[A1706/10/36]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
To his grace her majesty's high commissioner and right honourable the estates of parliament,
Robert Martin of Burntbrae, late tacksman of the additional inland excise in the shire of Aberdeen imposed by act of parliament in 1693,
Humbly shows,
Whereas by my petition presented to your grace and the honourable estates in 1703 I showed that where upon my entry to the said tack I met with certain discouragements and difficulties, by reason of edicts printed and published in that shire, whereof I do only here take notice for your grace's and lordships' information, but without any design of complaining upon the makers thereof, by which edicts, declaring the 3d upon the pint to be no better then 20s upon the boll, and discharging the brewers of the non-entries they had incurred, I was prejudiced to that degree in the subject of my tack that I could not make up the duty without my infallible loss and ruin. Which case being brought before the lords of his majesty's privy council, their lordships did find that I had sustained the aforesaid damages, but thought fit to absolve the commissioners of the shire and only to recommend it to their care to see the same made up if possible between then and 10 September then ensuing, which day was purposely set that in case of my disappointment in the shire, which truly happened by reason of the change and break of brewers, I might have my recourse to the parliament which was then to meet on 8 September. Which recourse I accordingly made and thereupon obtained an act of parliament dated 8 October 1696, wherein, having laid forth my damages to the parliament's satisfaction, they recommended me to the late king for reparation of my losses in such way and manner as his majesty in his royal bounty should think fit, as the said act of parliament herewith produced bears. Upon which recommendation, and especially on this ground that the principal tacksman had advanced and accounted for the whole tack duty without any abatement upon my said account, I, having petitioned his majesty, obtained his gracious letter to the lords of his majesty's treasury, requiring them to examine and take trial of my said losses, and to report that his majesty might signify his further pleasure therein, as a duplicate of the said letter (whereof the principal is in the treasury) dated 1 March 1699 bears. Which letter being presented to their lordships, they were pleased to examine my accounts of my intromission with the said excise, by which it appeared that I fell short of my tack duty in the sum of £10,939 as my loss, for which I was recommended by the parliament to his majesty. And thereupon the said lords of treasury found that I had sustained damages in the prosecution of my said tack upon the grounds mentioned in the report, and therefore they did again lay my losses before his majesty to be repaired in such manner and way as he in his royal bounty should think fit, as their report of the date 3 April 1699 herewith produced bears. Which report, being accordingly laid before his majesty and his majesty being also informed that the fund upon which the said losses were sustained was fully accounted for and I left under legal diligence and distress, his majesty, by his second letter, dated 19 April 1701, thought fit to remit the matter to the care of the lords of the treasury, authorising and requiring them to take such ways for my satisfaction out of the funds yet undisposed of as might effectually operate my relief; or in case that should not be done, that they should lay the matter before the parliament as a deficiency for the end above-mentioned, as a copy of the said letter (whereof the principal is in the treasury) herewith produced bears. Which letter being likewise presented to their lordships, they, after consideration thereof and in compliance with his majesty's pleasure, in respect there was no fund undisposed of out of which they could order my relief, thought fit to lay my said losses before the high and honourable court of parliament as a deficiency for the end aforesaid, as the said act of treasury of the date 1 January 1701 herewith produced testifies. Likewise in prosecution thereof, I did prepare my representation for the parliament that sat the said month of January 1701, but by reason of the throng of public business, I could have no access to a hearing, all private business, as is well known, being then laid aside, so that now indeed is the first opportunity that I have had for laying my case before the estates of parliament with the aforesaid recommendations granted upon it.
And seeing your grace and lordships may plainly perceive how from the beginning, without the least fault or neglect upon my part, I did incur the said damages, and that both the lords of his majesty's privy council and the estates of parliament and the lords of treasury, upon the king's aforesaid letters, have again and again found that I ought to be relieved thereof, it being evident that I was only subjected thereto through my being tacksman of a subject that fell short, notwithstanding of my utmost diligence for the causes above-represented; and it is further certain that the principal tacksman to whom I and my cautioners are inevitably liable, having paid up and accounted for the whole tack duty without any abatement, in regard that before hand they had completed their payments, this burden that still lies upon me is manifestly a deficient fund which the estates of parliament can only make good according to the aforesaid recommendations, and which it is impossible for me to bear without being sunk and ruined. Which petition, being advised by your grace and estates on 6 September 1703, declared you would take the same into your consideration when the parliament proceeded to the funds for the forces and the arrears due to the army.
The union with England now proceeding and £398,085 10s sterling being to be paid here for defraying the public debts of the kingdom, I humbly presume that the aforesaid sum of £10,939 due to me upon the grounds aforesaid is a good and just debt, and does naturally and rationally affect that sum to be paid by England by reason that the fund of the excise set to me, falling so far short without my fault, and yet the tack duty paid up and the forces maintained, I am in the same case as if the like value were due to the forces, and so ought to have the same preference out of that money to come from England as the forces themselves will have for their other arrears, and to be first paid because of my advance and unspeakable charges in recovering thereof, with interest from the time of advance. And secondly, the liquors being now liable to the English excise, the duty thereof will so enlarge, that this, my former advance, will be no great burden; and seeing I am at present farmer of the excise of Aberdeen and have no small difficulty by reason of the scarcity of money to lift up the tack duty, and now and then to give some small satisfaction to those from whom I borrowed the aforesaid £10,939, whereof my creditors still continue the trust, in confidence that as I continue farmer of the excise your grace and honourable estates will allow me retention thereof, that so I may give them satisfaction.
