[1704/7/87]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
Prayers said. Rolls called.
Minutes of the last sederunt read.
Act continuing the commission for auditing the accounts of the public funds, read, and a first reading ordered to be marked thereon.
[1704/7/88]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
The parliament proceeded to the further consideration of the report of the commission for auditing the accounts of the public funds, and the seventh account in the report being read, which, with the observations thereon, are as follows.
The seventh account of supply and inland excise from 1 May 1697 to 1 May 1699 was given in by Sir George Hamilton and partners.
| Charge | £ | s | d |
| 1. Per eighteen months' supply, £1,296,000 | £1,296,000 | - | - |
| 2. Per twelve months' inland excise at four pennies per pint, £384,000 | 384,000 | - | - |
| 3. Per twelve months' inland excise at six pennies per pint, £499,200 | 499,200 | - | - |
| 4. From provost [Sir George] Home [of Kello] and partners, £60,000 | 60,000 | - | - |
| Total | £2,239,200 | - | - |
| Discharge | |||
| 1. Per payments made to the forces and the admiralty, £2,002,067 7s | £2,002,067 | 7 | - |
| 2. Per extraneous precepts, £162,704 7s | 162,704 | 7 | - |
| 3. Per arrears of inland excise and abatements as per accounts, £74,188 6s | 74,188 | 6 | - |
| 4. Balance due by the accountants, £240 | 240 | - | - |
| Total | £2,239,200 | - | - |
Observations upon this account
1. That there was £48,000 paid to the admiralty for providing ships of war and clearing the seamen, notwithstanding that the poll of 1695 was wholly appropriated for that end.
2. That the accountants had an allowance of £6,132 for foraging the horse guards during the sitting of the parliament, in which sum there is included 13s per day for each horse more than what they had agreed upon with the treasury, so that they had 18s for each horse per day.
3. That they had also an allowance of £5,449 10s for foraging the said guards from 1 September 1698 to 15 October thereafter.
4. That there was an allowance given to the accountants of £4,200 for foraging some horses over and above the number they had agreed upon with the treasury, though neither the number of horses nor the time they were foraged is instructed.
5. That there was £12,000 lent to [James Douglas], duke of Queensberry for which his grace's bond lies in the treasury, so that his grace is in all debtor to the public for £42,144.
6. That there was an abatement of £12,000 given to the tacksmen of the four penny excise upon the pint in 1698.
7. There was given up in the discharge £56,104 5s arrears of supply and excise by several shires and burghs, but there is only £38,504 carried to any subsequent account, so that [£20,104 5s]† is still resting by the tacksmen of the excise and others.
8. That there was an abatement of £6,000 given to the tacksmen of the six penny excise upon the pint in 1698.
9. That the accountants in their charge have omitted the fractions of supply that make the sum of £2,400 still due by them.
This account was fitted and discharged to the accountants by the treasury upon 20 February 1700.
Upon reading thereof, the consideration of the first observation continued until the poll of 1695 comes in to be considered. The second and third observations sustained. The fourth observation, ordered that the act of exchequer for instructing the articles therein mentioned be produced. The fifth observation carried on to the subsequent account. The sixth observation, ordered that the acts of exchequer for instructing thereof be produced. The seventh observation carried on to the subsequent account. The eighth observation sustained. The ninth observation, ordered that the shires of Ross and Cromarty adjust their quotas so as to make up the total.
[1704/7/89]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
The eighth account in the report read, which, with the observations of the commission thereon, follows.
The eighth account of supply and inland excise from 1 May 1699 to 1 May 1701 was given in by Sir George Home [of Kello] and partners.
| Charge | £ | s | d |
| 1. Per fourteen months' supply, £1,008,000 | £1,008,000 | - | - |
| 2. Per two years' inland excise, £612,000 | 612,000 | - | - |
| 3. Per arrears of excise as per a preceding account given in to the accountants by Sir George Hamilton and [William Cochrane of] Ferguslie, £36,000 | 36,000 | - | - |
| 4. Per balance due by Sir George Hamilton, £2,504 | 2,504 | - | - |
| 5. Balance due to the accountants, £19,898 11s | 19,898 | 11 | - |
| Total | £1,678,402 | 11 | - |
| Discharge | |||
| 1. Per payments made to the forces, amounting to £1,647,263 10s | £1,647,263 | 10 | - |
| 2. Per extraneous precepts, £28,538 6s | 28,538 | 6 | - |
| 3. Per exemptions of supply, £2,600 15s | 2,600 | 15 | - |
| Total | £1,678,402 | 11 | - |
Observations upon this account
1. That the accountants have charged themselves with no more of the excise than they received, namely £612,000, but the excise, being at that time farmed by bailie [William] Menzies [of Gladstains] for £480,000 per annum, there is resting by him to make up the complete tack duty for two years £348,000, as per the committee's minutes of 25 January 1704, where are inserted the reasons of the deficiency.
