[1705/6/174]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
Prayers said. Rolls called.
Minutes of the last sederunt read.
The article of the report of the commission for public accounts relating to [John Hamilton], lord Belhaven's tack of excise from September 1695 to March 1697, read. The petition for the Lord Belhaven and his partners, read, and the petition for George MacKenzie, one of the Lord Belhaven's subtacksmen read. The parliament, having considered the petition given in by Belhaven and his partners, with the report of the commission, they find that the sum of £17,181 11s 7d sterling was never paid in by the country to the said tacksmen or subtacksmen, therefore, they discharge them and the country of the said sum in the terms of the deliverance of parliament upon their petition, which is as follows.
Moved that the principal tacksmen be discharged of the sum of £526 11s 10d sterling, uplifted by them and not yet counted for and, after debate, it was put to the vote discharge the tacksmen of the said sum or not and carried discharge, as is expressed in the act underwritten.
[1705/6/175]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
Her majesty's high commissioner and the estates of parliament, having heard the petition of the Lord Belhaven and the other principal tacksmen of the 5d excise from September 1695 until March 1697, humbly showing that where by the report from the commission for auditing the public accounts the petitioners are found due in a balance of £526 sterling, they humbly craved leave to represent to their lordships that, considering the great trouble and expenses the petitioners have been at during the time of ten years bypast, it is evident that they have expended far more considerable sums than the balance found due by the report from the commission, and that they have made faith that all the money was collected and which the country did yield was paid in to the receivers. Therefore, in consideration of the petitioners' faithful and most painful services to the government in that calamitous times, and in making effectual to the public such considerable sums of money out of such broken and deficient funds, they being often forced to advance of their private money, the quarterly payments not answering the exigencies of the government, as is well known to many of their lordships, humbly craving his grace and the honourable estates of parliament to take the petitioners' case to their consideration, and not only discharge the foresaid balance but also, in justice, to remit to the foresaid commission the distribution of the abatement of £17,307 sterling, as per act of parliament for that effect, amongst them and their subtacksmen, with a special regard to their expenses for managing this whole affair, and with a special regard to these places where the† calamity was most sensible, as the said petition bears. And, having also heard the report of the commission of parliament appointed for stating and examining the public accounts relating to the said matter, bearing that by the minutes of parliament dated 25 August 1704 it being remitted to the commission to inquire into the arrears of the tack duty of the Lord Belhaven's tack of excise in the terms of the deliverance of parliament thereupon in his favour, the said commission before acquainting their lordships of the inquiry they made into this affair, judged it proper to lay before them the foresaid deliverance of parliament in the Lord Belhaven's favour, to the end they might see how far it agreed with what they were to report. By the parliament of 1698 it was ordered that of what was paid by the Lord Belhaven and his partners of their tack duty to his majesty nothing should be given back, that what more should be found to be uplifted from the country than was paid, either in bonds or money, should be given to his majesty and that the tacksmen should be liable for the same whether it had been uplifted by them, their subtacksmen or collectors, and the tacksmen are declared no further liable and that what shall be abated after this manner shall be proportioned amongst the subtacksmen at the sight of the lords of treasury, that the commission might satisfy the remit of parliament in the terms of this deliverance. All imaginable enquiry has been made and particularly they called the Lord Belhaven's partners, subtacksmen and collectors before them and examined them upon oath as to the extent of their tack duty and collections, and of the payments made by them, either in money or by bonds, and whether there were any promise made or gratifications given for concealments. All these depositions, with all the other instructions and documents relative to this matter, the commission laid before his grace and their lordships, wherein they would find: firstly, that the extent of the Lord Belhaven's tack duty of excise for eighteen months amounted to £8,800 sterling. Secondly, that his lordship has paid to the treasury the sum of £58,029 8s 10d sterling. Thirdly, that by several acts of the exchequer his lordship had allowed him £4,862 13s 4d sterling as an abatement upon the account of guards, garrisons and manufactories, as is ordinarily given to other tacksmen of the excise. These two last sums being added together make £62,892 13s 4d sterling, so that there remains £18,007 17s 10d sterling. If this £18,007 17s 10d sterling had never been uplifted by his lordship, his subtacksmen and collectors, nor any part thereof, from the country then, by the foresaid deliverance of parliament in his lordship's favour, the total ought to be allowed. But by the enquiry the commission have made, they find: firstly, that the tacksmen have intromitted with the sum of £526 11s 10d sterling not as yet accounted for. Secondly, that Thomas Beaton, subtacksman for Fife, has collected the sum of £159 2s 6d sterling which he retains in his hands. Thirdly, that William Bernard, subtacksman for East Lothian, retains in his hands £140 11s 11d sterling. Upon the whole the commission were of opinion that, when these three last sums are paid up, there will remain £17,181 11s 7d which, having never been paid by or collected and uplifted from the country, ought to be allowed to the Lord Belhaven and partners according to the foresaid deliverance of parliament, together also with a full discharge of their tack duty, as the said report also bears. And her majesty's high commissioner and the estates of parliament, having fully considered the said petition with the foresaid order of parliament anent the above-mentioned excise in 1698, with the remit from the parliament to the commission for the public accounts for making enquiry in the terms of the said order of parliament, and the commissioners' report above-written thereupon, and being therewith well and ripely advised, they found and hereby find that the principal tacksmen paid in of their tack duty to the lords of treasury the sum of £62,892 13s 4d sterling, in manner mentioned in the report, and that they intromitted with £526 11s 10d sterling, for which the tacksmen have not yet accounted, and that there is in the hands of Thomas Beaton, subtacksman of Fifeshire, £159 2s 6d sterling and in the hands of William Bernard, subtacksman for East Lothian, £140 11s 11d sterling, which sums completes the petitioners' tack duty, except the sum of £17,181 11s 7d sterling which, after enquiry, was found not to be uplifted from the country. And therefore, her majesty's high commissioner and the estates of parliament, discharged and do hereby discharge the principal tacksmen and their subtacksmen and the country of the said sum of £17,181 11s 7d sterling not uplifted from the country, in manner foresaid, and also, in consideration of the petitioners' faithful services in managing the matter of the said excise, exonerated and discharged and do, by this act, exonerate and discharge the petitioners of the said £526 11s 10d remaining in their hands not accounted for, and of the said tack itself and whole clauses thereof, and sums therein contained, and ordained and hereby ordain the £159 2s 6d in the hands of Thomas Beaton, and the £140 11s 11d sterling in William Bernard's hands to be paid to George MacKenzie, tacksman of the northern shires, in consideration of his damages. Extract.