May it therefore please your grace and honourable estates, seeing the aforesaid sum advanced by me was for paying of the army, to allow me retention thereof in my own hands out of the excise of liquors of the shire of Aberdeen, or if this cannot be spared, at once to allow me payment thereof and of the annualrents out of the equivalent to come from England, and to recommend me to the commissioners to be appointed by her majesty for distribution thereof for that effect. And your petitioner shall ever pray.
Edinburgh, 17 March 1707
Her majesty's high commissioner and the estates of parliament, having heard this petition, they renew the recommendation formerly granted and of new recommend the petitioner to her majesty for reparation of his losses in such way and manner as her majesty in her royal bounty shall think fit.
[James Ogilvy, earl of] Seafield, chancellor, in the presence of the lords of parliament†
[A1706/10/37]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
To his grace her majesty's high commissioner and the right honourable estates of parliament, the petition of Sir George Hamilton of Tulliallan.
Humbly shows,
That your petitioner, having represented to the estates of parliament convened in August 1704 that there was owing to him, as general receiver of the funds of supply and inland excise and pay-master general of the army, five years' salary, at £600 sterling yearly, according to the letters patent granted by his late majesty, and issued under the great seal of this kingdom. The estates of parliament then assembled, by their deliverance of 23 August the said year, remitted to the commissioners for auditing the public accounts to consider my claim and determine therein as they should find just.
Upon my application to their lordships, they did consider my claim, and their report, page 8, bears that your petitioner 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 he should continue in the office until it should be recalled, which did not happen until the beginning of the year 1697, whereby he has a just claim to five years' salary.
This part of the said commissioners' report relating to your petitioner, having fallen in to be considered before the last session of parliament, in the end of the sederunt there is an interlocutor of the estates recommending your petitioner to the lords of her majesty's treasury for payment of what was due to him of bygone salaries during the time of his service to be instructed before their lordships.
As to which, your petitioner humbly begs leave to represent that had he been then heard, he would have cleared to the most honourable the estates of parliament, as he now does, that his claim was found just by the report of the commission for public accounts, without regard to the time of his service, and the ground their lordships went upon was that your petitioner's letters patent under the great seal bore a salary to be paid to him yearly, not restricting the same to the time of his service, but until the said letters patent should be recalled by his late majesty. And so it is they were not recalled until the year 1697 (albeit the lords of treasury in the interim employed other persons in the general receiver's and pay-master's place), and therefore the commission gave their opinion that the petitioner's claim was just during that time, whether he served or not.
The petitioner represents further that the report of the commission ought to have been approved by the most honourable the estates of parliament, because the same is agreeable to law and the lords of sessions' daily practice, in so far as that in all processes relating to advocates and other persons' salaries for services to be done, their lordships do constantly decree for arrears until the writ constituting the same be recalled, whether the services were done or not, providing the persons to whom the salaries were due were ready to perform the same; indeed, even albeit they employed others therein, which exactly corresponds with the petitioner's case.
There is yet something more singular in the petitioner's case which makes the same most favourable, namely: he was, as is well known, the first person that engaged to make the commissariat of the army practicable, and which he did to the great ease of the country, which was formerly greatly harassed until that method became effectual; and his salary was established (with regard to what he did then undertake) until it should be recalled, though he had not served the whole time.
May it therefore please your grace and lordships to reconsider this matter, and not only to approve of the said commissioners' report stating me a creditor to the public in the terms thereof, but also to recommend me to her majesty for paying in the way and manner she in her great wisdom shall judge most proper.
And your petitioner shall ever pray.
†Edinburgh, 17 March 1707
Her majesty's high commissioner and the estates of parliament, having heard this petition, they recommend the petitioner to her majesty's royal and gracious consideration to do in the matter represented within as her majesty shall think fit.
[James Ogilvy, earl of] Seafield, chancellor, in the presence of the lords of parliament
Edinburgh, 11 April 1707
Received up by me, the within designed Sir George Hamilton, the commission under the great seal and other writs produced with this petition before the parliament.
George Hamilton
[A1706/10/38]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
To his grace her majesty's high commissioner and the right honourable the estates of parliament,
The petition of the professors of the university of Edinburgh,
Humbly shows,
That the salaries of the far greater part of your grace's and lords' petitioners are less by one half than those of any other of the professors in the rest of the universities of this kingdom, and the number of their students are of late much decreased by the encouragement that gentlemen have to breed their sons in the army, and the small advantage they can propose by following letters at home when all professions are so numerous, that the one half can hardly make bread, so that it cannot but be evident to your grace and honourable estates of parliament, who are so well acquainted with the present circumstances of the university of Edinburgh, and also with the dearness of all sorts of victual and incident charges that your petitioners must be at by living here, that both our small salaries, which we are ashamed to mention, and other emoluments come far short of being a fund whereupon we can live answerable to our education and suitable to our profession. For, seeing that we are intrusted with the education of persons of the greatest quality in the nation, your grace and lordships cannot but be convinced that all the care and pains that possibly we can be at in discharging of our duty towards those intrusted to us can have but very small effect unless we be in a condition to live at such a rate in the world as may keep us from being despised and falling into contempt, which will be the necessary consequence of our being obliged to depend absolutely upon the students for our bare subsistence.