2. That there was given to the late [Archibald Campbell], duke of Argyll, for private intelligence, £582.
3. Likewise, to Major General [George] Ramsay, for private intelligence, £1,200.
4. To the accountants £13,996 16s for foraging the horses belonging to the troop of guards from 15 May to 20 September 1700, in which sum there is included 13s per day more than they had agreed upon with the treasury.
5. That the accountants had an allowance of £862 9s upon the account of the diminution of the quota of cess in Perthshire, which they should not have had because the diminution of the valuation of Perthshire increased that of Fife and Kinross.
6. That the accountants in their charge omit the fractions of cess which amounts to £1,840.
This account was fitted and discharged to the accountants upon 3 March 1702.
Upon reading whereof, the first observation continued until Sir William Menzies is heard after the consideration of this account is ended. The second and third observations, the instructions thereof to be produced and considered in parliament. The fourth observation sustained. The fifth observation, ordered that Robert Rutherford and the accountants clear this article or be liable for it. The sixth observation, that the shires of Ross and Cromarty so adjust their quotas as to make up the total.
The parliament again proceeded to the consideration of the first observation in this account in relation to Sir William Menzies and, he being called, compeared and presented an information with a petition, both which were read, and after hearing and debate the vote was stated, if the tack set by the lords of treasury and exchequer to Sir William Menzies and partners be a standing tack for the first two years, yes or no, and carried in the affirmative.
The parliament declared they would proceed upon the consideration of this affair at the next diet of parliament, and, after their proceeding on the whole matter, their determination therein is as follows.
[1704/7/90]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
At Edinburgh, 15 August 1704, anent the report of the commission appointed for examining the public accounts, whereby they found Sir William Menzies and his partners still resting the sum of £348,000 Scots of his tack duty of the excise for the two years thereof, as the said report and observations of the commission on the eighth account bears, which the parliament, having proceeded to consider Sir William Menzies and partners, late tacksmen of the inland and annexed excise for five years beginning 1 March 1699, thereupon gave in and presented to her majesty's high commissioner, and the right honourable the estates of parliament, a petition showing that where the commission of parliament appointed for enquiring into deficiencies of public funds and causes thereof etc., being to report the petitioners' case which is one of the most singular that ever occurred, they the petitioners had with the said petition given an information of the true state thereof, as it was instructed before the honourable subcommittee. Whereupon they take occasion, most humbly, to implore the justice and commiseration of the parliament that, seeing they have already paid above £2,000 sterling of the tack duty for 1699 and 1700 beyond what the excise either did or possibly could produce, by reason of the extraordinary calamities through famine, death etc. for these two years, they might be liberated from the rest of the tack duty which, even their utter ruin, cannot make up upon the grounds mentioned in the foresaid information. For thereby, his grace and the honourable estates would perceive, how that upon the prospect of a promising harvest in August 1698, and that thereby the dearth would be at an end, the petitioners offered £40,000 sterling yearly for the excise, they getting a five years' tack, and they offered so much for these three pennies of the annexed excise as the former tacksmen had paid for the six pennies of both the annexed and additional excise because they thought the length of time in good years would enable them to that improvement of the revenue. But, immediately after the roup in August, the harvest became altogether disastrous, first by great winds and thereafter by rains, indeed storms of snow etc., which not only made the season late and the victual scarce in the subsequent year 1699, being the first of our tack, but likewise the unwholesomeness thereof by heating and otherwise spoiled bear from being malt and disappointed the country of their seed; and (with the plague of famine) occasioned so great a mortality etc. that the year 1700 (which until the end of the year was to subsist on the product of the preceding) was also most calamitous through the desolation of brewers, drinkers and the want of the subject of liquors, or money or credit which were exhausted by the miseries of the former seasons. The prospect hereof, and thereby [of the impossibility] of raising the tack duty out of the fund the impossibility† did not only make the other partners to decline signing of the tack but, likewise, the petitioner, Sir William Menzies or Captain Wood who joined with him, could not find cautioners who would undergo so visible a hazard, until upon intimations from the government that they should not be losers and upon the faith of a clause in the tack that, in case a famine continued for three months, they should only be liable as collectors etc., they were induced to subscribe the tack after they had by petitions offered to give it up and to pay a penalty for getting free thereof. But when they entered upon the management of the tack which commenced in March 1699, they did then and thereafter find more and more the sad effects of the harvest