bound to pay the Debt in the Horning by his Gift THough this Act requires that Seasins within Burgh should be subscrived by the Clerk and given by the Bailie of the Burgh yet the Lords sustain'd a Seasine of Lands within Burgh given by the Sheriff and Sheriff-Clerk where there were no Magistrats or Town Clerk in Office at the time that the Seasine was given 21 July 1666. Thomson contra Mackitrick This is one of the instances that necessitas non habet legem vid. 11 Act 3 Par. Ch. 2. THis Act was but temporary and so is useless now THis Act is Ratified by the 15 Act 2 Par. Ch. 2. and the reason why Maltmen are discharg'd to have a Deacon is because at their meetings they might easily conspire to set a price upon the Victual and upon the Ale and Beer at their pleasure and force the Gentlemen to sell at any rates IT may seem strange that this Act made by Q. Mary should be insert here but that Parliament holden upon the 19 day of April 1567. is not at all Printed and therefore it has been thought fit to insert this Act in favours of the reform'd Religion amongst her Sons Acts and to let it continue in her name because it might clear that her Majesty had consented thereto in her own Reign This Act bears an acknowledgment of the Queens deriving her Authority Royal from God which has been insert by our Reformers to show their abhorrency of their opinion who think that our Monarchs derive their power from the people THere is no such Parliament as that here mention'd to be held upon the 29 of December 1567. and therefore the 33 Act is here renew'd but it was needless to have made a special Act for allowing this to be Printed for both these Acts 32 and 33 might and should have been one vid. obs on this Act in my Crim. Tit. Treason King JAMES the sixth Parliament 2. BY this Act it is clear that Commissions for Regents of the Kingdom were then subscrived whereas they are now superscrived and were then past under the Privy Seal as all Factories Assignations or other private Rights granted by the King are as yet but now all such publick Trusts are past under the Great Seal Nota What was then a Regent is now a Commissioner which word is but late and the Regent was then called Protector The first Commissioner mention'd in our Laws is the Earl of Montrose for the Parliament 1604. but that Inscription speaks nothing of a Commission under the Great Seal as all subsequent Inscriptions do from the year 1607. and downwards Many Acts in this and the ensuing Parliament bear With advice of the Regent three Estates and hail Body of the Parliament which words the hail Parliament seems superfluous for the King and the three Estates are the hail Parliament But this was probably inserted either to show the unanimity of the Parliament or to include the Officers of State because they are not comprehended under any of the three Estates and this may be adduc'd to redargue their opinion who think that the Officers of State did not sit in Parliament till the Parliament 1633. nor do they yet sit as such in the Parliament of England For I find them marked in the Sederunts very anciently but differently for though now they are called and are also marked down in the Sederunts after the Lord Barons and are therefore called Lords yet sometimes the Sederunt adds after the Burghs Together with the Officers of State and the Sederunt of the Par. 15 bear That the Kings Majesty and Officers of State declare the Parliament to run and ordain the Articles to meet IT is fit to know that all Alienations and Dispositions made by persons who were thereafter forfeited for Crimes of Treason are null if they be made post commissum crimen though they be made before Sentence or Declarator and that though it may be pretended that in some latent Crimes of Treason such as where Treason is inferr'd for concealing and not revealing Treason the Subjects could not know the Committers guilt and so might bargain with them or take rights from them but yet such Heretable Rights are declar'd null because the King having Feued out his Lands he is not obliged to acknowledge any singular Successors except their Rights were confirm'd sibi imputent who did not confirm This Act is ratified by the 65 Act 5 Par. Ja. 6. and all former practiques contrary thereto are rescinded which clause in that Ratification was necessary because as Sinclair observes in his old Practiques there had been several Decisions past in favours of the Earl of Mortouns Creditors sustaining Rights made by the Earl of Mortoun who was after 20 years latent guilt convict for concealing the design of murthering the Earl of Lennox Queen Maries Husband As these Acts strike against Heretable Rights made by forfeited persons so by the 202 Act 14 Par. Ja. 6. all Bonds Obligations Factories Pensions and Assignations granted by forfeited persons are declared null except these Rights be confirmed by the King or authorized by a Decreet of the Judge before the citing of the persons forfeited from which Act it may be inferr'd Arg. legis that such Rights granted post commissum crimen but before citation are valid though not confirmed by a Decreet if they were granted for true debts prior to the committing of the Crime since this Act runs only against fraudulent Dispositions as also for the same reason it may be urg'd that where such personal Rights are granted meerly to defraud the Fisk they would be null though confirmed as said is for else a man being to commit the Crime of Treason might purposely dispone his Moveables to prejudge the Fisk. Nota That such Moveable Rights Confirmed as said is will only be a ground for diligence against the forefaulted persons Moveables even as if the saids Moveables had fallen to the King by single Escheat but they will not be a ground of diligence against a forefaulted persons real Estate Nota That as Gifts of forefaulted Lands can only be past under the great Seal so the forefaulted persons Moveables should be regularly Gifted under the Privy Seal being as to the King the same way of Transmission that an Assignation is to a privat party but in the Earl of Argil's case it was found that the Moveables of the forefaulted person might be likewise transmitted under the Great Seals THough by this Act the Superiors forefaulture does not prejudge the Vassals who are innocent yet this Act is expresly abrogated by the 201 Act 14 Par. Ja. 6. and by our Law the Vassals Rights are null except they be Confirmed or unless he has originally consented to them or unless the Feus be set in the Terms of the Act 71 Par. 14 Ja. 2. From this Act it may be urg'd that since by a special Law Vassals of persons forefaulted in this Parliament are
secured notwithstanding of the forefaulting of their Superiors yet therefore regulariter the Sub-vassals Right falls to the King by the forefaulture of his Superior or his own forefaulture and that not as Caduciary for then it would only fall to him with the burden of all Rights granted by the Vassal But it falls to the King qua superior so that he is not obliged to acknowledge any Rights except they be Confirmed by himself this was debated in the case of General DalÈel contra Lady Caldwall Nota The said 201 Act 14 Par. Ja. 6. appoints this Act to be delet out of the Records of Parliament and this has been design'd oft-times to prevent our taking abrogated Acts for Acts in force but yet they are still Printed and some think this necessary because men argue oft from abrogated Acts as from this Act in the said case of the Lady Caldwal ALL Monks with us were called Friers from the French word Frere which signifies a Brother The Religious Women were called Nunnes from the Latin word Nonna which signifies a sacred Virgin THe Lands holding of Friers or Nuns are by this Act declared to hold of the King and all the Lands of Monks and Nuns are by the 29 Act Par. 11 Ja. 6. annexed to the Crown quoad their Temporality and though thereafter many of these Benefices were erected in favours of Laick persons Yet by the 14 Act Par. 1 Ch. 1. The Superiority of all Lands belonging to Abbacies Priories and other Benefices belong to the King THis Act is Explain'd in the Act 36. and is drawn back to all Rights made even prior to this Act by the 65 Act 5 Par. Ja. 6. which is a singular Instance of drawing back Acts prior to the dates THese Acts are Explain'd in the Observations upon the third Parliament of Queen Mary King JAMES the sixth Parl. 3. THese Acts of this Parliament are Explain'd in my Criminal Treatise tit Heresie Nota That by the Act 45 Arch-bishops c. were to be punished being found negligent by the General Assembly of the Kirk the Bishops before the Year 1606. being but Titular Bishops and subject to the General Assembly and were to be deprived by them as is clear also by the 46 Act of this Parliament By the 46 Act it is also observable that all the Church-men were then only to give their Oath for acknowledging and recognoscing His Majesty and His Authority the Oath of Supremacy having come in only by the 1 Act Par. 18 Ja. 6. By this Act also non-residence is declared unlawful and is yet a cause of Deprivation except it be dispensed with the habilis modus whereof is by a Letter from the King BY the 72 Act Par. 9 Q. Mary the Minister was to have the Parson or Vicars Manse or so much thereof as should be sufficient for him and no Kirk mans Manse or Gleib could be feu'd yet an Heretor to whom a Vicars Gleib was feu'd a year before that Act was allow'd repetition Feb. 12. 