We had not given your grace and lordships the trouble of this, our petition, were it not that we are persuaded that the magistrates and town council of Edinburgh (of whose care and concern for us we are very aware) are not in a condition to contribute anything for our relief, upon the account of the great debts and have burdens that at present they lie under. Therefore we are obliged out of mere necessity to apply to your grace and honourable estates of parliament, to whom other universities, such as St Andrews having applied in the like case, have obtained a seasonable relief; and we doubt not but such regard will be had to the success of our endeavours for the advancement of learning in this kingdom as that some method shall be laid down for enabling us to contribute more thereto than possibly we can do in our present circumstances.
May it therefore please your grace and honourable estates of parliament to take this, our petition, into your serious consideration, and in your wisdom find out some sure and effectual fund for augmenting your petitioners' salaries in time coming, that so we may be in a condition to live something more answerable to our station, and may likewise be enabled better to discharge the trust that persons of all ranks repose in us, than which there can be none greater either in its nature or consequences, seeing that all nations do own that the fate of every society depends upon the education of youth thereof.
And your petitioners shall ever pray.
†Edinburgh, 17 March 1707
Her majesty's high commissioner and the estates of parliament, having heard and considered this petition with the grounds thereof, do find that the petitioners are not competently provided, and that, both in justice and for the good and benefit of the university of Edinburgh and the honour of their respective professions, they ought to be competently provided as the professors in other universities are; and for that end do most seriously recommend them to her majesty's care and favour, that effectual course may be taken for settling better and competent provisions upon them out of such funds as her majesty shall be pleased to appoint.
[James Ogilvy, earl of] Seafield, chancellor, in the presence of the lords of parliament
[A1706/10/39]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
Anne, by the grace of God queen of Great Britain, France and Ireland, defender of the faith, to our beloved [...], messengers, our sheriffs in that part conjointly and separately, specially constitute greeting. Forasmuch as it is humbly meant and shown to us by our beloved John Davie, brewer in the Pleasance of Edinburgh, that where by several misfortunes his affairs were going to confusion and his credit called into question, he did immediately convene his creditors and laid open his condition to them, and before parting he made over all his effects to them, without reserving anything to his poor family but what his creditors should think fit of their own goodness to allow him in case there was no reversion after payment of the debts; and amongst his other effects he has a considerable quantity of victual, which, if sold at this time, will yield a small price, but, if manufactured by brewing, will produce a considerable sum to the creditors; and they are so conscious of this that they have appointed a factor for that end, and have desired him to assist him by his advice and otherwise, but the factor only to have the intromission with the money. Yet there are some of his creditors who still resolve to trouble his person though he has conveyed all as above, and that his liberty in overseeing the brewery until the victual be manufactured will undoubtedly tend to the advantage of the creditors, as the far greatest part of them are convinced, which cannot be remedied but by a protection to his person. Therefore necessary it is to the said John Davie, brewer in the Pleasance of Edinburgh, to have warrant by our commissioner and the said estates of parliament for directing summons at his instance for his creditors after-mentioned in manner and to the effect after-specified. Our will is therefore and we charge you straitly and command that as soon as these our letters are seen, you pass and in our name and authority lawfully summon, warn and charge the said John Davie, brewer in the Pleasance of Edinburgh, his creditors after-mentioned, namely: Colonel George Wishart of Cliftonhall, Mr John Menzies of Cambo, advocate, William Cunningham, tenant in West Mains of Carrington, John Clerk in Hivetts Mill, Agnes Waterstone, widow of Alexander Allan, brewer in Potterrow, George Stewart, indweller in Pleasance, George Watson, tailor in St Mary's Wynd, Katherine Handyside, widow of Duncan MacMillion, tailor there, James Thomson, merchant in Canongate, James Hay, merchant in Edinburgh, John Watson, merchant there, James Dalgleish, writer in Edinburgh, Mary Erskine, widow of James Hair, druggist in Edinburgh, Nicol Livingstone, shoemaker in Edinburgh, Elizabeth Paige, indweller in Edinburgh, Robert Drysdale, merchant in Edinburgh, James Haiges, tenant in Loanhead, Michael Allan, merchant in Edinburgh, Robert Pringle of Symington, Patrick Campbell, writer in Edinburgh, James Simpson, tenant in Brunston, William Ovens, tenant in East Houses, James [Ogilvy], earl of Seafield, lord high chancellor of Scotland, John Scott of Gibliston, [John Ker], earl of Roxburghe, Archibald [Primrose], earl of Rosebery, Mr Patrick Moncrieff of Reidie, John Warrock, servant to the laird of Barefoot, David [Leslie/Melville], earl of Leven, Ronald Campbell, writer to the signet, Sir David Dalrymple, advocate, Sir Hugh Cunningham, late provost of Edinburgh, Mr William Johnston of Sciennes, Mr William Boyle, writer in Edinburgh, Bessie Fair, indweller in Edinburgh, Mr James Ingles of St Leonards, [...] Anderson, baker in Edinburgh, David Stoddart, tenant in Edgefield, Patrick Mathie, tenant in Strattons Mill, William Handyside, tenant in Niddrie, Mark Ovens, tenant in Easthouses, William Brown, saddler in Grange Gate Side, Arthur Reid, vintner in Edinburgh, and Robert Hutton, baker there.