of 1698, which they did not fail to remonstrate to the treasury and exchequer by a tract of petitions related in their information, upon which they were so conscious of the truth of their grounds for which they declined the tack that, even before the commencement thereof, they got suspensions for £6,000 sterling of the first two quarterly instalments of the tack duty when it should fall due, with order for inducing them to go into it. At last, when they found the deplorable experience of what they suspected, the notoriety of the thing so far prevailed yet further on the lords of treasury that they, in February 1700, granted a stay of execution for £15,000 sterling of the first year's tack duty of 1699, upon the petitioners paying up the other £25,000 sterling and, as to the second year of 1700, they ordained new caution to be found (and accordingly the petitioners did actually give new sufficient security) for what they could uplift and intromit with, so the petitioners took it to be an actual turning of the tack into a collection, especially seeing their opinion in the matter was approved by the late king by his majesty's remitting the same to the treasury for doing therein as they should find just and reasonable etc. Yet, notwithstanding of all the petitioners' applications for bringing the matter to a final issue, particularly their addresses to former sessions of parliament, other business has diverted any further progress therein, except a remit from the parliament to the treasury and exchequer in January 1701 for a new roup as to the years ensuing thereafter (which accordingly were set to [Archibald] Dunbar of Thunderton with his partners) and allowance from the treasury to bring in their liberation from the tack as to the two years not set of new, by way of suspension. While, in the meantime, the petitioner Sir William Menzies lies under this load, his other co-partner Captain Wood being dead and his cautioner denuded of his estate (without the petitioner's knowledge) prior to his engagement, whereby not only the petitioner's credit for the remaining tack duty for the two years, though he has already paid £2,000 sterling beyond what he received, extending to £29,000 sterling, must lie at the stake, but likewise, if he should die before this matter comes to be finally cleared, his successors would be altogether ignorant thereof and, therefore, this being a happy opportunity of having access again to the equity and compassion of this high and honourable court, it was most humbly represented that his grace and the honourable estates of parliament would be pleased to take to their consideration the singularities of the petitioner's case for liberating him from the full tack duty of the said two years and that, thereby, he is only liable for his actual intromissions, conforming to the authentic books upon oath after all the diligence that was possible for man to take in those circumstances, more particularly upon the following grounds. Firstly, not only by the common law throughout all Christendom, indeed even in Holland where they are so precise upon the matter of their taxes, does one extraordinary fatality turn tacks to collections, but likewise, there is an express clause in the tack set to the petitioner that, in case of famine for three months, it should resolve in a collection. And the petitioner subsumes that after the roup and tack there was famine for many more than three months, which is instructed by evidences in the petitioner's information, particularly that in this time multitudes died for want of bread, people lived upon wild radishes and malt dreggs. Other countries prohibited victual to be exported, the prices with us were high above the ability of the meaner sort, though our government gave encouragement for importation by praemios, yet it did not supply our want. Public fasts were appointed for such dreadful famine and there were acts of government against exporting, even from one shire to another, or turning bear into malt etc., which necessity of employing bear otherwise than to brewing, together with the badness and spoiling of the bear crop of 1699, and that influencing the crop of 1700 did, in a peculiar manner, make the famine to have a yet more eminent effect as to brewing, which was so sensible that in some parishes there remained not three of thirty and odd brewers etc. But there needs no proof of so notorious a truth to the grand inquest of the nation in particular, who too well know the state thereof in that wasting time through the several corners of the kingdom. It is true tacksmen run all ordinary hazards, but a fortuitous chance though they were not expressed are excepted in all contracts, without which no man would enter in a tack especially with the public which is subject to so many casualties, much more ought this to hold where it is so expressed in the tack itself, as in the present case, and that the rather because there was scarcity in former years preceding the tack whereby the clause, being adjected notwithstanding of that former scarcity, could have no other meaning than that if the hopes of the harvest and ceasing of the present dearth did fail, so that as there should be a famine still for three months after the commencement of the tack, then and in that case it should turn to a collection. Secondly, that there are many other specialities in the petitioner's case, such as in the first place, upon the surprising and unexpected change of the season, before signing the tack he offered to renounce the minute of roup and redeem himself by a fine, whereby he did forgo all hopes of gain by the tack for the future, which very much differences his case from that of those who wait until they see