Procedure: minutes read

Minutes of the last sederunt read.

Judicial Proceedings: protest for remedy at law

Then the action upon a protest for remedy at law of Sir Thomas Dalziel of Binns against the Lady Caldwell and her husband, called and the parties' procurators being called, a dilator defence was proposed that the action upon the protest could not be received in respect the lords of session have pronounced no definitive sentence in the cause. And, after some debate and reasoning thereupon, it was put to the vote, determine the dilator or hear parties' procurators upon the whole cause, and it carried hear.

And the parties' procurators being accordingly heard, after long debate the vote was stated acquit Sir Thomas Dalziel from the rents of the estate of Caldwell preceding Martinmas [11 November] 1688, on account of the specialities of his case distinguishing it from other cases falling under the act rescissory, yes or no.

But before voting, [Archibald Campbell], earl of Islay gave in the following protest in these terms:

I do protest for myself and in name of such who shall adhere to this protestation that this vote relating to Sir Thomas Dalziel's cause may not at all prejudice or impair the undoubted right of any of her majesty's subjects to the repayment of the bygone rents of their forfeited estates according to law and acts of parliament, and took instruments thereupon, and George Baillie of Jerviswood adhered thereto.

Then the vote was put acquit or not, and it carried acquit.²