In manner following, namely: such of them as are within the town of Edinburgh, upon 48 hours' warning, and if elsewhere within the kingdom (except in Orkney or Shetland) upon 15 days' warning, and if in Orkney or Shetland, upon 40 days' warning, all personally or at their dwelling places, and if outwith the kingdom by open proclamation at the market cross of Edinburgh and pier and shore of Leith, upon 60 days' warning, and the tutors and curators of such of them as are minors by open proclamation at the market cross of [...] and other places needful, to compear before us or our high commissioner and estates of parliament at Edinburgh, or where it shall happen them to be for the time the 3 March next to come if it be lawful, and failing thereof, the next lawful day thereafter, with continuation of days, to answer at the instance of the said John Davie, brewer in the Pleasance of Edinburgh, in the matter underwritten. That is to say the said whole creditors above-named and the tutors and curators of such of them as are minors for their respective interests to hear and see the said protection granted to the said John Davie, brewer in the Pleasance of Edinburgh, for the reasons and causes following, namely: that Mr Davie did instantly, after his being attacked by some creditors with diligence, call his whole creditors together and told them that he was satisfied to convey and make over to them his whole estate heritable and moveable for payment of their debts, and therefore craved a supersedere of diligence for a short time. All this was done, and the creditors should consider upon the methods of their own payment out of his effects, and accordingly he obtained a supersedere from the most part. Likewise de facto he did convey in favour of his creditors his estate heritable and moveable without reserving a sixpence to himself, and this disposition is publicly intimated, and the creditors were so far satisfied with the integrity and ingenuity of the debtor, Mr Davie, that they appointed a committee of themselves for managing the effects conveyed to the common benefit of the creditors, who accordingly met and appointed a factor who has found caution and is in possession for the creditors' benefit, and Mr Davie does not meddle nor intromit with anything; and if it were not for the ignorance and wilfulness of a few small creditors that will not concur with the rest, but threaten to go on in diligence, Mr Davie needed not to have troubled the high court of parliament for a protection, from all which it is evident that a protection ought to be granted, seeing he has conveyed all his effects heritable and moveable, and the imprisoning of his person can give no satisfaction to any creditor except to satisfy their humour, and that the factor, namely: John Moody, who has found caution, is actually in possession for the creditors' benefit, and more especially seeing the effects conveyed will in a short time fully, at least very near, satisfy the whole creditors.
And others to be proposed and alleged at discussing hereof, and the said creditors to give in their objections why the said protection should not be granted, according to the said act of parliament and daily practice in the like cases in all points, and likewise to hear and see all necessary probation led and deduced in the premises, with certification to them if they fail etc. according to justice as you will answer to us. Thereupon the which to do we commit to you conjointly and separately our full power by these our letters, delivering them by you duly executed and indorsed again to the bearer. Given under our signet at Edinburgh on 22 January 1707, and of our reign the fifth year.
From the deliberation of the lords of parliament, Alexander Gibson, 5 February 1707
†Edinburgh, 17 March 1707
The pursuer Gellie, the other side absent
Gellie represented that the pursuer had cited his creditors in the terms of the act of parliament, and repeated the grounds of his summons, and craved a personal protection to the pursuer in the terms of the libel.
Her majesty's high commissioner and the estates of parliament, having advised the libel, they grant a personal protection to the pursuer against the creditors mentioned in the executions for all civil debts due by the pursuer to them, and that for the space of seven years from the date hereof, the pursuer always consigning a disposition of his estate in favour of his creditors cited above. Extracted.
[James Ogilvy, earl of] Seafield, chancellor, in the presence of the lords of parliament
[A1706/10/40]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
To his grace her majesty's high commissioner and the right honourable the estates of parliament, the petition of John Henry Huguetan and Captain John Aitken, his factor,
Humbly shows,
That where your petitioner having formerly applied to your grace and right honourable the estates of parliament for a protection to my person and effects, the same was granted as to all debts not contracted to her majesty's subjects, or the subjects of her majesty's allies, in manner and to endure according to the deliverance upon my former petition.
But the person to whom I entrusted to give an account of the state of my case did by mistake represent that my retiring out of France had happened in the month of April, whereas the same happened in the month of July 1705, and a great part of the hardships that were imposed upon me fell out in that time. And seeing the reason of the protection granted in my favour is founded upon these hardships and my retreat, I do most humbly again yet apply to your grace and lordships, that, in place of the month of April mentioned in your grace's and lordships' last deliverance, I may have protection for my person and effects against my creditors for such debts as were contracted in the month of July 1705, this mistake being the only thing that has hindered me before this time to transport myself into Scotland.