[1705/6/176]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
Then the parliament, having considered George MacKenzie's petition, they discern and ordain the sums in the hands of Thomas Beaton of Tarvit and William Bernard, two subcollectors of that excise, to be paid in to him in the terms of the deliverance of parliament upon his petition, and the said George MacKenzie further recommended to her majesty for his surplus losses mentioned in his petition, which decreet and recommendation follows.
Her majesty's high commissioner and the estates of parliament, having heard the petition of George MacKenzie, subtacksman of the excise of the northern shires, humbly showing to them that where the petitioner, having unhappily engaged himself in a tack of the excise of 5d per pint from 1 September 1695 to 1 March 1697, and after his great expenses and fatigue by the reason of the extreme famine that then appeared and suddenly ensued, he could get no town, shire or parish set as formerly, nor so much as could reach the one half of his tack duty, and seeing he found, by the express terms of his tack, that in case of famine the same was to be void and null, he immediately returned to Edinburgh and renounced in the hands of [John Hamilton], lord Belhaven and others, principal tacksmen, protesting he would have no further dealings in the tack, but be answerable conforming to his intromissions. And having made also application to the lords of treasury they, in regard of his timely diligence and the well known truth of the calamitous condition of the northern countries, as was attested by the subscriptions of the noblemen, barons and magistrates, gave him a suspension in the interim for one half of his tack duty, whereupon and upon orders given to manage the said shires to the best value, which he performed with all the application was possible for him, nevertheless the famine daily increasing in his district was not known in the south until the north countries, being wasted, the droves of the poor over charged the south countries. Then it was that the said George his representations got credit and became a handle to the rest of the tacksmen for obtaining an abatement. And it is to be observed that most of the tacksmen were made capable to support the burden when they had entered in cheap tacks, and that the tack was very near expired before they were made aware of the famine, so that the petitioner's case is no way parallel to the rest, when it is evident he had the double burden of the first and last of the raging famine, and of a heavy double tack. Nevertheless, the principal tacksmen did harass the said George and cautioners with all the violent methods of quartering whole companies at his house in the country and chamber when at Edinburgh, whereby he was constrained by these and like methods to raise all the money his private stock and credit with others could afford, so that, albeit it is evident by the reports of the committee that he only collected £8,807 sterling, yet he was compelled to pay up to the said principal tacksmen, in payment as per receipt, £10,417 19s sterling, and that before the act of parliament was made for relief of the tacksmen, which, with upwards of £700 sterling the said George expended as per a particular account in now these ten years bygone, makes his loss evidently to be no less than £2,309 sterling. Wherefore upon the whole, it will be a very great hardship if the petitioner shall be only ruined in that tack after his expenses and endeavours have been the occasion merely of procuring them an abatement of the tack duty and, thereafter, of turning the tack into a collection and so the abatement ought, in justice, to be applied not in proportion to the quotas and tack duty but according to the measure of the calamities which was the cause for which both abatement was granted and thereafter the tack opened. And there being upon report of the commission of parliament a small balance of that excise yet in the hands of the principal and subtacksmen which, albeit but about a third part of the petitioner's sum, yet it is humbly presumed it will be thought highly reasonable the petitioner be refunded out of this proper fund and from this† who extorted his money. Therefore, craving his grace and the honourable estates of parliament to ordain payment to be made to the petitioner of the said balance in the principal's and subtacksmen's hands, the same being but a part of his own money, and that what remains may be remitted to be summarily discussed before any competent judicatory, seeing the petitioner demands nothing for his loss of ten years' time and fatigue, as the said petition bears. And, having likewise heard that part of the report of the commission of parliament appointed for stating and examining the public accounts to which the said petition refers, bearing that it being remitted to them to inquire into the arrears of the tack duty of the Lord Belhaven's tack of excise, in the terms of the deliverance of parliament in his favour thereupon, they, before acquainting the parliament of the enquiry they made into that affair, judged it proper to lay before them the foresaid deliverance of parliament in the Lord Belhaven's favour to the end they may see how far it agrees with what they were to report by the parliament of 1698. It was ordered that of what was paid by the Lord Belhaven and his partners of their tack duty to his majesty nothing should be given back, that what more should be found to be uplifted from the country than was paid, either in bonds or money, should be given to his majesty and that the tacksmen should be liable for the same, whether it had been uplifted by them, their subtacksmen or collectors, and the tacksmen are declared no further liable, and that what shall be abated after this manner shall be proportioned amongst the subtacksmen at the sight of the lords of the treasury. That the commission might satisfy the remit of parliament in the terms of this deliverance, all imaginable enquiry has been made and particularly they called the Lord Belhaven's partners, subtacksmen and collectors before them and examined them upon oath as to the extent of their tack duty and collections, and of the payments made by them, either in money or by bonds, and whether there were any promises made or gratifications given for concealments. All these depositions, with all the other instructions and documents relative to this matter, the commission laid before his grace and their lordships wherein they will find: firstly, that the extent of the Lord Belhaven's tack duty of excise for eighteen months amounts to £8,800 sterling. Secondly, that his lordship has paid to the treasury the sum of £58,029 8s 10d sterling. Thirdly, that by several acts of exchequer his lordship had allowed him £4,862 13s 4d sterling as an abatement upon the account of guards, garrisons and manufactories, as is ordinarily given to other tacksmen of the excise. These two last sums, being added together, make £62,892 13s 4d sterling, so that there remains £18,007 17s 10d sterling. If this £18,007 17s 10d sterling had never been uplifted by his lordship, his subtacksmen or collectors, nor any part thereof from the country, then by the foresaid deliverance of parliament in his lordship's favour the whole ought to be allowed. But, by the enquiry the commission have made, they found: firstly, that the tacksmen have intromitted with the sum of £526 11s 10d sterling not as yet accounted for. Secondly, that Thomas Beaton, subtacksman for Fife, has collected the sum of one £159 2s 6d sterling, which he retains in his hands. Thirdly, that William Bernard, subtacksman for East Lothian, retains in his hands £140 11s 11d sterling. Upon the whole, the said commission were of opinion that when these three last sums are paid up there will remain £17,181 11s 7d sterling which, having never been collected or uplifted from the country, ought to be allowed to the Lord Belhaven and partners according to the foresaid deliverance of parliament, together also with a full discharge of their tack duty, as the said report also bears. And her majesty's high commissioner and the said estates of parliament, having fully considered the foresaid petition, with the foresaid report of the commission for public accounts to which it refers, and being therewith well and ripely advised, they discerned and ordained and hereby discern and ordain the £159 2s sterling money in the hands of Thomas Beaton, subtacksman for the shire of Fife, and the £140 11s 11s sterling money in the hands of William Bernard, subtacksman for East Lothian, conforming to the said report, to be paid to the petitioner by the said respective subtacksmen who have them, for refunding so much of the loss and damage represented by the said petition, and recommended and hereby recommend the said petitioner to her majesty's royal bounty for the surplus of the said loss, extending to £2,009 6s 1d sterling money, and ordains letters of horning and all other needful execution to pass upon this decreet in usual form, as appropriate. Extract.
