[A1641/8/109]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
Answers for the Laird of Lamington†
It is humbly represented to the king's majesty and honourable estates of parliament by Sir William Baillie of Lamington, knight, that he cannot be urged to answer to the supplication given in by General Major [William] Baillie against him because the desire of that supplication is in effect to take from him the whole estate and living of Lamington, whereof he and his predecessors of past memory of man have right and have been and is in possession, which cannot be drawn in question at the instance of the supplicant upon his supplication and bare pretended assertions therein alleged. But if any interest or claim the supplicant can pretend (as he has none), the same is not competent to be taken to consideration by the parliament, seeing there is an ordinary judge and ordinary way for this and the like cases and so should not be heard before the parliament.
9 November 1641
Read in presence of the nobility.
[A1641/8/110]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
Supplication of the Laird of Lamington†
To the king's most excellent majesty and right honourable estates of parliament, the humble petition of Sir William Baillie of Lamington, knight.
That where the estate and living of Lamington have been peaceably held and possessed by me, my father, grandfather and great-grandfather these 70 years bygone without any question or controversy moved relating thereto or any part thereof, and that by virtue of public infeftments held of your majesty and confirmed in parliament, which peaceable possession by the space of so many years according to valid and formal rights ratified in parliament as said is by the laws of the country establishes a right uncontrollable in my person. Notwithstanding whereof, General Major William Baillie has given in a bill at his instance as alleged apparent heir to the late William Baillie of Lamington, my great-grandfather, craving upon certain pretended formalities of civil law in no way received by the laws, customs and practice of this kingdom, that the right of the estate of Lamington made some 70 years since by my said late great-grandfather to Edward Maxwell, alias Baillie, my grandfather, to be declared void and ineffectual in all time coming with all that has followed thereupon, and that he has the only right to the said estate, or otherwise your majesty and estates foresaid would be pleased to appoint a committee of judicious and conscionable judges to that effect, not so much to consider the strict points and formalities of law, but rather to proceed and determine in the said matter according to equity and the law of God and nature albeit the matter be altogether civil concerning the validity or invalidity of rights to the decision whereof the lords of session are only proper judges in the first instance by the institution of the college of justice and by the 92nd act of King James VI, his 6th parliament, and diverse other acts of parliament, declaring that the king's majesty's parliaments shall have little time and opportunity to consider his highness's own affairs and the causes of the common welfare if at the inopportune suit of private parties civil causes properly belonging to the judgement of the college of justice shall be brought before them. As also that the said General Major William Baillie, alleged apparent heir foresaid, is not that party by the laws of this country who under that name can controvert a matter of the least moment and much less the estate and living of Lamington belonging to me, being a member of the house. Likewise it is without example that the right that I and others of his majesty's lieges have of our estates should be drawn in question in so summary a way and not before the lords of session as judges ordinary, which is not admissable by the laws of this country. And I ought to have the liberty and common benefits of justice heretofore competent to all his majesty's subjects who are ordained to be governed by his highness's laws. Therefore I most humbly beseech your sacred majesty and honourable estates of parliament foresaid that the said General Major William Baillie and any process he has regarding the said matter may be remitted to the lords of session, who are only judges competent to the decision of all controversies of rights, and there to pursue all actions competent or that may be competent to him regarding the said estate, before whom I am confident to make appear that my and my predecessors' right is undoubted and unquestionable, and that the said General Major William Baillie has neither interest, nor ground to call the same in question. And craves your majesty's and honourable estates of parliament's foresaid answer.
19 February 1642
Delivered to General Major Baillie.†
[A1641/8/111]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
9 November 1641
Answers of the commissioners of the kirk to the observations of the committee, 5 November 1641
We renew our desire that every kirk provided may have a competent stipend of 8 chalders of victual or 800 merks where the true worth of the teinds of that parish will extend to the quantity, and answer to the first opinion of the committee which grants the commissioners a latitude to go beneath that quantity whensoever they shall please to think reasonable in kirks to be provided. And to the second opinion of the committee which grants only augmentation in three cases mentioned therein to kirks already provided but beneath that quantity, we answer firstly that we cannot conceive any other reason of these opinions except these two often objected to us: namely, that some kirks are so mean that the minister needs not so much stipend or that the heritors have bought their teinds and therefore can spare no more to the minister.
We answer to the first that the stipends of ministers are not to be measured so much by the obscureness of the place altogether as by other respects, such as first that the ministers live honestly and be not forced to use husbandry or other employments unbeseeming their calling for the necessary maintenance of their family. 2. To provide competency of books. 3. To educate their children in learning and virtue. 4. To leave some comfortable provision for their widows and orphans and not to leave them to the cold charity of the times. 5. To use some measure of hospitality recommended by the holy ghost to all ministers.
To the second we answer that seeing 8 chalders of victual or 800 merks was declared to be the lowest competency for the maintenance of a minister as there could be no just reason to go beneath it but deficiency of teinds and of matter to be carved on, so where there was sufficiency of teinds no heritor could be in good faith to buy the same in prejudice of that lowest competency. 2. Albeit in the former commissions this was an express clause that these teinds should be no further burdened, yet the parliament of 1633 found it necessary and the commission of 1633 did grant augmentation notwithstanding thereof far more now may the kirks not fully provided be supplied, seeing there is no such clause conceived in the favour of the heritors or the buyers in that commission of 1633. 3. As the commission of 1633 did not declare the buyers free of subsequent burdens as former commission had done, so they did appoint the teinds to be sold at an easy rate of nine years' purchase and everywhere the buyers have taken them with the charges of subsequent augmentations as of other burdens.