the event of the hopes of gain before they seek abatement. In the next place, by the assurances of the government and the aforesaid clause about the famine calculated to the same end, the petitioner so relied as to look upon himself to be no more, in effect, than a manager for the public interest, though with some tolerable detriment to his private fortune, whereof both the parliament and the treasury and his late majesty had competent conviction, which procured their remits before narrated. Indeed, in the third place, the petitioner might humbly contend that his tack is already upon the matter turned to a collection, by the foresaid deliverance of the treasury granting a suspension for £15,000 of the first year and receiving his cautioners for a collection of the second year (which was materially approved by his majesty's remit to themselves who had done so) and by their setting of new the other three years upon a remit of parliament, but the petitioner laid the whole at his grace and the honourable estates feet to be absolutely determined by them. In the fourth place, as the petitioner has already paid up £2,000 sterling beyond what he got up after having done the outmost diligence, so now he is in a manner left alone with such an insupportable burden, for as at the beginning the other partners withdrew from signing the tack, so Captain Wood, his only remaining partner, has none that will represent him and his cautioner is an old man who had conveyed his estate as aforesaid. So it was most humbly hoped that his grace and their lordships would not permit the petitioner to be quite overwhelmed by occasion of an emergent fatality of providence in the seasons, which not only surprised the petitioner against the promising aspect of future years, but likewise the whole nation, indeed and a great part of Europe, for the years 1699 and 1700, of which at present the petitioner supplicates to be relieved, and therefore, humbly craving his grace and the honourable estates to find that his tack does only oblige him in such a singular and circumstantiated case as for a collection the two years 1699 and 1700 which will be an act of both justice and compassion by liberating the petitioner and his family from ruin in what he did, for a public interest, being overtaken by an unexpected and irresistible calamity, as the said petition bears. With which was given in the foresaid information, whereof the tenor follows.
Information for Sir William Menzies and partners, late tacksmen of the inland excise, lately given in by way of representation to the committee of parliament appointed for enquiring into the management, right application and deficiencies of the public funds and causes thereof. The inland excise, being exposed to a roup in August 1698, Sir William Menzies, as the greatest offerer, was preferred to the tack thereof which, conforming to the articles, was to endure for five years from and after 1 March 1699, except in the case of plague, famine or war, in which cases, if the same did continue above three months, he was only to count and be liable as a collector, the articles being signed by him with an oblidgement under a great penalty to sign the tack when extended. Immediately thereafter, great winds having arisen, whereby much of the grain was shaken and upon the back thereof excessive rains having followed which did presage a bad harvest, and that it would not be possible to raise the tack duty out of the fund, all his partners except Captain Wood did resile. Whereupon, he having represented the case to the lords of treasury and offered, before signing of the tack, to be liable to such a proportion of the penalty as their lordships should think fit to exact rather than to sign the same, and craved that, in case they would oblige him to sign the tack, their lordships might be pleased for encouragement to him and partners to declare at what rate of victual famine should be understood. But the lords of treasury, having shunned to give him any answer at the time, moved him and Captain Wood to sign the tack upon an insinuation that, if they managed the interest faithfully and exactly, their case should be considered, and if the apparent scarcity continued and increased they would take their case to consideration so as they should be no losers. The tack being thus signed by them and their cautioners upon 7 September 1698, and the harvest continuing still more and more unseasonable so as much of the corns were to cut down in the middle of frost and snow, and much of it never having ripened nor been cut, they did again represent the calamitous case of the nation before the commencement of the tack, begging the said lords might take the tack off their hands or declare as above, at what rate of victual famine was to be considered. But the lords of treasury, still as seems expecting a more favourable season and being unwilling to lose the tack while there was the least prospect of the possibility of its endurance, they did likewise delay the giving any answer to that petition, and withal encouraging the tacksmen to use their utmost endeavours in management of the fund to the best advantage with plausible insinuations that few or rather none would be made losers who served the king faithfully. The tacksmen, being thus encouraged, did enter upon the management and considering the circumstances of the time, did with as great moderation and success as could have been expected, which is very well known, and of this the lords of treasury, being fully convinced and that the fund could not answer the tack duty, they did grant a forbearance for £3,000 sterling of the instalments payable for each of the first two quarters, until a further assay should be made