[1705/6/177]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
The article of the report of the said commission relating to [James Douglas], duke of Queensberry's bond lying in the treasury, read, and the petition for his grace also read, craving to be free of annualrents of the said bond and compensation of the principal sum, he being creditor to the public in far greater sums, and the parliament, having considered the said report with the petition, they grant the desire thereof in the terms of the deliverance of parliament upon the said petition, as follows.
[1705/6/178]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
Her majesty's high commissioner and the estates of parliament, having heard the petition of James, duke of Queensberry humbly showing to them that whereas in the years 1694 and 1696 he was necessitated to employ his private credit to borrow £3,000 sterling from the commissaries of the army for paying the troop of horse guards then under his command, the said troop, being then upon the English establishment and their pay not remitted from thence, his bonds were allowed to the commissaries in their accounts to the lords of treasury in 1699 upon his giving bond to their lordships for the said £3,000 sterling and £512 sterling for bygone interest, the petitioner's case was remitted by last sessions of parliament to the commission for public accounts. And his lawyers having made his defences, which are inserted in the report, he shall not trouble his grace and their lordships with repeating them, being well persuaded his grace and their lordships will find agreeable to the laws and practice of this nation to allow him compensation for what he shall be found liable in, since the government is and has been debtor to him of a long time in far more and considerable sums. What the petitioner begs leave further to represent is that, it being evident that the money he borrowed was not for his own private use, but for the service of the troop of guards, and it being well known that the pay of the said troop was not cleared for some years thereafter, and then only by debentures which could not be made effectual without great discount, and further the government being debtor to the petitioner for several years in far greater sums, it appears hard that he should be liable for any annualrents of the sum so borrowed and employed by him. Therefore, craving his grace and their lordships to consider that article of the report from the commission, which concerns the petitioner's bond of £3,512 sterling granted to the lords of treasury in July 1699, and to find that the money advanced to him by the commissaries of the army, which is the original cause of the said bond, not being for his private use but for the service of the troop of guards, and for preventing the disorders that might have happened upon their not being paid, that he ought not to be liable to any interest for the said sum, and find that the petitioner, being creditor to the public for greater sums than the said sum of £3,000 sterling advanced to him by the said commissaries, he ought to have allowance and compensation for the said sum of £3,000 sterling, he discharging the like sum out of the sum of £14,923 12s 2d sterling yet resting to him, and to ordain his bond to be given up and declare him quit and free thereof forever upon his granting a discharge in the terms foresaid, as the said petition bears. And her majesty's said commissioner and the estates of parliament, having likewise heard that part of the report of the said commission of parliament appointed for stating and examining the public accounts which relate to the said affair, bearing that the duke of Queensberry's bond to the treasury, being remitted to the commission and to hear his defences, they had accordingly heard the duke of Queensberry's lawyers on the said defences as to the sums of money borrowed by him from the treasury which, containing several specialities, had straitened them in determining anything against him. Therefore, they presumed to lay his case before the parliament with an account of the most material things that were pleaded for him, that the honourable house might, with the greater ease, give their decision in the matter. The duke of Queensberry in 1698 gave bond to the treasury for £3,512 sterling, made up of the sums borrowed at two several times from Sir Alexander Bruce and Sir George Hamilton, general receivers of the funds of cess and excise, payable to the lords of the treasury, or their successors in office, at Candlemas [2 February] 1699. The duke's lawyers acknowledged the debt but craved compensation in respect that a far greater sum, instantly verified and liquidated, is owing to him by the government, which defence of compensation they pleaded upon the following grounds. Firstly, that compensation in law is equivalent to payment and extinguishes the debt by this law taking place, not only against private subjects, but likewise against the prince, and that both by the civil law and the municipal laws of this kingdom, as by the 141st act of the twelfth parliament, James VI, and likewise, as it was decided in the case of the Lord Maxwell against the king, as is observed by Durie, 19 December 1632. Secondly, that the 14th act of the parliament of 1661 narrates the excise to be granted towards the defraying of the necessary charges of the government according to his majesty's royal pleasure; that the 18th act of the parliament of 1681 continues the same five years after King Charles's death unchanged; that the 2nd act of parliament of 1685 annexes the excise to the crown and bears expressly to be designed for supporting the interest thereof; and that the 28th act of parliament of 1695 transfers the payment of excise from the malt to the liquor, but continues the annexation to the crown and the ends and uses for which the former acts narrated it to have been granted. Thirdly, that the estates of parliament thought fit last year to acquiesce in very great allowances that had been given to [William Douglas], duke of Hamilton, [John Hay], marquis of Tweeddale and [George Melville], earl of Melville, commissioners to the parliament, out of the funds of cess and excise, upon which three grounds the lawyers craved that compensation might be allowed since her majesty had the undoubted disposal of the excise at her pleasure, there having been never as yet any appropriation thereof by a law for the use of the army, and that though the duke's bond does not bear expressly to be borrowed out of the excise yet, since his late majesty King William could have allowed compensation to the duke by virtue of the power he had to dispose of any sum not exceeding the tack duty of the annexed excise, therefore they concluded that her present majesty Queen Anne and the estates of parliament ought, in justice, to allow the same, as the said report also bears. And her majesty's high commissioner and the said estates of parliament, having this day fully considered the foresaid petition with the foresaid report of the commission, and being therewith well and ripely advised, they found and hereby find that there can be no interest due by the foresaid bond for the reason above-mentioned and expressed in the said petition, and that the petitioner ought to have compensation of the sum of £3,000 sterling therein contained upon his discharging the like sum out of the above-specified sum of £14,923 12s 2d sterling due to the petitioner, and ordained and hereby ordain the said bond to be retired and delivered up to the petitioner, and declared and hereby declare him quit and free thereof upon his granting discharge of the said sum of £3,000, in manner represented in the said petition. Extract.