1635. Nota. This Decision is otherwise related by mistake in the observ on the said Act. The Manse comes from the Latin Word Manere vid. Seldens History of Tithes pag. 52. By it we understand the Ministers Dwelling-house and if the Parson or Vicar had a Dwelling-house or Manse it belonged to the Minister but if there was none of these no other House could be design'd though it stood within the precincts of an Abbacy February 11 1631. Minister of Innerkeithing contra John Keir If there be no such Parson or Vicars Manse the Heretors must build one by the 31 Act of Parliament 1644. but thereafter by the 21 Act 3 Sess. Par. 1 Ch. 2. The value is declar'd to be from 500 merks to 1000 pounds so that the Minister may build a Manse to himself and he or his Executors will get repetition of what he bestows in building not exceeding 1000 pounds but if the Minister build only to the value of 500 merks he will not have action against the Parochioners for more though not exceeding 1000 pounds upon pretence that he might have built to that value January 8. 1670. Charters contra the Parochioners of Curry Where it was also found that the Reparation or Building of the Manse affects not singular Successors and is not debitum sundi By that Act likewise it was found that since Manses are ordained to be built by the Heretors that therefore Liferenters are not lyable which Decision may be very dangerous to Ministers since it may oftimes disappoint or at least for many Years suspend their Relief as for Instance if a Father should denude himself of his Estate in favours of his Son an Infant reserving only his own Liferent and it may be doubted whether such Liferenters per reservationem may not be lookt upon as Heretors in this as they are in some other cases and yet though Liferenters were not bound to build Manses yet they were found lyable to repair them these being but minores impensae which required to be presently done but neither Heretors nor Liferenters will be oblig'd to pay what is to be bestow'd upon Building or Repairing nor to stent themselves for that effect if they have materials of their own It has been also found that Manses are to be built and repaired where they were burnt or wasted casu fortuito A Gleib is that portion of Land that is to belong to the Minister Gleba terrae or a little piece Land and is by this Act to comprehend four Aikers of arable Land or 16 soums Grass where there is no arable Land Act 7 Par. 18 Ja. 6. These four Aikers are to be design'd out of Lands formerly belonging to the Parson or Vicar and if there be none such they are to be design'd out of Abbots Prioresses Bishop Friers or any other Kirk-land lying within the Bounds of the Paroch Act 161 Par. 13 Ja. 6. which order is exactly to be observed in the way set down by this Act as Dury observes July 13 1636. Halyburton contra Paterson yet I find that Bishops Lands were design'd before Abbots Lands because that Bishops have greater interest in the Cure and albeit it may seem that the designing the most ewest or nearest Lands to the Manse for a Gleib be in favours of the Minister and for his ease yet the Lordsfound a Designation null at the instance of the Heretor whose Lands were designed because there were other Lands nearer to the Manse for else any Heretors Lands within the Paroch might be designed for a Manse out of prejudice By the 116 Act 12 Par. Ja. 6. It is ordained that Ministers who are provided to Churchs where there was no Parson or Vicar formerly such as Cathedral Kirks or Abbacies shall have a sufficient Manse within the precinct of the Cathedral or Abbay except the Heretors of the precinct provide them to as good a Manse and as commodious These Designations are to be expede according to
caducitatis comminatione legali certus terminus statui si â—â—tra eum instrumenta non edat This Commination is our Certifiâ—ation and this Terminus is our Term in Improbations Rosenthal cap. 8. concl 33. num 13. and 14. In these Actions the King needs produce nothing to prove that he is Superior for the King is presum'd to be general Superior and is Infeft Jure Coronae in all the Lands of Scotlaâ—d but though other Superiors must produce a Seasing of the Lands yet they need produce nothing to prove that the Dâ—fender is Vassal who is oblidg'd to produce upon his hazard or else to disclaim and yet if the Superior Libel only that he is Infeft in such an Earldom and that the Defenders Lands are part and pertinent of the Earldom without producing any thing to instruct that he stands expresly Infeft in these Lands as a part of his Earldom the Lords would not put the Defender in that case to produce Simpliciter but allowed the same day to the Pursuer to prove that they were Part and Pertinent of the Lands wherein the Pursuer stands Infeft and to the Defender to produce if that were proved for the Lords thought it hard to force Heretors to propale and lay open the secrets of their Coveyances where it was not certain if the Pursuer had any Interest albeit it was alleadged that this would occasion two Litiâ—-contestations in one Cause viz. One whither the Pursuer had Right and another whether the Defender had sufficient Interest to seclude the Pursuite for the Lords thought that this being an Act before answer did solve this difficulty and the ordinar Maxime that the Vassal must disclaim upon his hazard and the Argument that either the Pursuer was Superior and would be found to be so and then there was no wrong done or else he was not and in that case the Defender was in no danger by disclaiming were both found only to take place where the Pursuer produc'd a special Right to the Lands Libell'd but not where he pretended only that the Land possest by the Vassal was part and pertinent of his Land which any Pursuer might alledge The third and old way of forcing the Vassal to exhibit his Evidents was by a Feudal Tryal per pares curiae that is to say before an Inquest for of old the King summoned his Vassals to appear before an Inquest to bring with them any Right they pretended to such or such Lands and that way is exprest in this Act as well as the other and in Statut. 36. Rob. 3. num 3. but is now in Desuetude The Lords of Session being come in place of the Inquest The Earl of Rothes as Donator to the Ward of the Countess of Buâ—cleugh having pursued the Tutors for inspection of the Charter-Chist that he might know what Lands held Ward The Lords ordained one of their own number to take inspection and to shew to the Donator what Papers could prove the Ward-holding because it is presumed that all Lands hold Ward Decem. 20. 1661. FRom this and the subsequent Acts It s observable that the Parliament may without citing parties discharge priviledges contained in private mens Rights though they cannot without citation casâ—e and annul privat Rights FOR understanding this Act It is fit to know that the distance betwixt the Hecks of Cruivs should be 3. inches wide which is renew'd by the 74. Act Parl. 10. Jac. 3. and should not be 5. inches conform to the 15. Act. Parl. 2. Jac. 4. which the Lords found 29 July 1665. to be ane error in the Printing They there also found that the Mid-stream was in Desuetude notwithstanding that it was reviv'd in all these Statutes but that the Saturndays Slop was to be observ'd in all Cruivs which was to continue by pulling up all the Hecks to the breadth of an ell in every Cruive from Saturnday at six a clock till Sunday at Sun-rising THough Mines of Gold and Silver be by this Act declar'd to belong to the King yet by the 27 Act. Parl. 4. Sess. 2. Car. 1. they were declared to belong to the Heretor he paying to the King the tenth Penny which was the Canon Metallious that was only due out of Mines found in private Fields l. 2. C. de Metal But that Act is resâ—inded in the general Act Rescissory and this Act is conform to the Feudal Law Feud lib. 2. tit quae sunt Regalia 56. It has been doubted whether Lead Copper or Tin belong to the King or the Heretor but the King is in possession of disponing upon these also and when He dispones them in a novo damus even to the Heretor He reserves a tenth part to be payed in to His Exchequer and His Majesty has granted general Gifts of all Copper-Mines and Craig tells us lib. 1. dieg 14. that omnium gentium omniumque aetatum consensu â—odinâ—s omnes auri argenti stanni aris similium in patrimonio principis numerari but yet they are not enumerate in the foresaid Text of the Feudal Law otherwise than by being comprehended under the word argentaria frequens est in jure sub majoribus minora comprehendi and yet I think that if His Majesty dispon'd Land with all the Silver-Mines this would not comprehend Copper Tin c. So that this Rule holds not in all Cases nor doth it hold in any Case where things require special Dispositions as omnia regalia do Nota From this Act to the 23. the Acts are either in desuetude of no import or explained in the Observations upon other Acts. BY this Act it is ordain'd that our Coyn be of the weight and fynness of England which was formerly ordain'd by the Ch. 38. Stat. Dav. 2. and though by the 17. Act. Parl. 1. Ja. 6. It is declar'd that Our Soveraign Lord cause Print and ConÈie Gold and Silver of sick fynness as other Countries doe yet after King James succeeded to the Crown of England He past a Contract betwixt the Mints of both Nations wherein they oblige themselves to keep the same Standart and though the denominations be different now yet the Standart is now the same For the English Denomination is 11. vnces 2. deniers fine which is call'd Sterling fyne ours is 11. deniers and 2. graine and albeit upon a very subtile inquirie It is alleadg'd that the Denominations cannot be adjusted without some difference yet it is so small a fraction as is not to be regarded and there are four indented Pieces two of Gold and two of Silver made of the same fynness and out of the same Essay-pot two whereof are sent to Scotland the one of which is kept by the Thesaurer and the other in the Mint and two are retain'd in England the Denominations are Printed upon these Pieces and in the Lord Hattons case it was found that this common Standart was to be the Rule Vid. Observation on the 249. Act 15. Parl. Ja. 6.