what length the fund could make. But, when the third quarter was entered, into the tacksmen perceiving that, albeit the harvest did prove much more favourable than in the preceding year, yet that in many places the ground had not been laboured nor sown, and that in several other places where sown, the feed was so bad and unwholesome it did afford no increase proportionable to the former years, and also the dearth continued and good sufficient victual was not to be had but at a dearer rate than at any time it had been sold within the kingdom; and also that, through poverty, those who were in use to employ their stocks upon brewing had neither money nor credit to buy victual at the current rates, wherethrough there was not so much brewed by the half as in former years. They did again, by a third petition, represent the case to the lords of treasury, showing that it was not possible to raise above £5,000 sterling quarterly out of the fund and, therefore, craving (as formerly) that their lordships might be pleased to take the tack off their hands or, if they inclined to continue them in the management, to discharge the commissioners from distressing them for more than the funds would answer, and for which they should be ready to count in the strictest form when required. Which petition did also receive no answer, the commissioners having continued to press the tacksmen for a further payment, albeit they had stretched their credit and raised thereupon for support of the exigences of the government near £2,000 sterling more than they had recovered out of the fund. And having then received sure information from the most part of the corners of the kingdom that, because of the calamity of the country which still continued, there was no ground to expect that the half of the tack duty would be made effectual, this did put the tacksmen under an absolute necessity to represent the case in a fourth petition to the lords of treasury, plainly insinuating that the exigencies of the government, in so far as depended upon that fund, would be disappointed if not timeously provided for, in respect, though they should be tied by the tack, the whole stocks of them and their cautioners would not answer the deficiency of one year, albeit wholly seized upon, which is a hardship that never any who served his majesty in the like post has been as yet put to. And, therefore, humbly beseeching that the tack might be taken off their hands and the fund employed to the best advantage in such manner as their lordships should think fit. This petition, having also received no answer, when the third quarter's payment became payable, there being a party of two hundred men quartered upon the tacksmen, which was a burden unsupportable, they did present a new petition to the lords of treasury and exchequer representing that, albeit the outermost severity should be used against them, yet that the fund though conjoined with their private stocks and credit would not make up the deficiency, and that, by necessary consequence, the expense of quartering would encroach upon the fund of payment. And, therefore, craving that the party might be removed and that they might be allowed to illustrate and give such evidences of the calamitous circumstances of the country to their lordships ever since the commencement of their tack, as they were hopeful would beget a full conviction that the deficiency arose from the fund and not from any mismanagement in them, so as they might be exonerated and only made accountable as collectors. Upon which last petition, the party was removed and the tacksmen allowed to be heard upon the grounds contained in their petitions and, whereupon, they can found for their being liberated from the tack by way of suspension. And, therefore, by the quality of the tack, it being provided that in case plague, famine or war be in the land beyond the space of three months that then the tack should be void, and during the management they should only be accountable as collectors, the tacksmen, though very unwilling to expose to public view the qualifications of the calamitous circumstances the nation was then groaning under and have been from August 1698 at which time the excise was rouped and set to bailie Menzies and partners, further than what was absolutely necessary for their self preservation and liberating of them and their families from utter ruin, did in all humility offer to the lords of treasury such qualifications thereof as they were hopeful, though they should not amount to a full probation of famine in the strictest sense, yet that they would be repute such as might induce their lordships to make a full representation of the case of the country and tacksmen to his majesty. And until his majesty's gracious pleasure were known thereupon, to grant to the tacksmen a forbearance from pressing them for more than the fund could afford, and for clearing whereof they did then offer and are yet content to expose their books upon oath before the honourable court of parliament, and which qualification did so far prevail that they did grant a forbearance of £15,000 sterling for the first year of the tack, and for which they afterwards got his majesty's approbation (this approbation is in the hands of Sir Thomas Moncrieff), and appointed also a further enquiry into the matter, wherein since that time the lords of treasury, by reason of the then approaching session of parliament and the other necessary affairs, have made no further enquiry, only upon granting the foresaid forbearance they did oblige the tacksmen to find new caution for their subsequent intromissions, and which they did and which was (as from time to time received) punctually paid in to the general receivers.