[1705/6/179]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
Article of the report of the commission relating to the bond of £853 2s sterling granted by [Archibald Campbell], late duke of Argyll to the lords of treasury, read and an act thereon made as follows.
Her majesty's high commissioner and the estates of parliament, having considered the report of the commission of parliament appointed for stating and examining the public accounts relating to the bond granted by the late duke of Argyll to the lords of treasury, bearing that they needed not resume to the parliament the case of the late duke of Argyll and the defences proposed by his lawyers upon his bond for £800 sterling, these being the same with those proposed for the duke of Queensberry, only they must represent to his grace and their lordships one speciality in the duke of Argyll's bond, which is his oblidgement either to pay the said £800 sterling to the lords of the treasury and their successors in the office or to procure a letter from King William for allowing the same to him, which letter the commission did find his grace procured from her majesty Queen Anne in 1703. And having also considered the following letter directed by her majesty to the lords of treasury and the bond itself, which is in these terms: that if between then and 15 September 1696 and 1 April next thereafter, his grace did not procure and deliver to the said lords his majesty's letter or warrant for delivering up to his grace the said bond without repayment of the said sum, then he obliged himself, his heirs and successors, to pay and refund the same. And his grace, having in February 1703 obtained her majesty's letter authorising and requiring the said lords to state the account of arrears due to his grace of pay and clothing, and to deliver up to the said duke the said bond of £853 2s sterling, and to take his receipt as so much paid to him on account of his said arrears of pay and clothing, and her majesty's high commissioner and the said estates, being well advised with the foresaid report, letter and bond, they recommended and hereby recommend to the lords of treasury to give up and discharge the said bond upon their getting a valid discharge of the sum of £853 2s sterling as a part of the arrears due to the deceased duke of Argyll.
[1705/6/180]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
The article of the report of the commission relating to the hearth-money collected by the deceased [James Melville], laird of Cassingray, read and considered, and an act thereon made as follows.
Her majesty's high commissioner and the estates of parliament, having heard that article of the report of the commission of parliament appointed for stating and examining the public accounts relating to the hearth-money collected by the deceased laird of Cassingray, bearing that, by the minutes of parliament dated 16 August 1704, it being remitted to the commission to inquire into the balance of the hearth-money, they found that when the deceased laird of Cassingray made up his accounts with the lords of the treasury he had a balance in his hands extending to £7,368 Scots. But since that time, they found that he and [David Leslie/Melville], earl of Leven paid the same according to the treasury's orders for the ends and uses to which the hearth-money was granted by the parliament, except as to the sum of £432 Scots, which they had allowed [John Hamilton], lord Belhaven to retain in his hands in part payment of his own arrears, so that this balance has been fully accounted for and the documents thereof are lying before his grace and their lordships, as the said report bears. And her majesty's high commissioner and the said estates of parliament, having fully considered the said article of the foresaid report, and being therewith well and ripely advised, they approved and hereby approve thereof and recommended and hereby recommend to the lords of treasury who are hereby authorised to discharge the heirs of the said Cassingray and to give up the bond wherein he and his cautioner stand bound for the said hearth-money. Extract.
[1705/6/181]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
Article of the report of the commission relating to Sir Alexander Bruce of Broomhall and partners, their advances to the army upon the accounts mentioned in the report, and the petition for the said Sir Alexander Bruce, read, and the parliament, having considered the said report with the petition, they find the petitioner creditor to the public in the sums and manner as is contained in the deliverance of parliament upon the said petition, which is as follows.
Her majesty's high commissioner and the estates of parliament, having heard that article of the report of the commission of parliament appointed for stating and examining the public accounts relating to Sir Alexander Bruce of Broomhall and partners, their advances to the army upon the account mentioned in the said report, which bears that by the minutes of parliament dated 23 August 1704, it being remitted to the said commission to consider Sir Alexander Bruce of Broomhall's petition craving payment of his disbursements for the army, they found that Sir Alexander Bruce and his partners did enter into a contract with the lords of the treasury wherein they were not obliged to forage any troops but such as were upon the Scots establishment, yet notwithstanding thereof they foraged the troop of horse guards and [Thomas Livingston], lord Teviot's regiment of dragoons, both being upon the English establishment at that time, which Sir Alexander claims he did at the desire of the lords of the treasury, though he has not instructed the same by any written order. They found also that whereas their lordships of the parliament in the last session thereof were pleased to acquiesce in considerable allowances given to other commissaries as poundage for extraneous precepts paid out of the cess and excise otherwise than for the use of the army, yet Sir Alexander never got any allowance for these extraneous precepts notwithstanding, as he claims, he had no other salary or advantage than the poundage he expected out of the cess and excise. He claims, likewise, some consideration upon the account of his foraging the troop of guards at that time attending the parliament which was, likewise, granted to other commissaries and allowed by the parliament the last session thereof, and upon the whole the commission observed that though Sir Alexander might possibly have been at considerable loss by reason of his exceeding the terms of his contract with the lords of the treasury, yet it depends upon the parliament to judge whether or not they will favour him with the same allowances that were granted to others, as the said report bears. And having also heard the petition of the said Sir Alexander Bruce, [George Baillie of] Jerviswood and partners humbly showing to them that the last session of parliament did remit to the honourable commissioners for public accounts a petition presented by them touching certain disbursements of the petitioner's for the army, that in pursuance of that remit the commissioners have proceeded to inquire into the state of that affairs and to examine what these disbursements did amount to, with grounds whereupon the same are founded and the proofs and evidences thereof, as appears by the minutes of their procedure in the same, that they have also framed and printed a short report relating to the same, therefore, humbly begging that his grace and their lordships would take the said affair into their consideration and, after having examined the relevancy and truth of the petitioner's pretensions as has been made appear before the said honourable commissioners, they would, in their justice, take some such course as the petitioner may be paid of the same, as the petition foresaid also bears. And her majesty's said commissioner and the said estates of parliament, having fully considered the foresaid report of the commission of parliament anent Sir Alexander Bruce's claims with the foresaid petition relative thereto, they found and hereby find that there is due and resting to the said Sir Alexander the sum of £536 sterling for his foraging the troop of guards with hard meat during the parliament of 1695. As also, modified and hereby modify the sum of £1,000 sterling to be paid to the said Sir Alexander Bruce as due to him for his losses in foraging the troop of guards and regiment of dragoons commanded by the viscount of Teviot, and for the poundage of extraneous precepts in respect the said Sir Alexander had no poundage for the said troops upon English pay, extending the said sums for which the said Sir Alexander is found creditor to the sum of £1,536 sterling and that in satisfaction of Sir Alexander's whole claims above-mentioned expressed in the said report and petition.