The last Act of this first Parliament in the Black Impression is an Inhibition made by King James the First to the Bishop of St. Andrews delegated by the Pope to proceed upon the Dismembration of a Benefice purchased at Rome Nota There are many Acts omitted out of Skeens Impression which were in that Impression because Skeen judg'd them Temporary as this Act and a Taxation impos'd for the Kings Ransome by this Parliament wherein so much was put not only upon every Boll of Victual but upon every Beast of Cattel Some Acts are also to be found in Skeen which are not in that Black Impression as the 80. Act. Parl. 10. Ja. 3. in the old Impression it is Act 79. concerning Purprision As also some Acts which were there only temporary are made by Skeen constant and perpetual Laws as the 29. Act of the 2. Parl. of this King â—uns thus in Skeen It is statute and ordain'd that the breakers of the Acts of Parliament be punish'd after the form and ordinance thereof whereas that Act runs thus in the Black Impression Item that it be enquired by the Kings Ministers gif the Statutes made in his first Parliament be kept and if they be broken in any of their pâ—nctilio's that the breakers of them be punisht after the form and ordinance of the said Parliament The Rubricks also of the Acts of that Black Impression differ almost every where and very much from this Impression which proves that Argumentum à rubro ad nigrum is of no great weight with us the Rubrick being an Inscription made by the Clerk Register and no part of the Act of Parliament King JAMES the First Parl. 2 IN the Inscription of this Parliament it is said and of his Kinrick the 19. year by which word Kinrick is meant his Reign for Kinrick in the Saxon Tongue signifies Reign and sometime Kinrick signifies Kingdome with us as in the 145. Act Parl. 13. Ja. 1. In the Inscription of this Parliament according to the Black Impression it is said that to the three Estates of the Realm there gatherit were propon'd sundry Articles to which was answer'd in manner as after-follows by the Inscription of the first Parliament according to that Impression it is said Electae fuerunt certae personae ad Articulos datos per Dominum Regem determinandos data caeteris licentia recedendi By which it appears that the Lords of Articles being nam'd the Parliament Adjourn'd and the custome was that they never mett again till the last day of the Parliament when the resolution of the Articles was voted 2. The resolution of the Articles is said to be Per Dominum Regem because he is only Law-giver and the Parliament only consents It is said in the Inscription of the third Parliament that these Articles were put to certain persons chosen by the three Estates which insinuats that the Lords of Articles were chosen by the three Estates whereas now the way of choosing the Articles is prescrib'd by the 1. Act 1. Parl Sess 3 Ch 2. BY this Act it is ordain'd that if any Lands or Possessions of Haly Kirk be wrongously annaly'd they should be restor'd by Process of Law For understanding whereof It is fit to know that Regularly the Lands and Goods of the Church are not Annaliable and Church-men are not Proprieters of them but Administrators and Liâ—renters praecarij possessores quibus tanquam commendatis non tanquam proprijs uti debent Salv. lib. 1. And this is clear by the Canon Law Canon sine exceptione 12. Quest. 2. can ult Quest. 1. and the Civil Law l. Jubemus 14. C. de sacro-sanctis Ecclesijs But yet there are three cases excepted in which it is permitted to alienat them exprest in Gloss. causae 12. Quest. 2. viz. 1. In causa necessitatis if the Churches Debts require the same as for maintainig its Fabrick or to maintain the Christian Religion against Infidels or Hereticks 2 do Causa pietatis as to maintain the Poor when starving or to redeem Prisoners from Infidels 3 tio Causa damni vitandi when the Lands are not otherwise improvable for which last there is an Act in the Lateran Council under Alexander the 3 d. Cap. ad aures Extr. de Reb. Eccles non alienand By our Law all Ecclesiastical Persons are discharg'd to lessen the Rental of their Benefices by setting Feues Tacks conversion of Victual for Money or any other Disposition By the 5 th Act. Parl. 22. Jac. 6. Bishops are discharg'd to set in Tacks their Quots and Casualities and though this last Act seems unnecessary because of the former yet it was made least it might have been debaitable whether Casualities fell under the former Prohibition since Tutors may transact for these as we see in Francies Montgomeries case against the Earl of Liven where it was found that Tutors who cannot alienat may transact for Casualities as to give a Liferent to the Husband of the Heretrix in place of the Courtesie and though Prelats aswel as Barrons were allowed to Feu their Ward Lands for the better improvement of them Act. 71. I. c. 2. Parl. 14. Act. 91. Jac. 4. Parl. 6. Yet these Acts are only to be understood of Lands to be Feu'd out for the equivalent Rent when at first they were Barren but they are no warrand to Bishops to Tax their Wards for a certain Dutie for this is contrarie to the Interest of the Church and is so far from being warranted by any Law that there is an express Act. viz. 9. Parl 23. Ja. 6. allowing them only to few out their Ward Lands by a Temporary Statute to endure for three years allanerly which shews that Regularly it was not lawful and this did prejudge the King also who might have right to the Ward and Marriage sede vacante from which he would be debarr'd by Taxing these Casualities And therefore Sharp Arch-bishop of St. Andrews having Taxt the Ward-holdings of the Lands of Blebo that Right was reduced by his Successor 12. March 1684 Though it was alleadg'd that though Church-men cannot alienat Teynds which are the Spiritualities of the Church yet they are domini and not administratores tantum as to the Temporalitie which was said to be also Craigs opinion and Taxing was a more constant Rent to the Church and as a Bishop might Gift a Ward which could not be quarelled by his Successors even for years after his Death or Removal so might he Tax Nota Though by the 41. Act Parl. 10 Ja. 2. The King may resume the annext Property unlawfully Dispon'd but any Process of Law yet in this Act Kirk-men are not to resume the Lands wrongfully annalÈied by them otherwayes than by lawful Process of Law BY this Act Hospitals founded by the King are to be visited by the Chancellor but Hospitals founded by Bishops or other Subjects are to be visited by the Bishop and ordinary which Act is renew'd by the 63. Act Parl. 5. Ja. 6. But by the
private Quarrels if they be Charged by Letters from the Council to render them as use is by Heraulds they are also punishable as Traitors in case of contempt but if these who keep out their Houses upon private Feids do thereafter yield them the keeping them out is only punishable arbitrarly and not as Treason not only are such as keep out their Houses immediatly against the King executed as Traitors as we see in Robert Steuart's case who was Executed January 5. 1615. But such as hound them out to keep their Houses are Executed as Traitors and thus the Earl of Orknay was Executed for hounding out his Son February 1. 1615. Though hounding out be not exprest in this Act for hounding out is still Art and Part But the Justices refused February 2. 1674. In Assints Case to sustain the Garisoning of Assints House to infer Treason except it was Garisoned after the Publication of the Letters of Fire and Sword and that the Garisoning of it before did only infer Deforcement it being commanded to yield by the Sheriff in the Kings Name By which it seems that Garisoning Houses to defend against Execution of the Law infers not Treason except it be done either upon a publick account or after raising and publishing Letters of Fire and Sword 2 do Some argue from Act that since the assailing of Houses where the Kings Person is shall be repute Treason if it be done without consent of the three Estates that therefore it is lawful to assault Houses or rise in Arms with consent of the three Estates But this is a great mistake for no opposition to or Invading of the King can be justified by a Warrand from the three Estates and the meaning of this Act is That though it be pretended that the King is Prisoner in any Castle it is not lawful for any private person upon that pretext to raise Armies and Invade that place without authority of Parliament For it is dangerous to make private persons Judges in such considerable Cases And the rysing in Arms or defending Castles on what pretext soever is declar'd Treason by the 5 Act 1 Par. Ch. 2. The occasion of this Act was because this King had been twice kept in Castles in His Minority once by the Chancellour Sir William Creighton and thereafter by Sir Alexander Livingston Governour and at both times endeavours were us'd to besiege the Castles of Edinburgh and Stirling where he then was Vid. obser on 5 Act 1 Par. Ch. 2. BY this Act Regalities returning to the King in Property viz either by Sale or Forefalture for the Kings property is never erected in a Regality but in a Stewartry shall be judg'd by the Sheriffs and the ordinary Judges and ordinarly when Regalities return to the King they are expresly supprest and Erected of new in Stewartries as Orknay Act 13 Par. 2 Ch. 2. Obser. That regulariter these who dwell in Regalities are not subject to the Sheriff vid. Act 43 Par. 11 Ja. 2. And Erections of Regalities do ordinarly bear a power to Repledge THe meaning of this Act is That the Justice Clerk shall not reveal who raises Summonds or obtains Warrands for apprehending Malefactors c. Least also the Malefactors or Defenders escape before they be cited or apprehended as also that when any man is Delated for one Cryme the Justice-Clerk change not the pursuit and raise it for another Cryme and whereas it is said That it shall not be lawful to him to translate such Actions except it be for the better to the King the meaning is that if the Informer ignorantly Inform in a great Cryme as if it were a small Cryme as if he should Inform only that to be a Ryot which is Treason the Justice-Clerk may raise the Pursuite as for Treason It is clear that since by this Act the name of the giver up of Ditty in the Porteous Roll is to be conceal'd which is done for encouraging Persons to delate that therefore Treason should not be given up in a Porteous Roll or else the paena talionis is lost nor do I remember that Treason was taken up of old so and if this were allow'd discontented Tennents or Servants knowing they were secure against talion might be induc'd easily to destroy their Masters THis Act appoints the Strickers of false Coyn to be punished as Law will and by the Act 124. Parl. 7 th Ja. 5. It is ordained That they who falsify Money or counterfits the Kings Irons shall be punished according to the old Law and yet I find no Law before that time specifying the punishment in general For the 41. Act Parl. 5. Ja. 3. punishes only with Death the Home-bringers of Black-money That is to say Copper-money and by the Act 70. Parl. 9. Q. M. The Home-bringers of the false Coyn should be delated and the Delaters is to have the half of all his Goods Moveable and immoveable but though the punishment of Treason be not specified in any express Act yet it appears that it infers Forfaulture for else the Revealer could not have the half of the Offenders Goods immoveable and I find one Drummond burnt for False Money forging the 27. November 1601. And his Brother Patrick Murray burnt also for Art and Part red counsel and concealing the Treasonable Forging Coyning and Out-putting of false Money and the Sentences upon False Coyn bear ordinarily Forfalture vid. supra Act 49. Parl. 3. Ja. 1. But it were expedient to make an express Act in this case THis Act is now in Desuetude and it was sounded upon the missio in possessionem per primum secundum decretum so much Treated ofâ— in the Civil Law but in place of all these are come our Compryzings and Adjudications whereby if the Debitor pay not the Creditor Compryses and is put in Possession and if he Redeem not within the Legal then the Land belongs absolutâ—ly to the Creditor without Redemption King IAMES the second Parliament 7. BY this Act The Home-bringing of Poyson is discharged under the Pain of Treason and yet I find none punished as Traitors upon this and John Dick in Anno 1649. For poysoning his Brother and Sister is only executed but not Forfaulted but I believe he has had no Lands to Forfault nor do I see how a Judge can proceed less severely in this case than the Law appoints especially seing the Act is so express that this shall remain as an aye lasting Statute And the reason why the Law is severer against Poisoning than Murder is because no man can defend himself against Poison and Poison uses never to be given but by persons who have some Trust and so is Murder under Trust which is likewise Treason by our Law and yet it was only punish'd Capitally by the Civil Law l. 1. § 1. ff ad L. Cornel de sicar Though this Act discharges the bringing home of any Poison for any manner of use Yet Apothecaries are allow'd to bring it home