The grounds then laid before their lordships of the treasury, and thereafter before the committee to be reported before the honourable court of parliament, and which it is hoped will be found sufficient for annulling the tack are: firstly, from the definition of famine itself which, by all sacred and profane writers on that subject, is as much from a year's scarcity as from a life endanged for many [years], from which it is plain that, if since the commencement of this tack many have died for want of bread and have been forced to make use of wild radishes, malt dregs and the like for the support of nature, which are kinds of food never before heard of in the nation, then it necessarily follows that the country is to be reckoned in a state of famine, but so it is this was the case of many thousands within the kingdom. Secondly, in whatsoever country where there is no sufficiency of bread for maintenance of the inhabitants thereof, and when it cannot be supplied from other places and that many people die starving, that land is certainly to be reckoned in the state of famine, and so was it in many parts of this kingdom the first year of the tack. Thirdly, it is to be accounted famine when the prices of the victual arise so far beyond the ordinary rates thereof that the generality of the yeomanry cannot get the same purchased for their support, and so was it with us the said year. Fourthly, famine is to be understood as overspreading the land when, notwithstanding of extraordinary encouragements by the wisdom of the government allowed to importers of victual, it is not brought in or, at least, what is imported is not sufficient, and this was our case the first year of the tack. Fifthly, when for want of bread people die in the streets and highways in great numbers, such as has not been heard of in this nation, does necessarily conclude an overspreading famine; but so was it in several corners of this kingdom where, in some parishes at least, the one half died for want in the year foresaid. Sixthly, when by authority public fasts and days of humiliation are appointed for preventing the dreadful famine impendent upon the nation, it is to be accounted by all that the kingdom is in that state; and so was it with us as appears by the addresses to the commission of the general assembly and proclamations of privy council since the commencing of the foresaid tack. Seventhly, other places of Europe in our circumstances have owned themselves to be in a state of famine as appears by the public prints and for which,† not only in our neighbouring nations exportation of victual out of the kingdom was prohibited, but also in this kingdom there was a strict prohibition to export victual from one shire to another, and in some principal cities and shires the making of bear into malt was prohibited. And it is well known that those of our northern shires which were looked upon as great granaries, and did yearly afford great support to this country, have not been able by all their increase in the year 1698 to maintain the half of their own in the year 1699. It's also well known that the crop of 1698 was so bad, a great part of it not cut down and a great part of it altogether unwholesome, and the land not fully sown, which are clear evidences of famine and consequently a ground to annul the tack. Upon these grounds, the lords of treasury did not only grant the foresaid forbearance of £15,000 sterling of the tack duty of the first year of the tack, and obtained his majesty's approbation above-mentioned, but also did so far innovate the same and turn it to a collection the second year of the tack, that their lordships did oblige the tacksmen to give new surety for their intromissions with the fund that year, and conforming thereto they did manage the fund most carefully and, for preventing all jealousy of the misapplication, did cause pay in the same to Robert Rutherford, the commissioners' depute, and for which second year, albeit they had some reason to conclude that they were only to be considered as collectors, yet to answer the exigencies of the government they did advance several hundred pounds beyond what the fund afforded, which can be instructed by their books, upon the verity whereof they are content to testify and likewise to suffer the most narrow scrutiny for canvassing the faith thereof, and that under any penalty whatsoever. As the payments made of the first year's tack duty did extend to £25,000 sterling, and the sums collected and paid in to the general receivers of the fund of the second year being £26,000 sterling or thereby did fall very far short of the tack duties which by the tack the tacksmen were obliged to pay for these years, so it is most certain that the fund did not afford these very sums paid, albeit the same was managed with the greatest precaution and exactness that the circumstances of the country could admit of, and the tacksmen are so far from being gainers by the tack and collection during these two years that, on the contrary, they are already sufferers in their own private stock of the loss of £2,000 sterling and upwards. The committee would also be pleased to consider and report that, as immediately after Sir William Menzies' offer at the roup, all his partners did resile except the now deceased Captain Wood, for whom Jasper Johnston of Wariston became cautioner, so Captain Wood is dead without representative, and the said Jasper Johnston, before his engaging as cautioner foresaid, had conveyed his whole estate to his grandchildren, of which Sir William Menzies was altogether ignorant and, therefore that, albeit the parliament should yet find ground to insist against him for the deficiencies of these years, notwithstanding of the reasons above-represented for annulling the tack, yet however it might tend to the utter ruin of him and his family, his and his cautioners' stock can in no measure answer the same. It was also desired that the committee might consider and report that Sir William Menzies is content to testify upon the verity of the whole grounds above-represented and that he is not calumnious as to any thing therein contained. This representation was found astricted by the honourable committee comparing the same with the minutes of treasury and exchequer and other ways in manner mentioned in their report to the commission of parliament thereupon.