[1705/6/182]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
Moved that a gratuity should be given to the members of the commission of parliament, namely [Charles Murray], earl of Dunmore, Mr William Seton [of Pitmedden], Mr John Clerk [of Penicuik], Mr Dougald Stewart [of Blairhall] and Mr Robert Fraser, for their pains and attendance in auditing and examining the public accounts since the last session of parliament. Agreed to, that each of the forenamed persons shall have £200 sterling paid to them for their said pains and attendance, and that out of any sure fund as the same shall hereafter occur. Agreed likewise that Walter Riddell, clerk to the said commission, for his pains and attendance on the said committee shall have £50 sterling paid to him.
Moved that in regard no sure fund does at present appear out of which the above-named persons can receive ready payment of their respective sums, that, therefore, the estates of parliament should recommend them to her majesty that she may order the said payments in the way and manner her royal wisdom shall judge most proper, which motion was agreed to accordingly.
Agreed that the article of the report of the commission relating to the poll-money collected by [William Cochrane of] Ferguslie, and the petition given in by George Preston be first under consideration next sederunt of parliament.
[1705/6/183]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
The article of the report of the commission relating to Major James Cunningham of Aiket, read, and the petition for the said Major James Cunningham also read, and he preferred to a certain sum as contained in the deliverance of parliament upon his petition, which is as follows.
Her majesty's high commissioner and the estates of parliament, having heard the petition of Major James Cunningham of Aiket, humbly showing to them that where the petitioner having applied the last session of parliament for payment of arrears due to himself of personal pay and money advanced to his company and several officers therein, who were in a bad condition for want of their subsistence, and they, being in such circumstances as the petitioner thought discreditable to the service, they being then posted in that part of the highlands that had not then submitted to the government, the petitioner advanced to them out of his own private stock for their subsistence £270 sterling, and by a particular minute of parliament all officers who went to Caledonia were to be preferred to all other officers out of the funds for their arrears and company's subsistence, and having instructed his claim to the commission of parliament and by them recommended to his grace and honourable estates of parliament in their report; the petitioner is encouraged by the great compassion the parliament showed in not suffering Sir William Menzies [of Gladstains], who was indebted to the government to be ruined, so the petitioner hopes they will as little suffer a creditor to it to be ruined who, out of affection thereto, advanced it in the service of the government. Therefore, craving his grace and honourable estates of parliament that, seeing the petitioner is one that with the first went to Caledonia and being remitted to the commission of parliament with a preference to all other officers who went not there, to take his case so under consideration as that his affection to his country may not be the occasion of the ruin of his family, and to appoint a sure fund for payment of the said £270 instructed advanced by him to his said company, as said is, as the said petition bears. And her majesty's said commissioner and the estates of parliament, having also heard the report of the commission of parliament appointed for stating and examining the public accounts relating to the foresaid petition, bearing that by the minutes of parliament dated 23 August 1704 a petition for the said Major James Cunningham, with several other petitions from the officers of the army therein named, anent their arrears being remitted to the said commission, they were sorry that it did not lie in their power to take such a regard to these honourable officers' names† as their services to their country did justly deserve, for there being no funds for their payment, the commission presumed to recommend them to his grace and their lordships that they might consider their circumstances and provide for their relief. Amongst these officers, the commission were in a special manner obliged to consider Major Cunningham of Aiket's case in regard the parliament, by their minutes of the same date, appointed the officers who went to Caledonia should have preference out of the respective funds in which they are concerned. Wherefore, seeing Major Cunningham served in [John Cunningham], earl of Glencairn's regiment as a captain at the revolution, and had a right to the poll-money of 1693 for payment of his arrears, therefore, the commission had already allowed him £140 12s sterling in part payment of what is owing him out of that proportion of the poll-money which they had allotted to the earl of Glencairn's regiment, and were of opinion, when all the money comes in, the major must be allowed full payment of his arrears according to the tenor of the parliament's remit in favour of those who went to Caledonia, as the said report also bears. And her majesty's commissioner and the said estates, having fully considered the said petition with the foresaid report of the commission of parliament thereto relating, and being therewith well and ripely advised, they preferred and hereby prefer the petitioner to the above £270 sterling out of what is remaining of the poll-money of 1693, in the collectors' and subcollectors' hands, and ordained and hereby ordain the collectors and subcollectors in whose hands the same is, to pay the same to him out of the first of the dividend of that poll belonging to the earl of Glencairn's regiment.
[1705/6/184]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
The article of the report of the commission anent Sir George Hamilton, late commissary of the army, read, and the petition for the said Sir George also read and he recommended to the lords of treasury as contained in the deliverance of parliament upon his petition, which is as follows.
Her majesty's high commissioner and the estates of parliament, having heard the report of the commission of parliament appointed for stating and examining the public accounts, bearing that by the minutes of parliament dated 23 August 1704, it being remitted to the commission to consider Sir George Hamilton's petition craving payment of bygone salaries due to him, the commission found that Sir George Hamilton was appointed commissary and general receiver by a commission under the great seal dated 5 January 1691, with a salary of £600 sterling per annum, which commission bears an express clause that Sir George should continue in the office until it should be recalled, which did not happen until the beginning of the year 1697, whereby he justly claims five years' salary, as the said report bears. And having also heard the petition of the said Sir George Hamilton of Tulliallan, humbly showing to them that upon the petitioner's application to their lordships last session of parliament, craving payment of the bygone salaries due to him as general receiver of the funds of supply and inland excise and paymaster general of the army for the years mentioned in his petition, he obtained a deliverance thereon remitting his case to be considered by the commission appointed for auditing the public accounts, with power to them to determine therein as they should find just, the petitioner did apply to their lordships and did exhibit before them his ground of claim. And after consideration had thereof by them, they found that he has a just claim for five years' salary at £600 sterling per annum, as the commissions report, page nine does bear. But the commission having no funds before them out of which they could appoint payment to the petitioner, he is necessitated again to apply to his grace and the estates of parliament and, therefore, humbly beseeching his grace and their lordships, not only to approve of the commissioners' report stating the petitioner creditor in the terms thereof, but also to appoint him payment of his said credit in the way and manner and out of such funds as his grace and their lordships should think proper, as the said petition also bears. And her majesty's high commissioner and the said estates of parliament, having fully considered the said report of the commission for auditing the public accounts with the foresaid petition, and being therewith well and ripely advised, they recommended and hereby recommend the petitioner to the lords of her majesty's treasury for payment of what is due to him for the cause above-written during the time of his service, to be instructed before the lords of treasury.
