[1704/7/48]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
Prayers said. Rolls called.
Commission of Alexander MacKie of Palgowan, newly elected one of the commissioners for the stewartry of Kirkcudbright, being presented it was objected that the election being on 1 August he had very quickly come up, and there is ground to believe his commission was controverted. After debate thereon he was admitted, but it was declared that all persons were free to object against the said commission, notwithstanding of his said admission, and thereupon he took the oath of allegiance and subscribed the same with the assurance and took the oath of parliament.
Minutes of the last sederunt read.
[1704/7/49]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
It being moved that the act of dissolution in favour of James [Graham], marquis of Montrose might be read for the second time, the earl of Bute declared that he, not being cited, he did not state himself a contradictor and entered his protestation for securing his private right, which was admitted and ordered to be recorded. And thereafter the act was read, and after reasoning and several amendments made on the act, it was put to the vote, approve or not, and carried approve.
[1704/7/50]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
Petition of [John Gordon], earl of Sutherland and [Ludovic Grant], laird of Grant craving the process depending at their instance against the lords commissioners of the treasury might be remitted to be discussed before the lords of session, read, and the commissioners of the treasury allowed to see and answer against the next diet of parliament; and ordered that then this petition and answers be taken into consideration.
Petition of [Anna Scott], duchess of Buccleuch against the earls [George Melville, earl] of Melville and [David Leslie/Melville, earl of] Leven and Mr James Melville of Halhill craving a diet may be appointed for hearing the cause against them and that Sir David Dalrymple may be allowed to plead the same, the earl of Leven desired to see and answer the same petition and, it being put to the vote, appoint a day for hearing or to see and answer, it carried appoint a day for hearing and the second diet of parliament next week appointed for that effect, and Sir David Dalrymple allowed to plead for her.
The complaint of [John Hamilton], earl of Ruglen against an illegal order for quartering appointed to be heard after the duchess of Buccleuch's cause the second diet of parliament next week.
[1704/7/51]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
The next diet of parliament appointed for considering the report from the commissioners appointed by the last session of parliament for inspecting the accounts of the public funds, and declared the parliament will then consider the petition given in by [John Murray], duke of Atholl and the officers of his late regiment, the petition for Lieutenant General [George] Ramsay, the petition for [Thomas Livingston], viscount of Teviot, the petition for Colonel George MacGill, the petition for the officers of the army and garrisons who want their clearing and clothing, the petition for Lieutenant Colonel John Hepburn, the petition for Captain Thomas Hay, the petition of the disbanded officers, the petition for the corporals in the independent troops of horse, petition of [William Kerr], marquis of Lothian, petition of John Auchmuty, petition of Sir William Douglas, petition of the widow of Captain Alexander Dunbar, petition of Captain David Lindsay, and all other officers' petitions relating to arrears.
[1704/7/52]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
Petition of Frances [Herbert], countess dowager of Seaforth, craving an aliment read and the creditors of [William MacKenzie], earl of Seaforth allowed to see and answer.
Petition of the said Frances, dowager of Seaforth, craving a warrant for letters to summon Kenneth MacKenzie, and others therein mentioned, in order to the making up of a writ, read, and the said Kenneth MacKenzie and others allowed to see and answer.
Petition of Alexander MacDonald of Glengarry, craving the garrison may be removed from his house at Invergarry and the parliament to modify and determine a sum to be paid to him in reparation of his losses and damages, read, and her majesty's advocate allowed to see and answer again the next diet of parliament next week.
Petition of Sir James Stewart of Goodtrees, her majesty's advocate, craving a day may be appointed for hearing his cause against Johnston of Straiton, read and the second diet of parliament next week appointed for that effect after [Anna Scott], duchess of Buccleuch's and [John Hamilton], earl of Ruglen's.
[1704/7/53]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
Act for more effectual payment of the commissioners of justiciary their salaries, read, and ordered to lie on the table.
Petition of James Bain, wright, craving reimbursement of a sum of money advanced by him for finishing the palace of Holyroodhouse, read and the same ordered to be considered after the report of the commission for auditing accounts.
[1704/7/54]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
Act in favour of a maiden hospital erected by the merchants of Edinburgh, with another act in favour of a maiden hospital to be erected by the incorporations of Edinburgh, read, and a first reading ordered to be marked on both the said acts.
Act discharging importing Irish butter and cheese, read, and a first reading ordered to be marked thereon.
The controverted elections of the shire of Ross and Clackmannan ordered to be discussed at the next diet of parliament after report of the commission for auditing the accounts.
[1704/7/55]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
Act in favour of the shire of Caithness read, and a first reading ordered to be marked thereon.
Act for draining lochs and marshes, read and a first reading ordered to be marked thereon and the same ordered to be printed.
The process of [David Bruce], laird of Clackmannan against his creditors ordered to be heard the second diet of parliament next week.
[1704/7/56]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
Petition of James Oliphant of Langton against Mr Robert Alexander, read and refused, leaving the petitioner to insist in any action competent to him before the judge ordinary as appropriate in manner following.