did fall under the Forefalture of the Vassal though it was not Confirm'd in the Person of the Sub-vassal and it was alleadg'd that the Sub-feu could not be quarrell'd because the King by this Act having invited men to take Sub-feus it was not just that the Invitation given by a publick Law should become a snare and having promis'd to ratifie and approve the Sub-feu that promise being insert in this publick Law was equivalent to a Confirmation and therefore should defend against a Forefalture as well as a Confirmation could have done and though these Words were alleadg'd only to import a promise to Ratifie which did imply that application should have been made for a Confirmation Yet to this it was answer'd that this was an Invitation and the Words subjoyn'd thereto must therefore be considered as a present Approbation especially seing there is no time prefixt for craving of a Confirmation nor any irritancy annex'd to the not craving thereof It was likewise urg'd that by the 91 Act Parl. 6. Ja. 4. This Sub-feuing should be no cause of Forefalture and that since this Act would defend against Ward and Recognition it should much more defend against Forefalture upon Treason for that being a most personal crime of which not only the Sub-vassal is innocent but oft-times concurs with the King against his own Supeâ—iour the poor Sub-vassal ought therefore to be less troubled upon it than upon Recognition to which the Sub-vaâ—sal himself is somewhat accessory because he receives the Right upon which the Recognition is infer'd And whereas it was urg'd that by the 37 Act Parl. 2 Ja. 6. The Sub-vassals of the Kings Vassals who were Forefalted at that time are secured if themselves were innocent which Act had been unnecessary if this Act had secured them and that Act is declar'd to have been only Temporary pro eâ vice by the 201 Act Parl. 14 Ja. 6. To this it was answer'd that by this Act such Sub-feus are only allow'd as are set for the just avail and all other Feus might have been quarrell'd and therefore that Act was made to secure the Sub-vassals of Forefalted Persons whose Rights might have been quarrell'd upon that head or else that Act has been made ad majorem cautelam and to prevent all debate which is most usual Upon this Debate the Lords found that this Sub-feu fell not under the Forefalture this general Law being equivalent to a Confirmation February 12. 1674. Marquess of Huntly contra Cairuburrow It has also been Debated whether Wodsets Feu'd out are secur'd against this Act as well as Lands irredeemably Dispon'd and I think they are since a Wodset Right is as properly a Feu as an irredeemable Right What is meant in this Act by the competent avail for which Ward Lands may be feu'd is dubious but the just avail for which the Kings proper Lands may be feu'd is by several Acts of Parliament declar'd to be the Retour-dewty or new extent and therefore I think that the competent avail here must also be interpreted to be the Retour-dewty and in January 1680. betwixt the same parties it was found that though the competent avail be the Retour-dewty exprest in his Service yet the Sub-vassal getting a part of the Lands feu'd to him he ought to pay no more for the competent avail but his proportion of his Superiours Retour-dewty and that if a Charter was given him blank by his Superiour which he fill'd up himself with a special Reddendo the Charter was not therefore null and he was only lyable in his just proportion of the said Retour'd-dewty and the Vassal if he pleases may by a Process against his Superiour get this competent avail to which his share should extend determin'd and that being specifi'd in his Service will thereafter become his Retour-dewty though ordinarly the Sub-vassal to prevent expence or by mistake uses to Retour the Dewty that was payable by his Superiour especially if the difference be not great THe punishment of such as abuse the power of their Jurisdiction of Regality is left arbitrary by this Act. vid. c. 14. Stat. Rob. 2. THis Act is Explain'd in the 96 Act 6 Parl. Ja. 4. BY this Act all Remissions are null except the Party injur'd be Assythed and he who produces the Remission must either find sufficient Caution to pay the Assythment within fourty days or to stay in Prison till the payment and by the 155 Act 12 Parl. Ja. 6. and 136 Act 8 Parl. Ja. 6. It is provided that if the Remiâ—sion contain not an Assythment expresly in the body of it the Remission shall be null but because these Acts were Temporary therefore by the 174 Act Parl 13 Ja. 6. If any Remission or Respit be granted before the Party injur'd be first satisfi'd the Remission is to be null and though by that last Act it would seem that an Assythment subsequent to the Remission would not make the Remission to convalesce because that Act requires that the Remission shall be null as said is yet the meaning of that Act seems only to be that without an Assythment the Remission shall be null From the same Act exception is made of Remissions granted for quieting the Highlands or Borders which may be valid without Assythment Gratiâ factâ a principâ— nocenti non valet nisi pax sit prius habita ab haeredibus offensi which we call a Letter of Slains vel nisi fiat reparatio damnorum Plot. concil 78. Clar. Quest. 58. num 40. ubi traditur posse Regem tamen gratiare nocentem sine pace privati quando damnandus elaborasset pro bono reipublicae vid. l. non omnes § fin ff de re milit The second part of this Act relates to Remissions for SpuilÈieâ— or Theft as to which the Lords of the Session may restore the Party and Assyth him notwithstanding of the Remission By this Act no Free-holder can be forc'd to come to Parliament except he hold a twenty pound Land of the King but none can be now compell'd and this was only in the time when all Free-holders were oblig'd to compear in Parliament as the Kings Head-Court nor can any now Vot in the election of the Commissioners except they hold a 40 shilling Land of the King immediatly or hold ten Chalders of Victual or a 1000 pound Feu-dewty all deducted off a Bishop or Abbot formerly and hold the same now of the King Act 35 Par. 1 Ch. 2. But now again since the restitution of Bishops the Bishops represent their own Land in particular and so their Vassals are not allow'd to sit in Parliament vid. Act 21 Par. 3 Ch. 2. THe negligence so severely punish'd in Judges by this Act must be negligentia dolosa supina and the distinction here observ'd betwixt the punishment of Heretable Officers and others is ordinary amongst the Doctors Bald. ad l. 1. ff de serv. fugitiv where he says that pro negligentia Judex
their advice in which case nemo tenetur de concilio nisi doloso aut fraudulento But it may be infer'd from this Act that regulariter Counsellours are not lyable for what they do else this Act had been needless obliging them to be lyable only till the next Parliament But it is also observable that this Act was made by these who had risen in rebellion against King James the third under pretext of his Sons Command though in effect they forced him when he was a Child to head them against his Father and in this Act they force him to make use of their Counsel and yet the Act bears only that the King humbled himself to abide at their Counsel the same persons made an Act declaring that Rebellion lawful which is yet extant amongst the black Acts but was Expung'd as most abominable and Rebellious THough this Act appoints that our Gold and Silver shall be of the fineness of Brudges yet by the 96 Act 13 Par. Ja. 3. and 56 Act 6 Par. Q. M. the Silver is to be eleven penny fine and the Gold twenty two Carret fine so that the best Money being but twelve penny fine and the best Gold twenty four Carret fine there is a twelfth part of alley allow'd in either and so our Silver-work and our Coyn should be of the same fineness but this Act has been in Desuetude as to Silver-work for which the Gold-smiths alleadge that the people are to be blam'd and not they since the people will not go to the price and they do the people no wrong since they proportion the price to the intrinsick value We observe both in our Plate and Coyn the same Standart with England but the Standart of the French Plate is finer than their Coyn to discourage their Subjects from having much Plate and encouraging them to bring it to the Mint for current Money The reason that is alleadg'd why this alley is allow'd to both Gold and Silver is commonly said to be because they are not malliable without some mixture of Copper but the contrary will appear to these who use to refine Silver with Lead and Gold with Antimony by which Gold and Silver may be brought to the exactest fineness without all mixture and they are then most malliable and soft but the true reason why the Copper is added is because without it both Gold and Silver would be too soft and so too much subject to wearing and loss as appears in the English Rose-nobles and the double of Hungarian Ducats and the Venetian Cequins for which cause the Emperor now adds more Copper to his Ducats and the English make no more Rose-nobles or any other Gold so fine IS formerly Explain'd in the 11 Act Par. 1 Ja. 1. THe Prince of Scotland was Earl of Cumberland whilst that Countrey belong'd to this Crown but when the Steuarts came to the Crown which was in the Reign of Rob. the 2. Their Heretage which was Renfrew c. was Erected in a Principality That there was such an Erection is clear from the Revocations made by K. Ja. 5. and K. Ja. 6. Where all Dispositions of Lands annex'd to the principality are Revocked but the Erection it self is lost However to supply that the Rights made by the King bear still to be as Prince when there is no Prince and as Administrator to the Prince when there is a Prince and the Revenue of the Principality is manag'd in cumulo with the rest of the Kings Revenue when there is no Prince but when there is a Prince he has a Chamberlain who receives and compts for the principality a part It was debated January 1680. whether when there was no Prince existing the Vassals who held of the Prince were to be repute Vassals holding of the King immediatly or as Vassals holding still of the Principality and so holding of a Subject the Principality being still a distinct See whereof the King had only the Administration But it was found by the Lords that when there was no Prince they held of the King and therefore they found that the Laird of Lusses Marriage fell to the Kings Donator though it was alledg'd that his Marriage of these Lands could not fall to the King since he held other Lands Taxt Ward of the King and he who holds Lands of the King is not lyable in a Marriage for Lands holden of a Subject and consequently he being content to pay the Taxt Marriage to the King the ordinary avail of his Marriage could not be crav'd for Lands which he held of the Prince who was but a Subject The reasons of which Decision were 1 o. That Appanages given to Children do in