[1705/6/185]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
The article of the report of the commission relating to John Campbell of Knockrioch and partners their collection of the poll of 1695, read, and the petition for the said John Campbell and partners also read, and he recommended to the lords of treasury as contained in the deliverance of parliament on his petition, in manner following.
Her majesty's high commissioner and the estates of parliament, having heard that article of the report of the commission of parliament appointed for stating and examining the public accounts relating to John Campbell of Knockrioch and partners, their collection of the poll of 1695, bearing that by the minutes of parliament dated 23 August 1704, the account of the poll-money of 1695 being remitted to the commission as to the three articles not determined by the parliament, namely the article of the embezzlements of collectors extending to £16,596 Scots, the article of the quadruples of the army extending to £17,760 Scots and the article of £6,000 Scots as the poll of the episcopal clergy, they the said commission did find by the tacksman John Campbell of Knockrioch's oath, and by other instructions, that these embezzlements cannot be further extended than to £14,842 Scots. As to the second article, they found by considering the establishment of the forces for that year, that the quadruples of the army could amount to no more than £13,456 Scots, and that the third article, namely the poll of episcopal clergy, could not exceed £3,000 Scots, the half of what is stated. Upon the whole matter, the commission did represent to the parliament that, since by the minutes of the last session of parliament, they were pleased to allow these articles to the tacksman John Campbell when instructed before the said commission, therefore, it follows, that by what the commission did represent to the parliament in their last year's report, and by what they have now represented, the public will be debtor to the tacksman in the sum of £4,922 Scots, as the said report bears. And having also heard the petition of the said John Campbell and his partners, tacksmen of the poll of 1695, humbly showing to her majesty's said commissioner and the estates of parliament that by the report from the commission of parliament to whom the enquiring into the said poll was remitted, it is clear that the petitioners have paid the full tack duty and that the public are debtor to them in £4,922 Scots, wherefore the petitioner and partners ought not only to be discharged, but the sum due to them ought to be stated as a public debt and their tack to be delivered up to them, and therefore, craving his grace and honourable estates of parliament to recommend to the lords of her majesty's treasury and exchequer to grant the petitioner and partners a sufficient discharge of the said tack, and deliver up the same to them and to state the foresaid sum as a debt due to the petitioner and his partners by the public, as the said petition also bears. And her majesty's said commissioner and the said estates of parliament, having fully considered the said petition with the foresaid report of the commission for public accounts, and being therewith well and ripely advised, they found and hereby find that the petitioners have paid the full tack duty of the poll of 1695, and that the public are debtors to them in £4,922 Scots and, therefore, recommended and hereby recommend the petitioners to the lords of her majesty's treasury to grant the petitioner and partners a sufficient discharge of the said tack and deliver up the same to them, and to state the foresaid sum of £4,922 as a debt due to the petitioners by the public. Extract.
[1705/6/186]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
Petition for Mr Charles Campbell, read, and a stay of personal execution granted to him in the terms of the deliverance of parliament upon his said petition, which is as follows.
At Edinburgh, 14 and 18 September 1705, her majesty's high commissioner and the estates of parliament, having heard the petition of Captain Charles Campbell, humbly showing to them that where the petitioner having last session of parliament represented that there was £600 sterling of arrears and others due to him by the public, conforming to particular instructions given in thereof, his grace and the high court of parliament were pleased to sustain the justice of his claim, and ordered him £100 sterling to account, and there being £500 sterling still resting, the want of which these several years bypast has run the petitioner in debt and put his affairs in disorder, which may incapacitate him to appear in public if not prevented by his grace's and their lordships' compassion and bounty. And seeing the petitioner, for the more easy accommodating his business, is willing to accept at present what part for his present necessity their lordships shall think fit and, in case their lordships' bounty will extend to the whole, he shall then discharge the public, craving therefore, his grace and their lordships to take the petitioner's circumstances to consideration and, for relief thereof, to order him payment of such a sum as their goodness and wisdom should think fit, and that out of some sure fund in being or to be imposed and, until the same be made effectual, to suspend all legal diligence against his person, as the said petition bears. And her majesty's high commissioner and the estates of parliament, having on the said 14 September heard and considered the said petition read in their presence, they recommended and hereby recommend the petitioner to the lords commissioners of her majesty's treasury for payment of £100 sterling, in part payment of his bygone arrears, out of what fund they shall think most effectual and ordained all parties concerned to see and answer that part of the petition craving a stay of legal diligence against the first sederunt of parliament the then next week. And having again on 18 September again heard and considered that part of the said petition, craving a stay of legal diligence, and there being no answers made thereto by his creditors, they granted and hereby grant to the petitioner a stay of all legal diligence against his person for any debts due by him to his creditors, until the petitioner is repaid of the arrears due to him as an officer of the army. Extract.
[1705/6/187]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
Article of the report of the commission relating to John Drummond and James Dunlop, late general receivers, read, and the petition for them also read, and they recommended to the lords of treasury for the ends contained in the deliverance of parliament upon their petition, as follows.
