[A1695/5/8]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
Minutes and votes: [Sir James Stewart of Goodtrees], his majesty's advocate, against John [Drummond], earl of Melfort, [Charles Middleton], earl of Middleton and Sir Adam Blair of Carberry
Edinburgh, 1 July 1695
This day the process at his majesty's advocate's instance against the rebels in France called in parliament.
His majesty's advocate declared he proceeded in the first place against the earls of Melfort and Middleton and Sir Adam Blair of Carberry, the executions being already verified in parliament, and produced his warrant for raising the process; and, in regard the defenders are denounced, that they may have freedom to appear and defend, produced letters of relaxation to them and craved that his warrant might be recorded.
Thereafter the said three defenders, being called publicly by a macer, and the libel read, his majesty's advocate declared he proceeded in the first place against the said defenders on that part of the libel founded upon the eighth act of the fourth session of this current parliament against corresponding with France, going or staying there without liberty and after the time prescribed and limited by the said act, and craved that it might be determined by vote whether that part of the libel is relevant or not.
Voted and determined in parliament that the aforesaid article of the libel founded upon the aforesaid act of parliament 1693 is relevant to infer the conclusion of treason.
[William Johnston, earl of] Annandale, president, in the presence of the lords of parliament
Thereafter his majesty's high commissioner and the estates of parliament continue the diet in this process until tomorrow at 10 o'clock, and ordain the persons formerly appointed to attend the said diet under the certifications formerly appointed.
Annandale, president, in the presence of the lords of parliament
Edinburgh, 2 July 1695
The process of treason against the earl of Melfort and others being this day called, the lord advocate proceeded first for proving his libel against the earl of Melfort.
James Brown, son to Hugh Brown, apothecary, being cited, craved that before he should be obliged to testify that he might have a full and ample remission for his being and corresponding in France after 1 August 1693, contrary to the eighth act of the fourth session of this current parliament.
His majesty's high commissioner declared in parliament that he he would grant to the said James Brown a full and ample remission for his crime of correspondence with France.
Thereafter James Brown testified.
Donald MacDonald, servant to James [Drummond], lord Drummond, having obtained the same assurance of remission from his grace in parliament, testified.
Philip Hamilton, younger, of Kilbrackmont also appeared, and, having the assurance of remission given to him as to the other two, testified.
Captain Patrick Auchmuty appearing and to whom a remission was formerly granted had the same renewed to him and testified. Charles Learmonth, son to the deceased R[obert] Learmonth appeared, and had the assurance by his grace of a full remission for the crime above-mentioned to be delivered to him, testified.
Moved [against] the sentence of forfeiture tainting the blood of the descendants of the earl of Melfort's first marriage with the heiress of Lundie who have deserved so well of his majesty and the government, and the question being put in the following terms: that any doom of forfeiture to be pronounced in this present process against John, earl of Melfort shall in no way affect nor taint the blood of the children procreated between the said earl and Sophia Lundie, heiress of the estate of Lundie, and that this be an exception in the doom of forfeiture.
It was approved.
Thereafter the whole depositions taken before were read in presence of parliament.
His majesty's advocate resumed the probation that it was full and clear by two concurring witnesses proving that part of the libel admitted to probation.
And the question being put whether that part of the libel found relevant against John, earl of Melfort is proven or not, carried in the affirmative.
Thereafter the same depositions again read as to Charles, earl of Middleton and resumed by the lord advocate that the testimonies of two witnesses were concurring and proving the libel admitted to probation against him; and the question being put whether that part of the libel admitted to probation against Charles, earl of Middleton be proven against him or not, carried in the affirmative.
Thereafter the same depositions read and resumed against Sir Adam Blair of Carberry, and the question being put whether that part of the libel admitted to probation against the said Sir Adam Blair be proven against him or not, carried in the affirmative.
Annandale, president, in the presence of the lords of parliament