their own nature imply to be only Temporary and whilst the Child exists to whom it is provided for an Appanage and therefore since we have not the foundation of the Principality it self we must construct it to have been thus erected 2 o. By this Act it is ordain'd that when there is no Prince the Vassals of the Principality shall come to Parliament and none can come to Parliament 〈◊〉 such as hold of the King and that same Act says till the King have a Son who shall be immediat betwixt the King and them which clearly demonstrats that till there be a Son they hold immediatly of the King 3 o. This is yet more clear by the 16 Act 1 Par. Ch. 1. and the 58 Act Par. 1 Ch. 2. Whereby Lands holding of the King and Prince are aequiparate quoad all legal effects 4 o. When the Kings comes to any Estate jure privato by Succession or Forefalture these Lands alter their nature and the Vassals hold of the King as King and are not consider'd as holding of a Subject as formerly and therefore the same should hold when the principality by the not existing of a Prince returns to the Crown 5 o. By an express Decision observ'd by Dury It is found that whilst there is a Prince the Lands of the Principality hold of the Prince but when there is no Prince they hold of the King 6 o When there is no Prince the King Dispones the Casualties and sometimes the Lands as he does these of his own Property and it were absurd to assert that when there is no Prince the King Dispones as Administrator for else he behov'd to be comptable nor can there be an Administrator where there is no Pupil but the King is term'd sometimes an Administrator ex errore stili or ad majorem cautelam or else the King is truly made to Dispone both as King and Prince to keep up the Principality as a distinct Fee and Erection lest otherwise the knowledge of the Lands might perish the Erection being lost 7 o. This is clear by the practice of forraign Nations Perez ad tit 1. lib. 10. cod num 10. Terrae quae in Appanagium dantur penes domanium semper manent solo usufructu provisionaliâ—er concesso alias contingeret Regium Domanium
consultum in iis quae usu consumuntur § 3. just de usufruct l. 1. ff de usufructu earum rer quae usu consum But all this matter is learnedly Treated by Christin ad Consuetud Mechliâ— tit 14. where he determines that the lesser and temporary expences are to be bestow'd by the Liferenter but that she will get 〈◊〉 from the Heretor of these expences quae perpetuam rei utilita tem concernunt if she advertise the Heretor that they were necessary and first desir'd him to repair but that she cannot by her Reparation alter the form of the thing though for the better nor use it otherways than the Proprietar himself did By the former Act Ja. 4 Par. 3 cap. 25. to which this relates the Liferenters are to find Caution that they shall not destroy the Orch-yards Woods c. From which it may be observ'd that where Woods are upon Liferented Lands the Liferenter as well as the Conjunct-fiar may make use of as much of the Wood or Coal as is necessary for her own use since she is only restrain'd by this Act from wasting and by the custom of some Countreys she cannot pretend Right to Trees fallen by Winds or accidents if the Trees be such as are fit for sale in sylvâ caedua ita inâ—isionem facere potest ut ad fructum pertineat non vere ad destructionem vid. l. ex sylva 10. ff de usufruct which agrees with our Law by which the Liferentrix has only right to as much of the Coals or Trees as are necessary for her own use but even this Right is only due to her whilst the Land is the Fiars but does not hinder the Fiar to sell his own Land Craig pag. 189. FOrestallers are these who buy Goods before they come to an open Mercat and Regraters are properly only these who buy up all Goods that they may sell them again at dearer rates But our Law has us'd these two words promiscuously though by this Act such as buy any thing before it be presented to the Mercat or who buy it in the Mercat but before the Mercat be proclaim'd which is call'd here the time of day of the Mercat are punish'd as Forestallers yet there must be something of design proven as if they should stand in the way upon a Mercat day or should every day cause buy up what were going to such a Town to hinder the Traffick of that Town for it were hard to make generally all who buy things going to a Town or a Mercat Forstalling for that may be done either ignorantly or necessarly Though the punishment here be Imprisonment and escheating of the Defenders Moveables yet by the 148 Act Par. 12 Ja. 6. The punishment is ordain'd to be fourty pounds for the first fault a hundred for the second and escheating of Moveables for the third and though severals have been found guilty of Forstalling as particularly upon the 9. of June 1596. and the 6. of August that year yet I find no punishment follow'd The Chamberlain of old was the only Judge in his Chamberland-air cap. 35 Stat. Will. Reg. But now the Justices are only competent Judges to this Crime they were call'd Dardanarii by the Civil Law and were punish'd poenâ extraordinariâ l. 6. ff de extraor crim THis Act is innovated and enlarg'd by the Act i6 Sess. 3 Ch. 2 Par. 1. ALL Officers within Burgh are discharg'd to purchase Lordships out of Burgh least they give dreadure to their Neighbours by which they are as I conceive discharg'd to be Lords of Session or Lord Barons or at least they lose their Offices how soon they attain to these Each Burgh does to this day compt in Exchequer for their Feu-dewty yearly conform to this and other Acts. It was thought that a pursuit against the Magistrats of Edinburgh for compting for their Common good upon this Act was not competent at the Instance of a privat Burgess or of any save the Lord Thesaurer of the Kingdom who comes in place of the Chamberlain Air though it was said to be actio popularis and a species of suspectae tutelae but this would have given too great occasion to Faction and would have discourag'd Magistracy too much nor are such popular actions in matters of Government to be easily allow'd under Monarchy though they are necessary in privat Rights THough this Act appoint such as trouble Burrows in using their Liberties to be punish'd in Justice Courts as common oppressors yet this is in Desuetude except the oppression be very attrocious but the ordinary remedy is now either by actions of Molestation or declarator of Property before the Session or by actions of Ryot before the Privy Council COlonel Borthwick having gotten a Gift of this penal Statute pursu'd the Malt-men criminally thereupon which Pursuit was discharg'd by the Council 1672. upon a Bill and these Statutes found to be in Desuetude and impracticable in this age wherein Malt cannot be sold for two shilling more than the price of the Boll of Bear as this Act appoints BY our Law all single Escheats fall to the King for bona mobilia sunt allodialia and hold not of the ordinary Superior who has no Right jure proprio to the Escheats of such as dwell within his Territory and thus Lords of Regality have only right to such Escheats by their Erection from the King But the Liferent-escheats which fall either for civil or criminal Causes belong to immediat Superiors respective so that if a Vassal who is at the Horn have Lands holden of many Superiors each Superior will have right to the Land which holds of himself for Feus being given for service and the Vassal being nullus in jure by his Rebellion the Feu returns to the Superior except in the case of Treason in which it falls to the King Observe from this Act that the Lords of Articles are Judges to Processes in the first instance but the Debate must be resum'd to the Parliament BY this Act Justice-airs and Courts are peremptor at the second Diet but by the Act 79 Par. 11 Ja. 6. they are peremptor at the first Diet and parties not appearing now are unlaw'd if pursuers and are declar'd Fugitive if Defenders at the first Diet. Vid. observ on Act 39 Par. 5 Ja. 3. supra This Act relates to another Act of Parliament dated the 10. of July 1625. but there is no Parliament amongst our Printed Laws of that date THough by this Act Depredations Reiffs and SpuilÈies are ordain'd to be first civily pursu'd yet the Justices use to sustain Criminal Pursuits for these causes in the first instance except a defence be propon'd upon matter of Right as if the Defender alleadg'd he had a Disposition or other Right and in these cases the Justices superceed to give answer to the Criminal Pursuit till the Civil Right and Title be first discust and this the Privy Council uses to do in
Rob. 1. They who take Lands to Champart are to be in the Kings will and lose their employment for all their life-time Champart is a â—rench word signifying a part of the Land controverted so that whosoever takes part of the thing controverted per pactum de quotâ litis falls under that Law By this Act whoever takes Rewards or Buds are punishable by tinsel of Honour Fame and Dignity and by the 93 Act 6 Par. Ja. 6. the taking by their Wives and Servants which was here omitted is punishable by Infamy Deprivation and Confiscation of all the Defenders Moveables By this Act giving of partial counsel that is to say consulting is declared a species of Bribing though nothing be taken at least it is punishable as bribing so that it seems a Judge may not consult albeit he abstain from judging in that cause These words That he shall take no further Rewards nor Buds than is permitted of the Law are set down to shew that Judges may lawfully take the Quota allowed by Law to Judges which we call Sentence-money and the Civil Law Sportulae The taking Bribes was in the Civil Law punish'd per l. Jul. repetundarum l. 1 3 6. d. t. And the punishment was death if Money was taken to pronounce a Capital Sentence or Confiscation of Goods and Banishment in other cases l. 7. § 3. eod tit but by the Doctors and in our Law this Crime is called Barratrie Such as defame Judges as Bribers are punished here as Bribers but besides the poena talionis which is inflicted upon all such as murmure against Judges there is likewise an Arbitrary punishment adjected and either the King or his Council are Judges competent to the cognition of this Crime by this Act. Nota That if a Spiritual Man murmure against any Judge he has the priviledge to be called before his own Judge ordinar by this Act but this revocatio sori is not now in use since the Reformation BAse Infeftments are these which are given to be holden of the Disponer which are valid Rights in themselves though they never attain possession for else they could not give good Interest to reduce the Rights that may hinder them to attain possession These base Infeftments are introduced with us contrary to the principles of the Feudal Law which allows no Feudal conveyance without the Superiors consent and were introduc'd rather by accident than upon design This Act upon which they are founded being introduc'd rather to suppress simulate Infeftments than to strengthen base Infeftments and the great priviledges arising to them now did insensibly grow from the favour which our Law shewed alwayes to lawful Creditors even as the priviledge of necessitating Superiors to receive Comprizers did Base Infeftments though yet wanting possession are preferable to posterior Arrestments but they are not preferred to posterior Life-rent Escheats except they attained possession in cursu rebellionis Feb 21. 