Moved that the laird of Meldrum might be admitted commissioner for the burgh of Dornoch since the competing commissioner had withdrawn his commission and, after some debate anent the admitting him, it was agreed that whatever might be legally objected against him by a party having interest should be received at any time even after his admission; and the vote stated, admit in these terms or not, carried admit. It was then moved that he being once papist might take the formula subjoined to the act for preventing the growth of popery, which he did, desiring it might be inserted in the minutes that he owned his being Protestant several years before that act, and thereafter took the oath of allegiance and oath of parliament and subscribed the said formula with the allegiance and assurance.
The minutes of the last sederunt read.
[1703/5/62]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
Petition for Archibald [Douglas], marquis of Douglas craving a warrant for citing [Archibald Douglas], earl of Forfar to insist upon his protestation for remedy at law against him, read, and at the earl's request allowed to be seen and answered the next sitting of parliament.
Agreed that an overture for an act in favour of the town of Glasgow, a petition by the delegates of the woollen and silk manufactories, and an overture for an act in favour of the shire of Caithness be all considered the first sitting of parliament for private business.
[1703/5/63]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
Moved that the petition of the laird of Morriston be granted desiring that her majesty's advocate, Sir Gilbert Elliott and Sir David Cunningham, albeit members of parliament, may be allowed to plead his cause against Sir James Cockburn, and these advocates allowed to plead for him accordingly.
Petition for Anna Cockburn for making up the tenor of burnt writs, read and agreed that the report of her cause be received and considered the first sederunt of parliament for private business.
[1703/5/64]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
The controverted election between Lieutenant General [George] Ramsay of Carriden and Thomas Sharp of Houston, for the shire of West Lothian, called and the objection against Houston's electors being first insisted in, he passed from the votes of John MacFarlane, Alexander Glen, [Philip Anstruther], laird of Balcaskie, younger and John Hamilton of Pumpherston. It was objected against Mr James Hamilton of Bangour that his lady's freehold extended to no more than a thirty shilling land of old extent, she being one of two heirs portioners to a brother who, though he was once infeft in a five pound land, was afterwards denuded of a forty shilling land, so that the lady had right to no more than the equal half of the remaining three pound land. Secondly, the lady, not being infeft could not as apparent heir give right to her husband to vote as a freeholder. To which it being answered that the denuding the brother of forty shilling of his five pound land was not objected at the election and therefore is not now receivable in parliament, and secondly, the general terms of the act of 1681 gave the right of election to the husband of an apparent heir as well as to that of a freeholder infeft. The vote was stated sustain these objections or not and carried sustain. It was objected against Robert Johnston of Straiton that he was only apparent heir to an annualrenter and not a proprietor and, it being answered that his father stood infeft in a freehold in the terms of the act 1681, it was replied that his charter produced instructed not a forty shilling land of old extent; and duplied that it contained a third part of a land which was instructed by an older charter produced to be of yearly extent twenty four pound and a merk of land which ought to be presumed to be of old extent. The vote was thereupon stated sustain or reject the objection and carried reject. It was then objected against John Hamilton of Grange that not being infeft he could have no vote as apparent heir to his father because there were children of his elder brother, and secondly, though his rights as apparent heir were not questioned he was not in possession, without which his apparency gave him no right of election. And it being answered that his brother's children were declared spurious by decreet of the judge competent and that he truly was in possession, it was replied that he could not possess as heir to the freeholder last infeft, his father being denuded by adjudication in 1671 and the ruling now long since expired, the rents were sequestrated, by decreet of the lords, in the hands of a factor for the behoof of the adjudicators. And there being several writs produced for instructing the reply, the advocates for Grange were allowed to see them until the next sitting of parliament.