May it therefore please your grace and the right honourable the estates of parliament to allow me protection against all creditors for debts contracted before the aforesaid 31 July 1705, under the exceptions and provisions mentioned in the former deliverance.
And your petitioner shall ever pray.
John Aitken
†Edinburgh, 17 March 1707
Her majesty's high commissioner and the estates of parliament, having heard this petition, they allow the petitioner protection against all creditors for debts contracted before 31 July 1705 under the exceptions and provisions mentioned in the former deliverance of parliament in favour of the petitioner.
[James Ogilvy, earl of] Seafield, chancellor, in the presence of the lords of parliament
[A1706/10/41]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
To his grace her majesty's high commissioner and the honourable estates of parliament,
Sir Robert Blackwood, late dean of guild, James Nairn, present bailie, William Neilson, present dean of guild, Alexander Baird, late bailie, William Jaffray, late treasurer, Gavin Plummer, Robert Forrest, Patrick Crawford, Samuel Chalmers, Ralph Charters, James Marjoribanks and Charles Charters, all owners of the ship St Andrew and her cargo,
Humbly shows,
That the ship St Andrew, belonging to your petitioners, whereof Charles Charters was commander, being fully loaded with wine and other commodities, and plying her voyage homeward to Leith, was seized by a Middelburg privateer in the month of April 1706 and adjudged prize, and she and her cargo, to the value of £2,050 sterling disposed of upon this single account: that the ship called Catherine, loaded with canary wine belonging to [...], was seized upon by Captain Gordon and adjudged prize and her cargo disposed upon. And albeit her majesty wrote to the lords of treasury to reimburse the owners, which not being duly answered, they adjudged your petitioner's ship the St Andrew and cargo in reprisal hereof from denegrated justice, which sentence of theirs not proceeding from any fact or fault of ours, but upon the public account, it is hard for us to bear this loss who had no hand in adjudging the said ship Catherine, nor got any share of her or cargo, the same being applied to the public use.
May it therefore please your grace and honourable estates to order the repayment to us of the aforesaid sum of £2,050 sterling as the just value of the said ship and cargo taken from us by reprisal as said is, and to recommend us to the lords of her majesty's treasury for that effect. And your petitioners shall ever pray.
Edinburgh, 17 March 1707
Her majesty's high commissioner and the estates of parliament, having heard this petition, they recommend the case of the petitioners to her majesty's consideration.
[James Ogilvy, earl of] Seafield, chancellor, in the presence of the lords of parliament
[A1706/10/42]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
Anne, by the grace of God queen of Great Britain, France and Ireland, defender of the faith, to our beloved [...], messengers, our sheriffs in that part, conjointly and separately, specially constitute greeting. Forasmuch as it is humbly meant and shown to us by our beloved Alexander Colville of Kincardine that he being engaged in several great and considerable bargains of victual, by which he sustained very great loss, and being necessitated to trust out the greatest part of his stock in the hands of several brewers and other tradesmen, from whom he has great difficulty to recover the same, his creditors in the meantime being thereby disappointed of their payment, have not only used diligence against his fortune, but design to distress his person, which keeps him under such a restraint as renders him altogether incapable of doing anything for their advantage, whereas if the complainer were at full liberty he would direct and assist his creditors in the recovering of many considerable debts due to him, which now are likely to be lost. And the said complainer being willing to convey his whole effects to his creditors and to be assisting in the recovering thereof out of his debtors' hands, which he cannot do without a personal protection to his person for some short time to that effect, therefore necessary it is to the said Alexander Colville of Kincardine to have warrant by our commissioner and the estates of parliament for directing summons at his instance for citing his creditors after-mentioned in manner and to the effect after-specified. Our will is therefore and we charge you straitly and command that as soon as these our letter are seen, you pass and in our name and authority lawfully summon, warn and charge the said Alexander Colville of Kincardine, his creditors after-mentioned, namely: [James Carnegie], earl of Southesk, George Drummond of Blair, Mr Andrew Lumsden, minister, Sir David Cunningham of Milncraig, advocate, Mr Thomas Buchan, advocate, Major Henry Balfour of Dunbog, James Taylor, writer to the signet, James Dundas, writer in Edinburgh, Mr David Drummond, treasurer to the bank, [William Gordon Sutherland], lord Strathnaver, Sir William Calderwood, advocate, Henry Guild, writer in Edinburgh, Charles Mitchell, writer there, Sir George Nicolson of Kemnay, Malcolm MacAulay, skipper in Leith, Alexander Colville of Blair, Sir Patrick Murray of Ochtertyre, Thomas Beaton of Tarbet, [...] Colville, lady Rossie, Mr John Dalgleish, minister, [...] Seaton of Lathrisk, [...] Watson of Aithernie, Mr Alexander Farquarson, writer to the signet, John Farquharson of Kirkton, Andrew Kerr of Kippilaw, writer to her majesty's signet, James Smith, late bailie of St Andrews, now merchant in Edinburgh, Ewan MacGregor, merchant in Leith, William Nuckle, skipper there, Sir Robert Blackwood, late dean of guild of Edinburgh, Patrick Stewart, merchant there, and William Hamilton, writer there, Sir Robert Douglas of Glenbervie and Mr John Tilliedaff, minister at Dumbarnie.