1667. Miln contra Clerkson and before this Act of Parliament 1540. they were still preferr'd to posterior publick Infeftments But by this Act it is statuted that publick Infeftments cloathed with Possession for year and day shall be preferr'd to base Infeftments not cloathed with possession though prior which praesumptione juris de jure are by this declared to be simulate Rights But though this Act requires that the publick posterior Infeftment be granted for onerous Causes yet a publick posterior Infeftment though gratuitous will be preferr'd 3 March 1626. Law con Balgownie But this may be doubted because of this Act and in that Decision the publick Infeftment was preferr'd because Inhibition had follow'd thereupon for any Act that can take off the presumption of simulation and which will make the Infeftment any way to be known doth fortifie the Infeftment as well as if possession had follow'd and so an Inhibition following upon the debt for which the base Infeftment was granted will prefer that Infeftment to a posterior publick Infeftment without necessity to reduce ex capite Inhibitionis and an Infeftment following upon an Appryzing was without reduction ex capite Inhibitionis preferr'd to a prior base Infeftment though clad with possession because the Appryzing follow'd upon a debt whereupon Inhibition was serv'd before that base Infeftment the said 3 of March 1626. And likewise if other diligence was done or the time was so short that a years possession could not be attain'd then a Terms possession was sustain'd or though there followed no possession at all the base Infeftment will be preferr'd to a posterior publick Infeftment interveening before the possession could be acquir'd 13 Feb. 1624. Possession likewise of a part of the Land sustains the Infeftment for all but this should hold only in Lands erected in a Barony or such wherein one Seasing may serve 5 Feb. 1668. Ker contra Ker. Hope in his lesser Practiques is of opinion that in the concourse of two base Infeftments the prior will be preferr'd in petitorio though no possession follow'd thereupon which seems to be reasonable because before this Act of Parliament jus illud obtinebat and by this Act Nihil quoad hoc est innovatum yet de practicâ a base Infeftment is as null till it be cloathed with possession as an Infeftment à me is before it be confirmed If neither of the two base Infeftments be cloathed with possession prior in tempore est prior in jure The Husbands possession was alledg'd to be the Wifes possession as to her principal but not quoad her additional Joynture 7 Decemb. 1664. Lady Craig contra Lord Loure and in our Law the Husbands possession is accounted the Wifes possession whether the Husband possest by himself or by Wod-setters or Comprizers deriving right from him though it was alledg'd that this was not the Husbands possession they having possest proprio jure which priviledge is not only introduc'd ob savorem detis but because she could not possess for which reason likewise a base Infeftment for relief is preferr'd to a posterior publick Infeftment upon a Comprizing albeit the Cautioner was only charged to make payment which was found a sufficient distress 28 July 1625. As also after a solemn dispute the Lords did prefer a prior base Infeftment for warrandice though not cloathed with natural possession to a posterior publick Infeftment 9 January 1666. Brown contra Scot. But here the Infeftment of warrandice was given simul semel with the Infeftment of the principal Lands so that there remains still a doubt as to Infeftments of warrandice given ex intervallo but Infeftments for relief were not found sufficiently cloath'd with possession by payment of the Sums for which they were granted as Infeftments of warrandice are by possession of the principal Lands because it was alledg'd that it was more natural that the possession of one Land should cloath the Infeftment of another than that possession of Annualrents should cloath an Infeftment of Land and that there might be greater collusion in payment
Poynding as well as Horning to pass not only for liquid Sums but where the execution consists in facto since poynding can only be for a liquid Sum. To which it may be answer'd that the meaning of the words are that poynding may be allow'd though the Obligation was not originally for a liquid Sum but ad factum praestandum but it is necessary in that case that the effect should be thereafter liquidat by a Sentence else there could be no commensuration and so no poynding and yet I cannot deny but the Clause is ill exprest THis Act appointing that the Defender shall find Caution to enter the Justice-Court but in sober manner is now in Desuetude there being no such Clause either in the Letters or any such Caution found but though the Justices allows some Friends to enter the Pannel with the Defender yet these must be very few and disarmed THis Act appointing that Salmond Herring and White Fish shall be only sold at the Staple here related is in Desuetude and though the Town of Aberdene has their own Gadges of Salmond conform to this Act yet the Town of Edinburgh pretend a right to be the sole Gadgers of Salmond in all Scotland by vertue of a Gift from King Charles the First which Gift the Town of Aberdene have suspended upon this Act and this Act in so far as it appoints Herring and White Fish to be brought to Leith and Crail is expresly abrogated by the 14 Act Par. 10 Ja. 6. THis Act is explained in the Observations upon the 75 Act 6 Par. Ja. 6. King IAMES the sixth Parliament 9. THis Act was introduced to correct an ill custome which had crept in at the Reformation whereby the Popish Prelate finding that they were to be put out did demit their Benefices in favours of these with whom they entered in a compact and by vertue of which compact they reserved to themselves their own Liferents Likeas according to the Câ—â—on Law Si quis resignaverit beneficium retentis sibi fructibus pro per si ne non valet resignatio nam decet quod ipse qui Altari servit de Altari vivat cap. cum secundum 16 de prab And in reason it must be concluded that the Benefices must be ill served when these who resign reserve their own Liferent for he who serves will have nothing in that case and he who serves not ought to have nothing Therefore by this Act all such compacts are declared null and it is declared that for the future all Rights to be made to Prelacies shall be null except the places be vacant by decease forfalture or simple dimission of him who possest the same formerly nor doth the King now accept of any dimission or resignation in favours of any other party for that is a real invasion upon His Royal Power by which he dispones upon all Offices according to his free will WHen persons are forfeited they or their Children use to abstract the Evidents of their Land and therefore by the first part of this Act it is declared that the King or his Donatar shall have right to all Lands c. peaceably possessed by the forefeited person for the space of 5 years preceeding the forfeiture Observ. 1. That this priviledge holds only in cases of Treason but not where his Majesty comes to have right by any other Title and it may be debated if this should hold where the forfeiture proceeds upon all the Laws whereby any Crime is ordained to be punished as Treason but it is not declared to be Treason such as Theft in Landed Men c. for it would appear that this priviledge was only granted where the Crime is declared to be Treason but yet since these Crimes are punished as Treason this Act should extend even to these for the presumptions inductive of this Act viz that they will abstract their Evidents holds even in this case and it cannot be deny'd but these persons are forfeited as Traitors Observ. 2. That this right introduced in favours of the King seem to be only presumptive so that if any Party should show a Back-band from the forfeited person who was 5 years in possession the person to whom the same was granted or any who could instruct a better right might pretend to exclude the Donatar even as a Church-man who was decennalis triennalis possessor might be excluded upon a better right or by proving that the Church-man possessed only by a tolerance but yet this presumption may be answered to be juris de jure and so to exclude all better rights sibi imputent who having such rights suffered the forfeited person for 5 years to possess without any interruption and if such competitions were allow'd the King 's right might be eluded by an hundred contrivances and though this Act may seem to be useless now since the Registration of Writs which hinders Writs to be abstracted yet that was repelled 23 and last of July 1666. Earl of Southesk against the Marquess of Huntley but by the 4 Act Par. 18. Ja. 6. It is declared that Extracts of Rights either disponed or confirmed by his Majesty shall be valid though the principles cannot be produced and yet if King and Parliament pleased this Act might suffer some correction because his Majesty is much better secur'd now by Registrations than he was at the making of this Act. Observ. 3. That since this Act appoints this quinquennial possession to be proven only by the Retour of an Inquest it was therefore well found that it could not be proven by exception 13 June 1666. Home contra Tennents of Kello and Home Yet though there be not a Retour already made the Lords will superceed extracting that betwixt and such a time the quinquennial possession may be retoured as was found in that case Observ. 4. That the possession condescended on in the Act is where the forfeited persons were 5 years in possession by labouring the same with their own Goods setting the same to Tennents or uplifting the Mails and Duties so that it would seem that these kinds of possessions are requisite in this case and that the Act of Parliament hath required them because they are palpable and therefore civil possession per constitutum by reservation receiving of Annualrent from Principal or Cautioners not relative to the Infeftment of Annualrent but to the Bond or otherwayes seen not sufficient by the words of this Act Observ. 5. That since this Act is founded upon uninterrupted possession of the forfeited person that therefore where there are interruptions this holds not and thus it was found that the raising of an Inhibition was a sufficient interruption 23 July 1666. Earl of Southesk con Morquess of Huntly By the second part of this Act it is appointed that where the forfeited person was in possession of Lands Tacks or Teinds c. the time of the forfeiture albeit he had not been in possession 5 years preceeding
were not null though not Confirm'd and January 20. 1666. Rentoun contra Feuers of Coldinghame The Lords found that Gifts of an Office of Forrestry granted by Kirkmen needed not be Confirmed these not being properly Feus of kirk-Kirk-lands ibid. THis Act Appoints that all Money and Victual assign'd to the Captains of the Kings Castles and whereof they have been in possession for five years shall remain with them unquestionably and this is like the Quinquennial Possession given to the King in cases of Forefalture Nota That the King has a Duty paid to him in Exchequer called The Castle Wards so call'd because they are paid in forwarding or keeping His Castles and he has no Right to them but constant payment conform to the Exchequer Rolls and therefore yearly the Sheriffs are charg'd with them and they get Letters of Relief and it was found in a case betwixt the Sheriff of Haddingtoun and Sir John Nisbet January 11. 1678. That the said Sir John had not prescriv'd an exemption as to these Castle Wards neither against the King nor Sheriff though he had paid none for fourty years since there were Letters of Relief yearly granted 2 o. It was alleadg'd that his Lands of Dirletoun having come once in the Kings hands by Forefalture and His Majesty having of new given them out that Servitude was thereby extinguish'd since res sua nemini servit but was repell'd because the King did of new only Dispone the said Lands as when they fall in his hands by the Forefalture King IAMES sixth Parliament 10. MR. Nicol Dalgleish and some other Presbyterian Ministers having reproached the King and His Government this Act declaring slanderous Speeches and Writs punishable by Death as Sedition was made and is more fully explain'd in the Act 134 Par. 8 Ja. 6. and in my crim pract tit Injuries Observ. 