1661. Is in effect an Answer to the several Articles of John Swinton's Inditement of which the Earl of Lawderdale does not think himself oblidged to take any notice but only in so far as that Reason eithe 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 tho 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 Countrey with an Army of Sectaries had murdered his just and Lawful Soveraign 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 proceedings 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 Inditement 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 denyed 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 alledged to have been committed in England it was remitted by the English Indemnity It is Answered 1. That this is manifestly redargued by the deceast John Swinton's answers Written and Subscribed with his own hand given in to his Inditement 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 sayes 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 perswade him to go and that was after he had met with what he then looked upon as hard measure from the King and Countrey being out of the Protection of Law and that he went iâ— no other Capacitie but as a Traveler having no other Arms than Travelers use By which 1o. It is proven that he was personally present at Worcester and that he went there at the Usurpers earnest intreaties and importunities which shew that there was great intimacie betwixt him and the Usurper 2o. That he hade
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 President when the Sentence was past he might very warrantably have Signed the Minutes Interloquitors altho 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 Integritie that he would not have had the least accession to such a villanous Action as forging of Minutes in a Process of Treason which was to ruine a Man both in his Life and Fortune and necessarly would in danger his own And Sir Archibald Primrose nor Haystoun were not so much oblidged to the late Duke of Lauderdale as could induce them to forge and make up Minutes to gratifie him neither did Swinton nor any of his Relations while Sir Archibald Primrose or Haystoun lived take upon them the confidence to alledge 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 publick 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 President of the Parliament or other Judge at one dash to defeat and obliterat all the publick Acts and Sentences they have made and past 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. Altho the Minuts 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 Minuts and Interloquitors of the other Processes of Forfeiture against Guthrie Govan Arkindlass and others in that Parliament are not signed by the Chancellor or President neither are there any of the Minuts or Decreets of Forfeiture in that Parliament so formal as these Minuts 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 Minuts 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 Alledges that application was immediatly made by the Duke of Lauderdale upon Sir Archibald Primrose's scrupling to give out Extracts of the Minuts 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 authentick and in case that the Minuts should be put out of the way which the deceast Swinton neither wanted Cunning nor Art to do if opportunity offered to be an Adminicle for proving and making up the tenor of the Minuts the late Duke of Lauderdale desired an Extract of the Minuts 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 Minuts 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 Minuts 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 Minuts 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 alledge that he was conscious to himself of the falshood of these Minuts 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 indited he would be again Forfeit by the standing Laws of the Kingdom And these Decreets and Minuts thereof being considered and compared with most of all the other Decreets of Forfeiture past in that and subsequent Parliaments there will be none found either more relevantly libelled or so formal as to the Minuts 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 hight of Boldness and Insolence for John Swinton to crave Reduction of his Fathers Forfeiture by way of Justice which is a down-right 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 Soveraign 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 seing by
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 Inditement wherein he hath endeavoured to contract much of what might be said not only by way of Information but also by way of Defence peremptorie being purposely omitted tho they may be look'd upon as so formal as it may be judged need were yet let them be weighed in the just Ballance the eternal Rule of Righteousness and the Defender doubts not but by that Law which is Supream 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 remembred by the Commissioner and Parliament that it was not early the Defender became engaged in the Publick Transaction of these times as is manifest by the Inditement it self the Parliament in Justice will find the Answers relevant to elide the Inditement and to Assoilzie the Defender Sic Subscribitur J. Swinton Extractum de Libro Actorum per me A. Primerose Cls. Reg. Minuts of John Swinton's Process of Forfeiture in anno 1661. EDinburgh 7 February 1661. Sir John Fletcher His Majesties Advocat having given in and repeated in presence of the Parliament the Libel and Inditement 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 Inditement might be found Relevant and admitted to his Probation The Kings Majesty and Estates of Parliament before Answer ordains the new Inditement 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 Inditement 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 Cromwel with that Armie to Worcester and was with that Army at the Battel of Worcester Whereupon His Majesties Advocat 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 Advocat 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 Lyable to the Pain and Punishment of Treason And to be Decern'd and ordain'd 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 alledge why the samine should not be put to Execution with certification c. 12 July 1661. His Majesty and Estates of Parliament having considered that Member of the new Inditement of Treason pro tempore insisted upon with the Pannal's Answer in Writ and Viva Voce and Judicial Confession and Declaration desire of the Lord Advocat with the former Decreet of Forfeiture They repelled and repells 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 Inditement 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 c. And recommends to the Kings 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 Majesties pleasure be further known thereanent Sic subscribitur Crafurd Lindsay I. P. D. Parl. Extractum de libro Actorum per me A. Primrose Cls. Reg. FINIS