In manner following, namely: such of them as are within the town of Edinburgh, upon 48 hours' warning, and if elsewhere within the kingdom (except in Orkney and Shetland), upon 15 days' warning, and if in Orkney or Shetland, upon 40 days' warning, all personally or at their dwelling places, and if outwith the kingdom by open proclamation at the market cross of Edinburgh, pier and shore of Leith, upon 60 days' warning, and the tutors and curators of such of them as are minors, by open proclamation at the market cross of [...] and other places needful, to compear before us or our high commissioner and estates of parliament at Edinburgh, or where it shall happen them to be for the time the [...] day of [...] next to come, if it be lawful, and failing thereof, the next lawful day thereafter, with continuation of days, to answer at the instance of the said Alexander Colville of Kincardine in the matter underwritten. That is to say the said whole creditors above-named and the tutors and curators of such of them as are minors for their respective interests, to hear and see the said protection granted to the said Alexander Colville of Kincardine for the reasons and causes following, namely: [...] and others to be proposed and alleged at discussing hereof, and the said creditors to give in their objections why the said protection should not be granted, according to the said act of parliament and daily practice in the like cases in all points, and likewise to hear and see all necessary probation led and deduced in the premises, with certification to them if they fail and according to justice as you will answer to us. Thereupon the which to do we commit to you conjointly and separately, as said is, our full power by these our letters, delivering them by you duly executed and indorsed again to the bearer. Given under our signet at Edinburgh, 3 March and of our reign the fifth year 1707.
From the deliberation of the lords of parliament, Alexander Gibson, 4 March 1707
†12 March 1707
Given out to James Graham to see this summons and two executions† by me, Walter Pringle
Seen and returned by me, James Graham
Edinburgh, 17 March 1707
Pursuer Pringle, on the other side [...]
Pringle for the pursuer represented that he had cited his creditors in the terms of the act of parliament and did report the grounds of his summons and craved a personal protection against his creditors mentioned in the executions, according to his libel.
Her majesty's high commissioner and the estates of parliament, having advised the libel, they grant personal protection to the pursuer against his creditors mentioned in the executions for all civil debts due by the pursuer to them, and that for the space of seven years from the date hereof, the pursuer always consigning a disposition of his estate in favour of his creditors cited before. Extracted.
[James Ogilvy, earl of] Seafield, chancellor, in the presence of the lords of parliament
[A1706/10/43]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
To his grace her majesty's high commissioner and the high and honourable estates of parliament,
The petition of the royal college of physicians in Edinburgh,
Humbly shows,
That your petitioners understanding there was an overture for an act presented the last sederunt of parliament, not only ratifying and confirming the rights and privileges of the surgeons and apothecaries in Edinburgh, but also [statuting]† and declaring that hereafter there shall be no restraint upon the lieges of being served by the said surgeons and apothecaries in medicines without calling physicians when the employers refuse to call any, and the prohibiting and discharging the prosecution of the said surgeons and apothecaries on the aforesaid account, and that the said act got a first reading by order of the house.
Your petitioners being aware that this is not only derogatory to our rights and privileges established by law, but that otherwise it may prove of dangerous and pernicious consequence to the lieges, we doubt nothing but upon a true information to his grace and the honourable house of these our rights and those other inconveniences that may ensue, the honourable house will be very tender in passing such an act.
And therefore we presume, with all respect, to inform your grace and the honourable house that by letters patent under the great seal in 1681, your petitioners were erected into a legal incorporate body under the name of the royal college of physicians in Edinburgh (which was afterwards ratified and confirmed in parliament), and amongst other rights and privileges granted to us we are specially empowered to make rules, acts and statutes for improving and advancing of the knowledge of medicine, and of regulating the practice thereof, and for the good government, order, ruling and correction of the said college and community, and of all men practising and exercising the said faculty within the city of Edinburgh and suburbs thereof. And such was the care taken that every employment should be preserved in its due bounds, it is expressly provided and declared in the said letters patent that the apothecary surgeons of Edinburgh are, notwithstanding of the same, to have the liberty of curing all sorts of wounds, bruises, fractures, dislocations, contusions, tumours and ulcers etc., being the subject of surgical operations, and accidents arising thereupon only, but that they shall not have the cure of any diseases that are originally internal, which are only to be performed by prescription and direction of the physicians of the said college. And further that no person within the city, suburbs and liberties may or shall have power to practise and exercise the said faculty of medicine unless he be admitted to the same by the said college. And then there are subjoined some methods for the more expeditious execution of these rights granted to the royal college, with power likewise to the president of the said college and censors nominated by them, so often as they shall find cause, to visit all shops and chambers within the city of Edinburgh and privileges thereof where any drugs and medicaments are to be sold, to see that the same be fresh, good and wholesome, with power to them to cast out to the public streets or destroy such as are insufficient or corrupt, etc.