And also the said Sir William Menzies produced, in presence of the lord commissioner and the said estates of parliament, an account of the inland excise intromitted with by him from 1 March 1699 to 1 March 1700 and from 1 March 1700 to 1 March 1701, whereof the tenor follows.
Account of the inland excise intromitted with by bailie Menzies from 1 March 1699 to 1 March 1700. In the first place, from the town and shire of Edinburgh, Colin Alison, collector, £7,700 sterling; the shire of Haddington, William Bernard, collector, £970 15s 7d; the shire of Berwick, David Renton, collector, £330 11s 7d; the shire of Roxburgh and Selkirk, Walter Scott, collector, £482 1s 9d; the shire of Peebles, James Brotherstone, collector, £100; the shire of Dumfries, stewartry of Kirkcudbright and Annandale, William Crawford, collector, £692 14s 1d; the shire of Wigtown, Robert MacLellan, collector, £193 17s 11d; the shire of Ayr, George Seaton and George Blair, collectors, £675 16s;† the shire of Bute, Sir James Stewart in tack, £41 13s 4d; the shires of Renfrew and Dunbarton, Archibald Bannatyne,† collector, £734 15s 2d; the burgh of Glasgow and four parishes, Charles Bruce, collector, £1,510 5s 9d; the shire of Lanark, except Glasgow, James Carmichael, John Smith and William Renton, collectors, paid only £324 2s 4d; the shire of Argyll, Mr John Campbell in tack, £111 2s 2d; the shire of Stirling, John Bird,† collector, £601 5s 6d; the shire of Linlithgow, Henry Rollo of Woodside, collector, £630 17s 4d; the shires of Perth and Clackmannan, James and Robert Campbell, £1,464 16s 11d; the shires of Fife and Kinross, Thomas Beaton,† collector, £2,291 1s 1d; the shires of Forfar and Kincardine, James Ramsay and Thomas Rattray, collectors, £1,485 6d; the shire of Aberdeen, James Keith and John Stewart, £916 10d; the shires of Banff, Elgin and Nairn, William Dunbar, collector, paid only £281; the shires of West Ross and Inverness, James Dunbar, collector, £418;† the shire of East Ross, Sutherland and Cromarty, Mr Alexander Ross, collector, £211 2s 9d;† the isles of Orkney and Shetland, Henry Leggat, collector, not cleared, £150. The excise of brandy imported, all charges deducted yearly, about £750, the total is £23,436 18s 1d. And from 1 March 1700 to 1 March 1701 for Edinburgh the second year, the said Colin Alison, collector, £8,000 sterling; Haddingtonshire, William Bernard, tacksman, £870; Berwick, Roxburgh and Selkirk shires, William Cockburn, tacksman, £880; Peebles, William Williamson in tack, £130; the shire of Dumfries, stewartry of Kirkcudbright and Annandale, Mr William Johnston, £700; Wigtown and Ayr, set to William Kennedy of Daljarroch, £1,333 6s 8d; Bute to Sir James Stewart, £41 13s 4d; Renfrew and Dunbarton, to Archibald Bannatyne of Kellie, £770 15s 6d; town of Glasgow, set to the magistrates, at £1,666 13s 4d; the shire of Lanark to [...] Walkinshaw, £655 13s 1d; the shire of Argyll, to Mr John Campbell, £111 2s 2d; the shire of Stirling, to John Bird, £705 11s 1d; the shire of Linlithgow, to Robert Taylor and [...] Woodside, £700; the shire of Perth, to Patrick Johnston of Gormack, £1,633 6s 8d; the shire of Clackmannan, to James Campbell, £200; the shire of Fife and Kinross, to Thomas Bethune of Tarvit, £2,222 4s 5d; the shire of Forfar and Kincardine, to James Ramsay and Thomas Rattray, £1,880; the shires of Aberdeen, Banff, Elgin, Nairn, Inverness, Ross, Sutherland, Cromarty and Caithness, to James Keith, £2,150; the isles of Orkney and Shetland, as first year not all paid, £150. The excise of brandy imported, all charges deducted, £750, total is £25,557 6s 3d. First year's intromissions, £23,436 18s 1d. Total is £48,994 4s 4d. Paid per receipts to the commissars of the army, £51,000 sterling and received only as above £48,994 4s 4d. So that the petitioner is already in advance £2,005 15s 8d. Since first extending of the above account there is received from brewers in and about Edinburgh, besides what is above, about £200 sterling, as the said information and account also fully bears.