Secondly, we answer to these opinions that as the word of God requires a competent maintenance of the ministry and the law of this kingdom (beside his majesty's manifold declarations) appointed the same to be taken out of the teinds of every parish where they may be had, so the manifold doleful experience of many, yes, very many kirks of Scotland frustrated from that lowest competency from the former commissioners under the pretext of that general cause of finding reasonable and expedient causes, albeit the true cause was either the powerful means of the parties or the real hatred of the prelates against the honest incumbents for the time, as for instance they have often appointed 500 merks where the teinds are double, sometimes triple or quadruple 8 chalders of victual. This doleful experience makes us justly to fear the same inconvenience from the renewing of that clause, and to desire that the parliament would be pleased to grant that general rule of 8 chalders of victual or 800 merks for every kirk provided, or to be provided, and presently to condescend rather specially upon the prelate cases and exceptions from the rule, and to give this commission power to revise and consider these causes that moved the former commissioners to go beneath that quantity, that if they be not agreeable to the cases and exceptions now to be set down in parliament, then these kirks may be provided according to the general rule.
As for the opinion of the committee regarding the not allowing of the charges of ministers attending the assembly and parliament, it is answered that it is contrary to the opinion of the former committee sitting the day before, contrary to the judgment and answer of his majesty, commissioner and lords of the articles to the commissioners of the kirk, contrary to the promise of [John Wemyss], earl of Wemyss, his majesty's commissioner to the last general assembly, and directly contrary to the letter of this parliament directed with [John Kennedy], earl of Cassilis to the late assembly at St Andrews.
We cannot understand any reason why it should be craved that this commission may grant recompense for augmentations made in the former commission which has not found any necessity or reason to grant that recompense.
We would humbly crave seeing time straits that the differences may be determined by the parliament and order given to [Sir Thomas Hope of Craighall], king's advocate, and [Archibald Johnston of Wariston], advocate for the kirk, to alter the draft of the commission according to their determinations.
And because time so straits we most humbly desire that the parliament would be pleased either by themselves to hear our overtures or cause the committee meet for hearing of them that we may have our answer.
[A1641/8/112]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
9 November 1641
After noon, by the nobility
Concerning the provision of kirks which are not yet provided by former commission:
The commissioners think fit that the exception of 16 chalders of victual or 1,600 merks be left out:
It is the opinion of the nobility that the commissioners shall have power to go beneath 8 chalders of victual or 800 merks where they shall find just, reasonable and expedient causes to go beneath that extent, providing that if the teinds of the parish be 16 chalders of victual or 1,600 merks or above that they may not modify a lesser stipend than 8 chalders of victual or 800 merks money.
Concerning kirks which were provided by former commission, but got not the full quantity of 8 chalders of victual or 800 merks money, or where the bishops were ill affected towards the present minister for non-conformity:
It is thought that these kirks cannot come in this new commission except only in the cases of teinds included, unjust valuations or collusion as is expressed in the article of the committee.
Item, to advise with the barons and burghs if there shall be prorogation granted for burdens imposed in the year of God 1633, as was in the year of God 1617 or shall be in the year of God 1641.
Item, it is thought expedient that the article regarding the ministers' charges in their commissions shall be remitted to the commission to be appointed for ministers' stipends.
[A1641/8/113]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
Supplication of Mistress Geichan
To the king's most excellent majesty and estates of this present parliament, the humble petition of Isobel Geichan, in all submissive manner shows,
That whereas in the year 1621, there being a sentence of divorce and other sentences purchased against your petitioner at the instance of William Cochrane, her spouse, before the commissioners of Edinburgh upon sinistrous information and deposition of only one witness suborned and corrupted as shall be made apparent, your petitioner has by all legal means endeavoured to be reinstated and restored against the same. Likewise for this effect she not only in the first session of this parliament did present her petition to your majesty's commissioner, but also presented to the lords of session several letters from your majesty written and directed to them for reviewing of the said sentences and whole process and deposition of witnesses, whereupon the same were alleged to have proceeded. But hereunto your petitioner has never as yet received any answer or redress, tending now to her utter ruin and detriment and express against justice.
And since by reason of the said sentences and great abuses and suborning of the said witness used against your petitioner by her said spouse in manner foresaid, she has miserably suffered these many years bygone in a necessitous way of life,
May it therefore please your sacred majesty and estates of parliament in tender consideration of the premises and of your petitioner's present miserable estate to appoint a committee of such persons of the estates of this present parliament as your majesty and estates shall think fit, for calling before them of us both parties and taking exact trial and order regarding the premises and regarding what recompense shall be made to her by her said spouse for her bygone maintenance and in time coming during her lifetime. And for this effect that your majesty and estates will be pleased to give warrant to the said commissioners to be appointed for urging and commanding of the clerks to the said processes to exhibit and produce before them the same with the bonds, whole minutes, depositions of witnesses and whole probation had therein, to the effect the iniquity of the said decreets being made manifest and apparent your petitioner may be restored against the same by a judicial sentence reductive in this present parliament. And if the said commissioners cannot compose the said businesses according to that which they shall find just and equitable, that they with diligence report to your majesty and estates of this present parliament the true estate thereof with their opinions regarding what is lawful and necessary to be done, that therefore your majesty and estates may take such further course therein as you in your judgements shall think expedient and the equity of the cause shall seem to deserve.
And your petitioner as in duty bound shall daily pray for your majesty's long and happy reign, and the peace and prosperity of your majesty and estates of parliament.
His majesty is graciously pleased that this petition be read and considered of in parliament.
At the court at Holyroodhouse, James Galloway, 9 November 1641.