[1706/10/27]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
Prayers said. Rolls called.
[James Ogilvy, earl of Seafield], lord high chancellor, represented to the parliament that he was directed by the lords of her majesty's privy council to acquaint the parliament that, upon occasion of a rabble and tumult that happened in Edinburgh upon Wednesday's night last by which several members of parliament were threatened and insulted, the lords of privy council had, for security of the members of parliament and peace of the town, brought in a part of the foot guards to the town of Edinburgh, and had issued forth a proclamation against such tumultuary meetings in the terms of several acts of parliament.
[1706/10/28]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
Whereupon, and after some reasoning, a proposition was made in these terms: that the estates of parliament, being sensible of the care and concern of the lords of privy council to suppress the late tumult and mob and to secure the quiet and safety of the parliament that, therefore, they should return to their lordships the thanks of the parliament and should recommend to my lord high commissioner and the privy council to continue their care for the safety and security of the parliament and the peace and quiet of the town. Which being read, after some discourse thereupon, it was moved that the proclamation of privy council should be read, and the same being accordingly read, the earl of Erroll, lord high constable, gave in a protestation in the following terms: that he for himself, and in name of such as should adhere to his protestation, protested that the continuing of standing forces within the town of Edinburgh and keeping guard with them in the parliament close and other places within the town the time of parliament, as at present is done, is contrary to the right of his office as high constable by which he has the only privilege of guarding the parliament without doors, as the Earl Marischal has within doors, and is an encroachment on the rights and privileges of parliament and on the particular rights and privileges of the town of Edinburgh; and if any vote shall pass contrary to his said right or the rights of the Earl Marischal, or rights and privileges of parliament or the town of Edinburgh, that it shall not, in any time hereafter, prejudice the same or be in any way drawn in consequence, and he desired the said protestation to be inserted in the minutes and recorded in the books of parliament. Which protestation, being read, the said earl of Erroll did take instruments thereupon, and [James Douglas], duke of Hamilton, [John Murray], duke of Atholl, [William Johnston], marquis of Annandale, [William Keith], earl Marischal, [John Fleming], earl of Wigtown, [John Lyon], earl of Strathmore, [Charles Hamilton Douglas], earl of Selkirk, [Alexander Bruce], earl of Kincardine, [David Murray], viscount of Stormont, [William Livingston], viscount of Kilsyth, [Francis Sempill], lord Sempill, [Patrick Oliphant], lord Oliphant, [John Elphinstone], lord Balmerino, [Walter Stewart], lord Blantyre, [William Hamilton], lord Bargany, [John Hamilton], lord Belhaven, [Robert Colville], lord Colville [of Ochiltree] and [Patrick Kinnaird], lord Kinnaird, George Lockhart of Carnwath, Sir James Foulis of Colinton, Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun, John Brisbane, younger of Bishopton, William Cochrane of Kilmaronock, John Stewart of Kinwhinleck, John Graham of Killearn, James Graham of Buchlyvie, Robert Rollo of Powhouse, Sir Patrick Murray of Ochtertyre, John Murray of Strowan, Sir Thomas Burnett of Leys, Alexander Gordon of Pitlurg, James Moir of Stoneywood, Mr Patrick Lyon of Auchterhouse, David Graham of Fintry, James Ogilvie, younger of Boyne, Alexander MacKie of Palgowan, Mr James Dunbar, younger of Hempriggs, George MacKenzie of Inchculter, Alexander Robertson [of Craig], Alexander Edgar, Alexander Duff [of Drummuir], Francis Mollison, Robert Kellie, Mr William Sutherland, Archibald Shiells, Mr John Lyon, Mr John Carruthers [of Denbie], Mr James Beaton [of Balfour], George Home, John Bain [of Tulloch] and Mr Robert Fraser adhered thereto.
And, after some further debate upon the said proposition, a vote was stated, approve thereof or not, but it being objected that the same consisted of two distinct articles, the one approving what was done and the other recommending to the privy council to continue their care, which ought to be separately considered and voted, the vote was thereupon stated, whether the said proposition should be voted jointly or separately.
But before voting, upon a motion made by the commissioners for the town of Edinburgh, it was agreed to that it should be without prejudice of the said town of Edinburgh's rights and privileges by their charters. Then the vote was put jointly or separately and it carried jointly.
Thereafter the vote was put, approve of the proposition or not and it carried approve.