Her majesty's high commissioner and the estates of parliament, having heard the petition of John Drummond and James Dunlop, late general receivers, humbly showing to them that where by the first report of the commission of parliament appointed for stating and examining of the public accounts, presented in the last session of parliament, there was found very considerable sums due to the petitioners by the government, as appears by the observations on the first, second and sixth accounts contained in the foresaid report. Whereupon, the petitioners presented to the same session of parliament a petition craving payment of the balance due to them, which was then read and remitted to the foresaid commission to consider the petitioners' case and determine therein, as the minutes of 23 August 1704 bear. In compliance with which remit the foresaid commission, upon 5 September the foresaid year of 1704, did give power and commission to the petitioners to collect and bring in the articles of rests of excise and supply mentioned in the foresaid observations of the said commission upon the second, fourth and seventh accounts, and also to uplift the fractions of cess therein specified, with power to them to pursue those liable in payment, and to use all manner of diligence for the same, they always holding account to the commission for their intromissions, as their act at Edinburgh, the foresaid 5 September 1704 bears. Upon which act and commission, the petitioners made their report and account to the foresaid commission of parliament who, in their second report now presented to the parliament and in the fourteenth page thereof, do declare the sums intromitted with by the petitioners and uplifted since the last session of parliament and stated in an account produced with the said report, do extend to £1,600 Scots or thereby, which they have allowed the petitioners to retain. And still find that there is a very considerable balance owing to them by the government, as also that many of these very sums of dues of cess and excise having been assigned to the petitioners by the lords of treasury for their payment, they were recommended to them by the parliament, as the foresaid minutes of 23 August bear. And now seeing that the foresaid sums due to the petitioners are clearly stated and, in effect, very considerable so that they are in hazard to be utterly ruined and undone, and that it appears most reasonable that the recommendation and remit formerly granted by the parliament should be prosecuted according to the opinion and second report of the foresaid commission exhibited to the parliament, as said is, craving therefore, his grace and the high and honourable court of parliament to consider the matter and to grant to the petitioners full power and commission for to uplift from the collectors and tacksmen of the foresaid dues of excise and cess, whatever may be resting in their hands and, if need be, to use all diligence against them and their cautioners whereunto they are liable by law and to apply what they shall recover for their own payment, they being always liable to make account and reckoning to the foresaid commission of parliament for their said intromission and receipts, as the said petition bears. And having also heard the report of the said commission of parliament appointed for stating and examining the public accounts relative thereto, bearing that, by the minutes of parliament dated 25 August 1705, the account of what is resting to the public of the cess, excise, hearth-money, poll-money and tunnage since the year 1698 to the year 1701, had been read, and the first three articles had been remitted to the commission to inquire if those who were receivers at that time had received these balances, and that they could not find, by any enquiry they had made, that those who were receivers at that time had ever got up the dues of the supply and excise mentioned by them in their former report in those first three articles, but they had given warrant to John Drummond and James Dunlop to uplift the same and, accordingly, John Drummond and James Dunlop had written to the several shires and burghs given up to them as debtors, from most of which they never received any answer, and such as returned answer did represent that those who were commissioners of supply or collectors at the time when the debt was due, were either dead, altered or bankrupt and that, after three years, the shires were not obliged to produce discharges conforming to act of parliament. The commission had been very tender in allowing the said John Drummond and James Dunlop to quarter upon the shires and burghs deficient, that having been remitted principally to the lords of the treasury, but they represented to his grace and the parliament that though by law heritors in shires and burghs are not obliged to produce discharges after three years, nor can be quartered upon after that time, yet the collectors who received payment from the heritors are always liable, and the commission believed that this is the case of many shires and burghs of the kingdom, wherefore the honourable estates of parliament might be pleased to consider how these dues might be made effectual, since, according to the last report of the commission, these appear to be very considerable. As for the sums intromitted with by the said John Drummond and James Dunlop and uplifted since the last session of parliament, they were in an account produced with the said report and the commission had allowed them to retain the said sums, extending to £1,600 or thereby, in their hands, until such time as a very considerable balance owing them by the government be paid, many of these very sums of dues of cess and excise, having been assigned to them by the lords of treasury for their payment, and they recommended to the commission by the parliament's last minutes of 23 August, as the said report of the commission also fully bears. And her majesty's said commissioner and estates of parliament, having considered the said petition with the report of the commission above-written relative thereto, and that there are considerable sums due to the petitioner, they recommended and hereby recommend them to the lords of her majesty's treasury to grant to the said petitioners power and commission to prosecute the collectors and tacksmen of the foresaid dues of cess and excise, for whatever may be due in their hands and, if need be, to prosecute their cautioners and to apply what they shall so recover for their payment of what is owing to them, they always being liable to account and reckon to the said lords of treasury for their intromissions, reserving to all concerned their lawful defences as appropriate. Extract.
[1705/6/188]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
Article of the report of the commission relating to Captain John Slezer, read, and the petition for the said captain also read, and he recommended to the lords of treasury in the terms of the deliverance of parliament upon his petition, and that part of the petition craving a stay of personal execution ordained to be seen and answered by his creditors against the next sederunt.
Her majesty's high commissioner and the estates of parliament, having heard the petition of Captain John Slezer, humbly showing to them that the petitioner's representation last session of parliament, having been remitted to the commission for enquiring into the public accounts, the petitioner's several pretensions have been stated and examined before the committee of the said commission and, when the report thereof comes to be made to his grace and the parliament, it will appear that there is due to the petitioner of personal clearance, from 1696 to 1700, the sum of £265 sterling. Item, of retention of clothing due to him from July 1698 to December 1700, the sum of £326 sterling, upon the faith of which the petitioner has twice clothed the artillery company. Item, there is due to him a balance of £166 sterling for fitting out the train of artillery, and it will likewise be found that, by a mistake between the establishment and the petitioner's commission, there has been 4s sterling per day stopped off his current pay, which stoppages extend to £337 sterling. The committee, having likewise examined the progress made by the petitioner in his Scotia Illustrata they find the same to be nearly finished and that he is £630 sterling out of pocket on this account, having relied on the faith of an act of parliament which was passed in his favour. All which does appear more particularly by the minutes of the foresaid committee. In the meantime, the petitioner's circumstances are so hard that if not speedily relieved he must sink under them and be utterly ruined and, therefore, craving his grace and the honourable estates of parliament to fall on some effectual method for relieving the petitioner from the foresaid public engagement he lies under, and since the tunnage which the petitioner had formerly some share in is exhausted or otherwise appropriated, that it might likewise please the honourable estates of parliament to appoint to him, out of the readiest of any other sure fund, what the commission of parliament has found due to him and, in the meantime, grant a stay of all execution against his person that he may be in condition to attend his charge and her majesty's service until the foresaid fund be made effectual to him, as the said petition, on the end whereof is written a copy of the after mentioned report of the commission, and another copy of an attested duplicate of the report of the committee for trade, fully bears. And having also heard the article of the report of the said commission of parliament appointed for examining and stating the public accounts relating to Captain John Slezer, petitioner, bearing that by the minutes of parliament dated 25 August 1704, it being remitted to the commission to consider the memorial given in by Mr Slezer, as to him they represented to the parliament that there is due to him for his arrears for clothing money and other engagements for the public, £1,090 sterling and, likewise, that upon the faith of an act of parliament he has been at no less charges than £630 sterling upon his book Scotia Illustrata, as will appear more particularly by the minutes of their committee dated the [...] day of [...], wherefore he depended upon the justice and clemency of the parliament to assist him as the great straits he is reduced to do require, as the said report of the commission also fully bears. And her majesty's high commissioner [and estates of parliament], having fully considered the said petition and being therewith well and ripely advised, they recommended and hereby recommend to the lords commissioners of her majesty's treasury to cause pay the petitioner such a sum toward the satisfaction of his expenses and arrears above-mentioned, and out of such funds of the public money as they find just, and ordained his creditors to answer as to the stay of execution demanded against the next sitting of parliament.