Anent the petition given in to his grace her majesty's high commissioner and the right honourable the estates of parliament by Mr James Oliphant of Langton against Mr Robert Alexander, one of the principal clerks of session, mentioning that where it pleased the late sovereign King William, of ever glorious memory, by his gift under the great seal to nominate and ordain the deceased Charles Oliphant, the petitioner's father, and him, and either of them the longest liver successively, the one after the other alternately, but no way jointly at the same time, to a place of a clerk of the session and parliament in the equal half of one of the three offices, and that during the life of the longest liver of them two in the place of Mr William Muir who was conjunct with Sir James Dalrymple in the said office, so that one of them might only enjoy the office at the same time, according to the tenor of the act of parliament of 1685, as the said gift of the date 15 June 1691 bears, whereby it is manifest that the foresaid gift and that, by the advice of the best lawyers, was formed and calculated to be consistent with the foresaid act of parliament to which it expressly refers. Also, in view thereof, his said deceased father and he did really pay for it the sum of 7,000 merks, and further became bound to pay to the said Mr William Muir the sum of 2,000 merks yearly during his life, so that at this day it has cost the petitioner upwards of 28,000 merks and is still a growing burden during Mr William Muir's life. Nevertheless, when the petitioner's said deceased father and he craved admission upon their said gift it was alleged they could not be both admitted in terms of the gift in regard of the foresaid act of parliament, and thereupon the lords sustained their gift only in favour of one of them, and the petitioner's deceased father, being appointed to make his election, he made the same in favour of himself. But all this having been done without the petitioner's having been called or in any way concerned, when his father happened to die within a year and a half thereafter, he again applied to be admitted by virtue of the foresaid gift, alleging that what had happened upon his father's first application or the election he made in compliance with the lords' deliverance could not at all touch him or take from him his sought right of the said gift, since he neither had been called nor compearing. Secondly, that now by the said gift the succession there provided in the petitioner's favour did evidently take place upon his father's death, and the foresaid act of parliament could not now be obtruded, seeing that it was he alone that craved or could be admitted. Thirdly, that the right of succession provided in the said gift and now taking place in the petitioner's favour was not against any law or act of parliament but both lawful and usual. Fourthly, that it was a visible and intolerable hardship that the petitioner's father and he should have paid and engaged in such a sum in the faith of the said gift granted to them both, as said is, and yet have the same cut off as to them both by his simple death which happened within less than a year and a half, and now besides the foresaid 7,000 merks advanced and the bygone yearly annuity of 2,000 merks which has now run these eleven years, the same is yet current to his utter ruin and undoing. And fifthly, that it had been far more eligible on the petitioner's part that the lords had declared their foresaid gift to be null than to have restricted it in manner foresaid, since upon the declared nullity the petitioner might have had repayment and saved himself from the foresaid growing and excessive burden. But notwithstanding of all these allegations, it pleased the lords to refuse the petitioner's gift and admission and declare the place simply vacant by his father's death upon no other ground but because they had predetermined themselves by the act of sederunt upon his father's admission and so they adhered to their interlocutor passed then without considering or declaring the validity or invalidity of his gift, which, being so heavy a grievance, the petitioner was necessitated to protest for remedy at law to the king and parliament. And thereupon in the year 1695 he insisted in parliament upon his said protest and got the same committed and a report upon it. But this report pointing only by way of expedient at the then lord register, against whom the petitioner thinks he needs not insist, but on the office itself and the fruits thereof to which a legal and formal gift under the great seal does naturally carry him. The petitioner has hitherto with great patience suffered one to possess himself of his office and enjoy the fruits thereof these eleven years bygone but, not being able to support the excessive burden any longer of Mr William Muir's annuity, which by this time has gone near to ruin him, he does now humbly offer his said gift and craved that the same might be read and he admitted thereupon, and there is no injury done to Mr Robert Alexander, the present incumbent, since by his enjoying the fruits of the office these eleven years bygone he has much more than doubled the sum he paid for it. And therefore, craving his grace and their lordships to consider the circumstances and to allow the petitioner's gift to be read which constitutes him a member of their honourable house, and him admitted thereon; and if there remain any difficulty with them after hearing the same, that lawyers may be allowed to be heard thereupon in plain parliament and for that effect to declare the lord register and the said Mr Robert Alexander to be thereto cited according to the act, as the said petition and desire thereof bear. For instructing whereof the petitioner produced the foresaid gift of the date above-mentioned, written to the great seal and registered the 13 July 1691 by Sir William Kerr and sealed at Edinburgh the said day by Alexander Inglis, as the same more fully bears. Which petition and desire thereof, being this day read in the presence of his grace her majesty's high commissioner and the said estates of parliament, and they being therewith and with the foresaid gift produced for instructing the same, well and ripely advised, they refused and hereby refuse the desire thereof, leaving the petitioner to insist in any action competent to him before the judge ordinary as appropriate. Extract.
[1704/7/57]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
Representation for the merchants of Edinburgh against all wearing of silk, read and the silk manufactories allowed to see and answer the first diet of parliament next week.
Act discharging the importing of woollen manufactures and allowing the exportation of wool presented, and ordered to be printed.
The lord chancellor, by order of her majesty's high commissioner, adjourned the parliament until tomorrow at 10 o'clock.