And as these letters patents were not obtained by any subreption, but after the same had been fully debated in Scotland, communicated to those of his then majesty's privy council, public and known to all persons that might have any interest to oppose, so it was following the laudable practice of our neighbouring nation and other countries who are solicitous to keep these employments distinct, every one within its own limits and bounds.
It is needless to trouble your grace and the honourable house with a repetition at large of the steps that have followed the erection of this college, but only to inform you that thereafter in the year 1682, the lords of council and session by their decreet in absence, after a contentious debate, did separate the two employments of surgery and pharmacy, distinctly setting down what is competent to each and expressly determining and declaring that albeit surgeons may buy and sell herbal medicine, as any druggist or merchants may do, and compound such drugs as are necessary for surgical and external applications, yet that they cannot compound any medicaments to be taken internally by the mouth. And the college of physicians, being fully established, have not only been in use to keep their constant meetings in order to try and admit physicians and prescribe the good and necessary rules for the practise of physic, but especially have been in the practise of censuring and debarring undue practisers; and particularly with respect to the deceased George Stirling, who after he had suspended the sentence and ordinance of the college of physicians against him in all the debate before the lords of session, did not offer to impugn the rights of the college in debarring all undue practisers, but only contended upon some informality with respect to the seeming interfering jurisdiction between the college and town, and that his practice had been only the case of external application. And the first point being discussed, he was remitted back to the royal college, as to the second. And yet, after all it must be acknowledged that the college have used their power with that moderation and discretion, and particularly with respect to the surgeons, that it is admired any such act should have been presented. And this lenity of the college will appear by the following overture given in by the college to her majesty's advocate (on a present depending process) appended to this paper, as to which†we humbly conceive that although the same has got a first reading, yet it is still but an overture that may be excepted against, and therefore we presume that the honourable house, being informed of our rights and privileges legally established, ratified and confirmed in parliament, and judgment given in the courts of judicatories on the foot thereof, they will be far from passing any act that may derogate these rights. And indeed if this act were passed, it were a plain overturning of the said letters patents with all that has followed thereupon, for however it be conceived in terms, as if it were an act not in favour of the surgeons but taking off any restraint upon the lieges, which has the show of a plausible pretext, yet in effect it downright makes the whole surgeons in Edinburgh physicians; for who does not see that allowing the lieges to be served by the surgeons of Edinburgh in medicines, without calling physicians, is not as much as to say the surgeons may practise physic, and the adding of the quality, when the employers refuse to call any, is but a mere sham and to give a colour to what is otherwise designed, for this pretext shall on every occasion easily be found. And then the discharging of the prosecution of surgeons and apothecaries is taking the very force from our patent, by which alone it can subsist, and in effect we must say that that moment this act is passed our patent and rights fall to the ground, and draws this necessary consequence: that we are no more judges of the sufficiency and healthfulness of the drugs and medicaments, seeing surgeons shall have the full freedom of giving them inwardly as they think fit.
It would be reckoned vanity in us to advance our own personal qualifications in the knowledge and practice of our employment, but this must be allowed to be said that the manner of our education necessarily fits us for a more exact capacity in these matters (indeed, we may say to the only capacity) than the surgeons. Their employment is but a part of physic, as both the patent and decreet of the lords have very well distinguished them. Why then should they grasp at more than their education has furnished them to? It is known that the serving of an apprenticeship in Edinburgh to any surgeon, the referring of the indentures which capacitates the apprentice to be burgess, with a trial in surgery but not in physic, does immediately capacitate this apprentice to be a surgeon, and by this overture of an act now presented he shall become as good as a graduate physician.
Your grace and the honourable house would be informed that this should be a great discouragement to us and to all others who are prosecuting the study of physic to spend our time and money at home and abroad in qualifying ourselves for this employment, for attaining whereof the knowledge of other sciences are necessarily concomitant.
We cannot think that this can arise from any hardship the lieges can suffer through the privileges that were granted to us by the said letters patent, and we are abundantly satisfied that it does not proceed from any of the impartial lieges, for we are sure our practice has been as little burdensome since as before the obtaining of the patent, but that it only proceeds from the aspiring spirits of the surgeons of Edinburgh, not contented to live within their own sphere. Which appears by their procuring a late patent over ten separate shires, in which they have exercised their authority to that degree that they have fined and harassed several people for letting of blood in country places, and amongst poor country people, and even came to that height as to summon a graduate doctor for letting of blood, where he found an absolute necessity so to do. And by the by, it would be noticed that if it be only the liberty to the lieges that is pretended, why should not the act be conceived indefinitely that the lieges should have the full liberty of being served in surgery and pharmacy by any they please to choose, which were as reasonable as the other, but the surgeons they see to their own interest in that, and opens a liberty to the lieges, but still restricted to the surgeons.
We shall only further trouble your grace and the honourable house with this particular: that our erection into a society has made us capable to perform a most universal and charitable deed, which is that by our rules two physicians are appointed to attend weekly at our public hall so many hours to wait upon poor people whose cases they consider, and give their advice and prescriptions gratis, so that numbers flock to us weekly, and wants nothing for completing such an universal benefit, but establishing a way for furnishing these poor people either gratis, at least much easier with medicaments and drugs, which we are in hopes to effectuate, and to which the surgeons and apothecaries, if they please, might contribute very much. To which this act would infallibly put a stop, as to all other good purposes already done and further intended by your petitioners, not to mention the advancement of learning by discourses on several subjects at our public meetings.