[1705/6/189]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
Ratification in favour of Bisset of Lessendrum, read and approved in parliament, and is as follows.
Our sovereign lady, with the special advice and consent of the estates of parliament, ratifies, approves and perpetually confirms a charter under her majesty's great seal, proceeding on a signature of the date at Kensington, 24 June 1698, granted by the deceased King William, with consent of his commissioners of the treasury and exchequer for the time, upon the resignation of Robert Bisset of Lessendrum, to and in favour of the said Robert, in liferent, and to Alexander Bisset, his eldest lawful son, and his other male heirs and of tailzie therein mentioned, which failing his heirs and assignees whatsoever, in fee heritably and irredeemably, under the provisions, restrictions, reservations and irritancies therein-specified, of all and whole the lands and others underwritten, that is to say all and entire the lands and davach of lands of Lessendrum, containing the town and lands particularly after-mentioned, namely the town and lands called the Mains of Lessendrum, with the manor place, houses, biggings, yards, tofts, crofts, parts, pendicles and pertinents of the same; the town and lands called the Overton of Lessendrum, the loan descending to the water of Divves,† with the privilege of the said loan according to the possession of the tenants and possessors of the said lands of Overston; and also all and whole the lands called the Leys of Lessendrum; the town and lands of Crichie; the town and lands of Knightsmill, with the mill thereof, mill lands, astricted multures, sucken and knaveships of the same, together with all and sundry houses, biggings, yards, tofts, crofts, parts, pendicles, annexes, connexes and pertinents of the foresaid davach of the said lands of Lessendrum, and particular towns and lands therein contained and above-expressed, lying within the barony of Drumblade and sheriffdom of Aberdeen, of old bounded and formerly united in a tenantry, in manner mentioned in the said charter. And also, of all and whole the town and lands of the Kirkton of Drumblade, with the mill thereof, mill lands, astricted multures and knaveships of the same, together with the houses, biggings, yards, tofts, crofts, parts, pendicles and pertinents thereof, together also with the privilege of peat moss and of casting and winning of peat and fuel within the bounds of the middle third part of the lands of Camalegie,† and transporting the same; and also all and whole the superiority and property of the two part of the lands of Bogie's hill, with the mills, mill lands and pertinents of the same; and likewise of the two part of the lands of Stanyfield,† and third part of the lands of Wedderburn, and third part of the lands of Thomeston, tenants, tenantries and service of free tenants, with the pertinents, whereof the property formerly belonged to William Troup of Balnacraig, and now pertains to the said Robert Bisset, lying within the said barony of Drumblade and sheriffdom of Aberdeen foresaid. Of all which lands and others above-written, the rights and securities granted to the said Robert Bisset and his foresaids, and to their authors and predecessors, are confirmed by the said charter, which contains also a new gift or disposition of the said whole lands and others above and therein-mentioned, with the privilege of keeping two yearly fairs at the said Kirktoun of Drumblade, one thereof to begin upon the second Tuesday of May, called St Agnes fair,† and the other on the second Tuesday of October, called St Michael's fair, ordaining each of the said fairs to continue three days, with power to the said Robert, and his foresaids, to uplift the tolls and customs thereof, and a disjunction of all the said lands and others foresaid from all other baronies to which they or any part thereof were formerly united, with a union and erection of the same whole lands, towns, mills and others above-written, with the pertinents and the said two yearly fairs, in a whole and free barony to be called, in all time coming, the barony of Lessendrum, ordaining the manor place of Lessendrum to be the principal messuage thereof and one sasine to be taken thereat, or at any other part of the said lands, to be sufficient for the whole, to be held of his majesty and his successors, in manner mentioned in the said charter, whereby the ward, non-entry and relief of the said lands and marriage of the heir or heirs, one or more, when the same shall fall, are given and conveyed, with all the profits of the said marriages, to the male heirs, assignees and successors of the said Robert and Alexander Bisset, succeeding to them in the lands, barony and others foresaid, by virtue of the tailzie and substitution expressed in the said charter. And it is ordained that whenever and as often as the lands and others foresaid, or any part of the same, shall fall in ward and non-entry and that the relief and marriage of the heirs and successors shall fall in the hands of his majesty or his successors, that then and as often the said male heirs, successors and assignees of the said Robert and Alexander Bisset and their tenants for the time shall not only possess the same during the whole space of the ward and non-entry, with the whole profits thereof and the whole benefit of the relief and marriage, but also it shall be lawful to the male heirs and other successors and assignees of the said Robert and Alexander Bisset to obtain themselves served, retoured, entered, infeft and seised at any time of their age, even though in minority, without any dispensation, in the lands and others foresaid erected in manner above-mentioned, notwithstanding the same are held ward, for payment yearly at two terms Whitsunday [15 May] and Martinmas [11 November] by equal portions of the sum of £190 Scots money for the ward and non-entry, or any of them when they shall happen, and of the like sum for the relief, with the sum of £380 for the said marriage or marriages of the heir or heirs, when the same respectively shall happen to fall, which several sums his majesty, with consent foresaid did, by the said charter, esteem reasonable for the values and profits of the said ward, non-entry, relief and marriage respectively, in manner fully expressed by the said charter, together with the precept of sasine therein contained and instrument of sasine following thereupon, in all and sundry heads, articles, clauses, provisions and conditions of the same. And her majesty, with consent of the estates of parliament, wills and grants and, for her and her royal successors, statutes and ordains, that the foresaid charter and infeftment to follow thereon shall be good, valid and sufficient rights, conforming to the tenors of the same, to the said Robert and Alexander Bisset, and the male heirs and other heirs, successors and assignees mentioned in the foresaid charter, for possessing and enjoying the towns, lands and others particularly above and therein mentioned erected as is above-written, without stop or impediment, in so far as concerns the interest of her majesty or her successors, and that the same shall never be quarrelled by her or them in time coming, and also that this present general ratification is and shall be as effectual and sufficient to the said Robert and Alexander Bisset and the male heirs, and other heirs, successors and assignees mentioned in the said charter, as if the sasine thereon were already taken, and as if the same charter and sasine were word by word inserted herein, with the not inserting whereof and with all other objections that may be proposed against the validity of this present ratification or rights hereby ratified, her majesty, with consent foresaid, hereby dispenses forever. Extract.
Then the lord chancellor, by order of her majesty's high commissioner, adjourned the parliament until Friday next at 10 o'clock.