Which petition, information and account, being heard and considered by her majesty's high commissioner and the said estates of parliament, they found and hereby find that the tack set to the said Sir William Menzies and his partners was a standing tack for the years 1699 and 1700, and ordained and hereby ordain the said Sir William to pay at the terms of Martinmas [11 November] and Candlemas [2 February] next, by equal portions, the sum of £5,000 sterling of his tack duty, and remitted and hereby remit to the commission of parliament to be named to consider whether the account given in by him is a true account and to report at next session of parliament. And in the meantime suspended and hereby suspend execution for the remaining sum of his tack duty and ordained him to sign the said account. Accordingly, the said Sir William, having signed the foresaid account, thereafter gave in and presented to her majesty's high commissioner and the said estates of parliament another petition, showing that, albeit the petitioner had exhibited before the honourable court of parliament a full and faithful account, both of what was received of the said inland excise and what was paid in by him to the general receivers upon that account, whereby it is evident he had been constrained by the pressing importunities of the lords of the treasury to advance £2,000 sterling more than truly he received or was collected of the said fund, nor were there any outstanding debts by the subtacksmen or others employed as collectors by the petitioner which can ever be recovered or imputed in payment of any part of the said £2,000 sterling, except about £200 sterling or thereby of arrears in and about Edinburgh and about 800 merks in Orkney, as the arrears of the two years' excise of Orkney and Shetland, which though yet standing out is nevertheless placed in the foresaid account as paid, and the petitioner, having answered upon the highest asseverations before this honourable court of parliament every point and question, whereby any article or circumstance of the account exhibited could be in the least suspected or disproved, the petitioner was humbly of the belief and expectation that this honourable court, being fully convinced of the petitioner's candour and faithfulness in all this affair, would have fully exonerated him from being further liable beyond the £2,000 sterling of loss he had already sustained. Yet, it having seemed good to the honourable court to find the petitioner liable in payment of the sum of 90,000 merks more to be paid at Martinmas and Candlemas next, without expressly exonerating the petitioner of the foresaid tack of the inland excise and duty therein contained, he humbly begged leave to represent that the foresaid sentence will amount to no less than a forfeiture to the petitioner and will be of no use at all to those who expect the benefit thereof unless the petitioner be fully exonerated of the foresaid tack and tack duty, for as all the effects he has in the world will not raise the money at the terms appointed, so his personal credit is not worth a groat so long as that tack and tack duty hangs over his head. Therefore, it is necessary, both for preserving the petitioner and his family from utter ruin and to make the sentence of parliament of some use and advantage to those who are to have the benefit thereof, and that the petitioner may have credit to employ himself and his small fortune for making the same effectual, and therefore, craving his grace and the honourable estates of parliament, fully to exonerate the petitioner and remaining persons concerned for the inland excise of the years 1699 and 1700 and of the tack and tack duty granted for the same, upon the petitioners making due and punctual payment of the said sum of 90,000 merks contained in the foresaid sentence of parliament, to which of necessity he must acquiesce, notwithstanding of £2,000 sterling already advanced, and upon the petitioner's giving bond that whatever shall be discovered to have been intromitted with and received by him, except the two articles about Edinburgh and Orkney foresaid, he shall make payment of the quadruple thereof without any defalcation, which, as it is a demonstration of the petitioner's ingenuity, so is all in his power to be offered for enabling him to make the sentence of parliament effectual and necessary to explain the favour and commiseration this honourable court has always expressed to the petitioner, or otherwise to supersede the payment until the scrutiny be made, as the said petition bears. Which petition and desire thereof, being likewise read in the presence of her majesty's high commissioner and the said estates of parliament, they having heard and considered the same, by their deliverance thereon upon 23 August 1704 (before extracting of this act) allowed [William Kerr], marquis of Lothian and other officers of the army to see and answer the same the sederunt then first after tomorrow, and in the meantime remitted and hereby remit to the commission the scrutiny of the account, and ordain letters of horning and all other execution needful to pass hereupon, in form as appropriate. Extract.
The lord chancellor, by order of the lord high commissioner, adjourned the parliament until tomorrow at 10 o'clock.