[1703/5/64]¹

Procedure: disputed election

The controverted election between Lieutenant General [George] Ramsay of Carriden and Thomas Sharp of Houston, for the shire of West Lothian, called and the objection against Houston's electors being first insisted in, he passed from the votes of John MacFarlane, Alexander Glen, [Philip Anstruther], laird of Balcaskie, younger and John Hamilton of Pumpherston. It was objected against Mr James Hamilton of Bangour that his lady's freehold extended to no more than a thirty shilling land of old extent, she being one of two heirs portioners to a brother who, though he was once infeft in a five pound land, was afterwards denuded of a forty shilling land, so that the lady had right to no more than the equal half of the remaining three pound land. Secondly, the lady, not being infeft could not as apparent heir give right to her husband to vote as a freeholder. To which it being answered that the denuding the brother of forty shilling of his five pound land was not objected at the election and therefore is not now receivable in parliament, and secondly, the general terms of the act of 1681 gave the right of election to the husband of an apparent heir as well as to that of a freeholder infeft. The vote was stated sustain these objections or not and carried sustain. It was objected against Robert Johnston of Straiton that he was only apparent heir to an annualrenter and not a proprietor and, it being answered that his father stood infeft in a freehold in the terms of the act 1681, it was replied that his charter produced instructed not a forty shilling land of old extent; and duplied that it contained a third part of a land which was instructed by an older charter produced to be of yearly extent twenty four pound and a merk of land which ought to be presumed to be of old extent. The vote was thereupon stated sustain or reject the objection and carried reject. It was then objected against John Hamilton of Grange that not being infeft he could have no vote as apparent heir to his father because there were children of his elder brother, and secondly, though his rights as apparent heir were not questioned he was not in possession, without which his apparency gave him no right of election. And it being answered that his brother's children were declared spurious by decreet of the judge competent and that he truly was in possession, it was replied that he could not possess as heir to the freeholder last infeft, his father being denuded by adjudication in 1671 and the ruling now long since expired, the rents were sequestrated, by decreet of the lords, in the hands of a factor for the behoof of the adjudicators. And there being several writs produced for instructing the reply, the advocates for Grange were allowed to see them until the next sitting of parliament.