1 o. Sedition is a Name that receives different punishments according to its different Degrees of guilt and therefore where it is destructive of the Kings Authority immediatly and designedly it is punishable by Death as here though l. 3. C. de seditiosis the punishment of these qui ejusmodi voces emiserunt is more moderat and as that Law well observes words spoke in civitatibus tumultuosis clamoribus are more punishable than the same expressions would be if spoken in private places or without tumult but yet by this Act such seditious Speeches whether spoken privately or publickly are punishable by Death Observ. 2 o That when His Majesties Advocat designs not to pursue the Authors of such Speeches to the Death he Libels only that the Pannel did speak or write what tends to Reproach or Slander His Majesties Person or to misconstruct his Proceedings but not that they actually did so and in that case the guilt infers only an arbitrary punishment according to the circumstances that attend the same Observ. 3 o. That though by this Act the Depraving His Majesties Laws and Acts of Parliament is declared punishable by Death as Sedition yet all misconstructing Acts of Parliament is not so punishable and thus though a Sheriff or other Judge would misinterpret a Law so as to make it infer a higher mulct or penalty than the Law design'd that could not infer Sedition or Death though it be likewise punishable but the design of this Act is to declare the depraving and misconstructing of Laws so as thereby to reproach the King or Government to be Sedition and Spotswood tells us pag. 243. That this Act was made for punishing these Ministers who had declaim'd against the Acts of the former immediat Parliament as destructive to their Discipline Upon this Act the Lord Balmerino was found guilty in December 1634. for having dispersed a Petition that reflected upon the Government in which Process it being fully Debated that dolus malus should be found in such cases where the design of defaming makes only the Crime this was repelled because where the words may of their own nature move dislike of and Sedition against the Government the design needs not be proved for if the people be irritate the Author ought to be punished and this Law considers the effect and not the design and he ought to blame himself who meddles in matters of Government without his Sphere It was likewise alledged in this Process that a Petition to the King Himself could not be interpret a misconstructing but this was also repell'd because both by the Common Law and ours it has been found that great affronts have been put upon the Government by way of Supplication Upon this Act also Francis Tennent was found guilty in anno 1680. and Mr. Thomas Ross in anno 1618. and the Earl of Argile both in the Year 1662. and 1681. Observ. 4 o. That in this Act mention is made of raising dislike betwixt His Highness His Nobility and loving Subjects which word Nobility was expresly put in by the Lord Hamilton and other Noblemen who then turned out Captain James Steuart against whom this Act was partly designed whereas in the Act 134 Par. 8 Ja. 6. made the year before by the said Captain James's influence against slanderers there is no mention made of the Nobility as is observed by Mr. Robert Macgil in Balmerino's Process THis Act discharging all Dilapidations of Benefices runs only in the words of the Act against such as dilapidat Benefices that are at His Majesties presentation but yet de praxi no Benefices that are even at the presentation of Laick Patrons or Ecclesiastick Subjects can be dilapidated Dilapidations of Benefices were formerly discharg'd by the 101 Act Par. 7 Ja. 6. but to elude that Act Benefic'd persons us'd not to give down any of the Bolls payable to the Benefice but to convert these Bolls in Money and to make these who were lyable in payment only lyable in very small prices and therefore such Conversions are discharg'd by this Act But it may be alleadg'd that where the Conversion is for less than the present price as Victual now gives it is unlawful since that Conversion was unnecessary and the Benefic'd person is prejudg'd because if no such Conversion had been made he had got the Bolls presently which could have maintained him better than the small prices which these Bolls were worth the time of the Conversion and yet by our Decisions the price that the Bolls gave the time of the Conversion are only considered because both parties took their hazard and the price mentioned in the Conversion is presum'd to be the full price except it could be proven that the Victual gave then greater prices for in antiquis there can be no other probation Vid. observ upon the said 101 Act 7 Par. Ja. 6. BY this Act all Leagues and Bonds made amongst His Majesties Subjects without his consent are discharg'd Observ. 1 o. That though the Rubrick bears that all such Bonds and Leagues are null yet they are not expresly annulled in the body of this Act but they
Fruits of every Benefice were due to the Pope and are call'd by the Canonists Annata against which several Councils have made large but ineffectual Representations and the fifth penny was payable to the King and though this Act discharges only the exaction of these in Benefices under Prelacies yet now even Prelacies are free from these exactions in Scotland though in England the first Fruits belong still to the King Though the Priests were free from Subsidies amongst the Aegyptians Genes 47. vers 22. and that l. placet C. de Sacr. Eccles. nihil extraordinarium abhinc superinductumve ab Ecclesia slagitetur Yet this was only as to Tiths and things meerly Spiritual but the Lands of the Church were lyable to Impositions laid on for the common Defence of the Countrey and therefore the Canonists ad c. 1. de immun Eccles. give as a Rule that in bonis Ecclesiasticis ut Cleriâ—â—s in patrimonialibus ut laicos tractandos and such was this fifth penny here mentioned and with us Ministers stipends but not Bishops Lands are now ordinarly freed from Impositions OBserv. 1. That though such as invade Ministers for the Causes therein exprimed viz. for seeking their Stipend or because the Minister inflicted Church-censures upon them or any other forged quarrel are to be punished with all rigour yet if they invade them upon any account that is not Ecclesiastick or premeditat as in an accidental scufle they are only in these cases punishable as for wrongs done to other Subjects Observ. 2. Since the Act appoints that they may be punished with all rigour and the tinsel of their Moveables It is clear that such Invaders may be punish'd likewise personally besides the Confiscation of their Moveables yet the words with all rigour should not be extended to death but by the 4 Act Sess. 2 Par. 2 Ch. 2. The assaulting the lives of Ministers or the robbing of their Houses is declar'd punishable by death and by the 5 Act 1 Sess. of the said 2 Par. The Parochioners are made lyable for the Outrages done to Ministers if the Actors cannot be got Observ. 3. From these words That they may be punished at the Instance of the Minister or any other that will pursue This Crime is made so far crimen publicum that it may be pursu'd per quemlibet ex populo though he be not otherways interested Observ. 4. That this Act being only against Invaders of Ministers it is extended to Invaders of Bishops and all such as have power to administer the Sacraments 7 Act Par. 1 Char. 1. In which Act there are many other Extensions of this Law THe Popish Clergy had right to Lands that were mortifi'd to or bought by them and to Teinds which belonged to them as Church-men The Teinds were call'd the Spirituality of their Benefices because they belonged to them as Church-men and the rest was all comprehended under the Designation of the Temporality of their Benefices and upon the abrogation of Popery the King did begin to erect some of the Temporality of their Benefices in Lordships which He Dispon'd to several Noblemen who were most active in the Reformation Or to these whom He resolv'd to oblige by their Interest to be active in it and these were called â—ords of Erection but thereafter the Parliament resolving to fix a constant Rent to our Kings thereby to preclude the necessity of Taxes and to ingage future Kings not to return to Popery they annext the Temporality of all the church-Church-lands and Benefices to the Crown by this Act. Observ. 1. The reason whereupon this Act is founded is that the former Kings having mortifi'd a great part of their Revenue to Church-men and having thereby impoverish'd themselves and their people it was therefore just that the ends for which these Mortifications were made being declar'd unlawful the Benefices should return by this reason such Mortifications as were made by privat Families should have returned to them whereas here all returns to the King But in Law these Religious Houses being demolish'd all ought to have fallen in to the King for qua nullius sunt ea sunt domini Regis and these were such for they belonged not to the old Proprietars since they were once Dispon'd nor to these Houses since they were extinguished and that being found a false Religion what belong'd to it did by the Law fall under Confiscation Observ. 2. Though all Benefices belonging to Arch-bishops or Bishops are by this Act annexed yet they are restored by the 2 Act Par. 18 Ja. 6. And though all Benefices belonging to Chapters are annexed yet these are restored by the 2 Act Par. 22 Ja. 6. Observ. 3. From these words in the Clause of Annexation viz. All and sundry Common-lands bruiked by Chapters of Cathedral Kirks or whereof they have been in possession as Commonty That Possession in Church-lands is very often repute a sufficient Right and to be loco tituli For understanding whereof it is fit to know that both before and after the Reformation a Churh-man being in possession by the space of seven years though without a Title has the benefit of a possessory Judgement so that his Right cannot be quarrelled without Reduction nor needs he produce a Title as Laicks are oblig'd to do in possessory judgements July 18. 1671. Earl of Hume contra the Laird of Rislaw And if he be thirteen years in possession that possession is to him in place of a Title for by a rule of the Chancery as we believe docennalis triennalis possessio habetur protitulo though I find no such Rule in the Roman Chancery but yet these thirteen years induce only a presumptive Title which does not exclude the true Proprietar if he can instruct that the Benefic'd person possessed either by a redeemable Right and produce the Reversion as was found in the case of Francis Kinloch contra the Bishop of Dumblane July 11 1676. Or by a precarious Right as was found in the case of a Minister who had casten Peits for thirteen years by tolerance from the Heretor and though there be no difficulty where the Right mortifi'd does expresly bear that it is Redeemable or Precarious yet in absolute Rights there is greater doubt whether after thirteen years they can be qualifi'd by correspective Obligations The reason of this priviledge given to Church men is that they being imploy'd in Divine Matters are ignorant and careless of their Right especially since their Rights are not to descend to their own Heirs It is fit here to take notice that by a vulgar error triennalis possessio was thought to give the benefit of a possessory judgement 12 March 1629. Marshal contra the Laird of Drumkilbo and decennalis of a petitory and thus did they interpret the former rule At the Reformation also the Popish Clergy did either send their foundations to Rome or did by collusion with the Laicks interested or in hatred of the Reformed Clergy destroy their Rights and therefore by
