[M1703/5/17]¹

[Minute of previous sederunt altered; controverted elections considered]

Prayers said, the rolls called.

The minutes of the last sederunt read.

Moved that the minute for 7 June anent the act ratifying the turning the meeting of the estates into a parliament be amended as to an omission which happened at the reading thereof, and thereupon ordered that the clause of that act declaring it high treason to quarrel, impugn or endeavour by writing, malicious and advised speaking or other open act or deed, to alter or innovate the Claim of Right or any article thereof, be inserted at full length in the said minute, and that it be reprinted accordingly.

The controverted elections for Linlithgowshire being again called, Sir Walter Pringle, as advocate for Lieutenant General [George] Ramsay [of Carriden], passed from the objection against Sir John Houston of that ilk, and the objections against the electors of the lieutenant general being insisted in, he passed from the vote of Patrick Dundas of Breast Mill. The objection considered against Robert Brown of Colstoun that he was only a singular successor in a superiority and not in possession, with the answer that being infeft as superior his vassal's possession ought in law to be accounted as his possession, the vote was stated sustain or reject the objection, and carried reject. The objection against Andrew Paterson of Kirkton that he stood not infeft in a forty shilling land of old extent, nor in a land of £400 valuation, being considered with the answer that he was infeft and in possession of more than a third part of the barony of Bathgate, which was retoured as a ten merk land of old extent, upon advising the instructions of the answer, the objection was sustained without a vote.

The objection against John Binning of Drumcross, that he stood not infeft in a forty shilling land, and the answer that he was infeft and in possession of more than a third part of the ten merk land of Drumcross, the old extent of which was offered to be instructed by an extract of the tax roll in the year 1613, and it being replied that he could not have a third part of the said ten merk land, the total being valued to one thousand and [...] pounds, and his lands only to £260, and in answer replied that the one thousand and odd pounds valuation comprehended another Drumcross, which was a part of the barony of Barbauchlaw, and no part of that Drumcross recorded as a ten merk land in the tax rolls, parties' procurators were ordained to inform relating thereto against the next sitting of parliament.