In respect of all which, it is humbly expected your grace and the honourable house will be tender of your petitioners' rights and reputation and not pass an act that will be derogatory to both, overturn what was formerly most deliberately done, and not according to the practice of our neighbouring and other nations, while the surgeons are in no way molested, but retain entire all their rights and privileges and enjoy a most lucrative employment without the necessity of encroaching upon anothers. And if any difficulty remains with your grace or honourable estates of parliament, that your petitioners may be heard by their lawyers and have time to produce their papers and rights.
Follows the overture:
Upon the callings making the following or such an act, the college offered to discharge all procedure at their instance preceding the date of the said act, and that the person pursued should have his fine remitted upon owning his fault.
The calling taking into their consideration the many complaints made by the royal college of physicians against several persons unduly practising medicine, which legally does belong to the said royal college, do therefore, for cultivating a good correspondence with the royal college, hereby declare that if in time coming any of the calling shall take upon them to practise medicine, except in cases of necessity and charity, that they shall undergo the censure of the calling, and be left without the interposing of the said calling to such legal prosecutions as the said royal college shall think fit.
[A1706/10/44]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
To his grace her majesty's high commissioner and the high and honourable estates of parliament,
The petition of William Cochrane of Ferguslie, tacksman of the two polls imposed in the session of parliament of 1698,
Humbly shows,
That there being a commission appointed by the [...] act of the first session of this current parliament to inspect into the public funds and to report to the parliament, the said commission, having made a report in relation to the said two polls whereof your petitioner was tacksman, it pleased the honourable house to remit back to the said commission to enquire further into that article of your petitioner's discharge anent the books not being returned in due time from the several shires, what damages I had sustained and what abatement I should have. Accordingly the commission having proceeded appointed me to pay in the sum of £7,200 Scots besides the payments I had made formerly by virtue of precepts from the treasury, which I accordingly did and the commission gave their opinion that all execution should stop for the balance of the tack duty until the honourable house should determine therein.
Besides the said articles of defalcation, by reason of the late returning of the books, there were other legal deductions claimed by me, but the commission did not think themselves empowered to proceed to the consideration thereof, in respect of the aforesaid remit of parliament, which seemed to be special as to the article of not returning the books. However, the commission, having taken a view of the other legal deductions, they gave it as their opinion that the same deserves his grace's and the honourable house's consideration.
I will not trouble your grace and the honourable house with a deduction of the particular legal defalcations, nor of that which the commission had chiefly under their consideration, the same being fully contained in a memorial apart given in the last session of parliament and lying in the clerk's hands, when your petitioner expected to have had the affair discussed, containing likewise word for word the commission's report, not doubting but the said memorial will give your grace and the honourable house a full view of the state of that affair with the reasonableness of the deductions claimed. And that it plainly appears to be the commission's opinion all further execution should stop and that I should be discharged of the remainder of the tack duty. And therefore shall only now represent that of a tack duty of £20,100 sterling, I have paid £17,000 sterling by precepts from the treasury, as likewise that I have paid the £7,200 Scots further ordered by the commission, and that considering the great difficulties I met with in uplifting the said polls, the stops and hindrances from time to time by reason of some unclearness in the acts of parliament and proclamations of council, and the long depending process before the privy council, wherein several persons of all characters and degrees were concerned, not yet discussed, although there was a particular report of a committee of council in my favour (whereof a duplicate is likewise subjoined to the said memorial) and the great loss I sustained through the late returning of the books, as was obvious to the commission, which, of itself, without the other deductions, is more than sufficient to compensate what yet remains in my hand. All which are more fully held forth in the said memorial apart, and that I have been obliged to a tedious and expensive attendance before the several sessions of parliament. And to sum up, all that the commission, who have proceeded very exactly in their inquiry, thought it equitable to distress me no further than for the £7,200 Scots, plainly insinuating thereby to your grace and the honourable house that it would be a hardship upon me to have anything further exacted. Upon all these considerations, it is humbly conceived your grace and the honourable house will think fit to dismiss me as you have already all others concerned in the public funds.
May it therefore please your grace and the honourable house to take the commission's report into your consideration, together with the memorial apart containing the articles of deduction, and to declare that I have made full satisfaction of all that can be claimed of the said tack duty, and to discharge the same and all further execution thereupon. And your petitioner shall ever pray.
Edinburgh, 17 March 1707
Her majesty's high commissioner and the estates of parliament, having considered this petition, they declare that the petitioner has made full satisfaction of all that can be claimed of the tack duty detailed within, and discharge the same and all further execution thereupon, without prejudice to the claim of Colonel MacGill and his successors against the said petitioner; and declare that all persons subject to and liable in the polls imposed by the act of parliament named within are to be hereafter free thereof and of all process and action thereof in time coming.
[James Ogilvy, earl of] Seafield, chancellor, in the presence of the lords of parliament