an Act of Sederunt 16 December 1612. It is declared that ten years possession before the Reformation or 30 after the Reformation should be a sufficient right either to Church-men or to the King 's coming in their place by vertue of this Act and conform thereto the Lords decided July 5 1626. Laird of Kerss against Reid Observ. 4. That because the Romish Clergy were put from their Benefices therefore they are by this Act freed from any warrandice they had given for Church Lands dispon'd by them and by the 110 Act of the same Parliament what is here Statuted as to the warrandice of Lands is there extended to Tacks Pensions and Assignations and so these two Acts are not absolutely co-incident and the last unnecessary as they would seem to be and though this was done in majorem cautelam yet by the common Law they would not have been liable in warrandice since no man is liable in warrandice where the eviction proceeded upon a supervenient Statute for no man can warrand against a supervenient Law Observ. 5. That notwithstanding that the Church-Lands are annexed yet there is a dissolution in the same Act warranding his Majesty to Feu any of the saids Church-Lands during his own time Observ. 6. That though by this Act all prior Dispositions made of Church-Lands by his Majesty to Lords of Erection are excepted from the Annexation yet the Superiority of all the Erections both before and after that Act are annexed to the Crown by the 10 Act Par. Ch. 1. Observ. 7. That the Spirituality of Benefices viz. their right to the Teinds is expresly declared not to be annexed but to remain with Church-men as formerly for though by the 149 Act Par. 13 Ja. 6. it be said that the Teinds of Dumfermiâ—â—g are annexed to the Crown after the form of the Act of Annexation 1587. by which all the Teinds of the remanent Kirk-Lands and Prelacies of the Kingdome are annexed yet that Clause is only insert by mistake in my judgement for that is not the design of the Act. Where Stock and Teind are promiscuously Feued it is declared by this Act that his Majesty remains Superior both as to Stock and Teind the Church-men having only right to the tenth penny of the Feu-duty the other nine belonging to his Majesty for the temporality being only annex'd to the Crown and the Teinds being reserv'd to the Church it was very just that where a duty was payable out of church-Church-Lands cum decimis inclusis the King should only have right to a ninth part of that duty and the tenth should belong to the Church-man or Titular in contemplation of the Teinds but still decimae inclusae are so fully exempted from all Ecclesiastick payments that though there be not sufficiency of Teinds in the Paroch yet decimae inclusae are never burden'd with the payment of Ministers Stipends though Ministers Stipends be the constant burden of all Teinds and for the same reason it was found 21 January 1633. that no Valuation could be led of Land Feued cum decimis inclusis and not confirmed before this Act and that Laicks might prescrive a right to them but not to other Teinds which shews that decimae inclusae are never lookt upon as Teinds For understanding the origine and nature of decimae inclusae with us it is fit to know that by the Canon Law the Parson or Incumbent and the Paroch Church were founded in the right of all the greater Tithes called decimae praediales and that it was not lawful for any man to abstract their Teinds from it cap. de decimis 16. Quest. 1. And albeit the Popes did pretend that since the Bishops had the management of the Teinds they as universal Bishops might by their supereminent transcendent right appropriat them to the use of Monastries Monks being the best of the poor and Teinds being naturally burden'd with the maintainance of the poor yet our King's who in all the tract of our Parliaments own'd their own Regalia and the Episcopal Order against the invasions of the Popes did by the 7 Act Par. 2. Ja. 4. declare it a point of Dittay that is to say Criminal for any man to take a right of Teinds from any save the Parson Vicar or their farmers so far they acknowledg'd the Parochial Churches to be founded in their right to the Predial Teinds Notwithstanding whereof the Popes to get the Monks to depend immediatly upon them did grant to those Monks exemptions from payment of Tiths for they as well as others paid to the Parson or Incumbent till Pope Paschal the 2 d granted those exemptions but these exemptions did thereafter so far diminish the provision of the Parson very many Lands being either mortifi'd to them or bought in by them that Theodosius and other Emperours were forc'd to make Laws against exorbitant Mortifications and Pope Adrian was forc'd to limit the exemptions to four Religious Orders Cistertians Hospitalers Templars and Knights of St. John still allowing all of them Exemptions for their Novalia or Lands first cultivated by themselves But Pope Innocent the third in the Lateran Council thereafter ordain'd that even these four Orders should pay Tiths for what Lands they should acquire after that time which I the rather observe because it has been decided by our Session July 15. 1664 Thomas Crawford contra Prestoun Grange that Lords of Erection succeeding in place of the Cistertian Monks should be free from Tiths as the Monks were without adverting whether these Lands for which exemption was pleaded were bestow'd on their Monastries after the year 1120. and it seems that this Exemption should not be allow'd to these Monastries since they were not allow'd to the Temple-lands with us and that such priviledges are due to neither because this was a personal priviledge given to the Monks as the Poor and so should not descend to the Lords of Erection The Monks being thus Masters of many Tiths feu'd out their Lands and Tiths promiscuously for the encouragement of the Labourers who have alwayes thought it a loss and a slavery to wait till their Tiths be drawn Laicks also enjoy'd Tiths and alienated them as their own Heretage for many ages together it being generally believ'd as Selden contends that the Tiths were not due to Church-men they having Right only to a Maintainance jure divino though others ascrive these Laical Infeudations to a corruption begun by Charles Martel King of France who to gratifie and pay such as were to assist him in the Holy War Dispon'd to them the Tiths consentientibus Episcopis who knew that if the Saracens prevail'd Religion would be destroy'd and he promising to restore them But after this time it is undenyable that de facto Teinds were Dispon'd to and by Laicks till the Lateran Council 1169. in which the Canon was made prohibemus ne laici decimas cum animarum suarum periculo detinentes in alios laicos possint aliquo modo transferre Si quis vero
a Reduction only for a diminution of the old Penny-mail de liquido ad liquidum that is to say that though such rights may be quarrelled as granted with diminution of the Rental or by unlawful conversion yet no diminution shall reduce their Feus except where the diminution is of old Rentals because about the time of the Reformation Feus were granted for high Feu-duties and these being renewed again for less than were once payed the Feu might have been question'd because though the Feu-duty was less than was once payed yet it was not below the old Rental de liquido in liquidum as if five Merks were taken when ten was of old payed without consideration of Conversions so that though ten Merks were taken in the Feu quarrelled in place of ten Bolls that would be no relevant reason of Reduction and since by the Act of Parliament 1633. Erections are annex't to the Crown The Lords found that the Lords of Erection cannot now pursue Reductions or Improbations of their Vassals kirk-Kirk-lands and that his Majesties Advocat could not insist in any such actions except he had an express warrand from the King though it would appear that this Act is a sufficient warrand to pursue Improbations or Reductions for diminution in the terms of this Act 24 of June 1664. Laird of Prestoun contra Nathaniel Ebred Observ. 12. That Lands belonging to the Benefices of Laick Patronages are excepted also from this Annexation by which are meant only such Laick Patronages as were lawfully establisht before the Reformation and not such as were Dispon'd by the King to Laicks and to which he had Right as coming in place of the Pope who was Universal Patron in dubio before the Reformation for these are still accounted Ecclesiastick Patronages since they were so originally and so ought not to have been excepted from this Act but whether all the other Patronages which belonged formerly to Monasteries were annexed to the Crown by this Act was fully Debated November 1677. in the Case of Steuart contra the Laird of Watertoun and that they were annexed was urg'd because by the first words of this Act the Abbacies c. and all Profits Emoluments whatsoever belonging to them were annexed and there being nothing that the King and Parliament was more concerned in than to have the Patronages depend upon the Crown thereby to prevent the influence that Schismatick privat Patrons might have It was most reasonable to think that when all things belonging to Monasteries were annex'd these should have been annex'd Likeas Sir Thomas Hope among other Rights crav'd to be reduc'd crav'd likewise that all the Rights made to the Lords of Erection of the Patronages belonging formerly to Monasteries should be reduc'd as contrary to this Act upon which Reduction the Lords of Erection did submit their Rights to these Patronages and in the Kings determimination upon that Submission His Majesty determined that the Lords of Erection should have only Right to the converted prices of their own feu Mails and feu Ferms of their Superiorities c. It was likewise there contended that the saids Patronages were likewise annexed by the 13 and 14 Acts of the first Parliament Ch. 1. To which it was answered That Patronages were never annexed as parts and pendicles but where it was design'd they should be annexed they were still annexed per expressum as in the annexation of the Abbacy of Dumfermling Act 189 Par. 13 Ja. 6. and it were absurd to think that since the foresaid general Clause did annex things of the meanest consequence such as Service of Tennents c. that it would have omitted things of so great consequence as were the Patronages of many Monasteries nor did any of the Leiges who had Right to such Ecclesiastick Patronages from the King crave ever a Dissolution of them in Parliament which certainly they would have done if they had looked upon them as annex'd nor were they annexed by the 13 and 14 Acts Par. 1 Ch. 1. Because these Acts do not mention Patronages per expressum nor can they be comprehended under the general word pertinents exprest in these Acts for the reasons foresaids and to evidence that His Majesty had determined nothing as to the Patronages belonging to the Lords of Erection His Majesty does in the 1 Parliament 12 Act Ch. 2. express these words Likeas also the the remanent points of our said Commission anent the patronage of Kirks c. are not yet begun to be Treated therefore c. This Debate came not to a Decision What the condition of our Teinds is since this Act shal be Treated fully in my Treatise of Teinds as also whether the Obligation of paying Teinds proceeds from the Moral Judicial or Common Law is not agreed to but the most ordinary opinion is that they are due to Church men before any positive Law and the quota of Tenths proceeds from positive Law and D. Thomas part 3. Quaest. 6. makes the Tenth to be due because as all Digits under ten are imperfect and do tend to ten as their perfection so man being naturally lost we pay our Tiths to these Ministers by whom our perfection comes and thus some School-men conclude that Tiths flow from the Moral Law in so far as they are a necessary Maintainance for Ministers from the Judicial Law in so far as concerns the number of ten and Cerimonial in so far as concerns the foresaid Typicals nor can it be deny'd that Abraham paid Teinds before any positive Law to Melchisedeck though the Learned Selden Interprets this place only to be the Tenths of what was taken by the War and that from Josephus and from Heb. cap. 7. v. 2. and the Greek word there us'd does properly signifie spoils call'd by Sulpitius Severus decimam praedae but yet I see not why that alleadg'd Custom among the Jews of giving the Tithes of their Spoils could have proceeded from any other ground than that which was common to all Tithes nor can I believe Selden who asserts that Tithes were not paid in the primitive Church till the days of St. Augustin and S. Ambrose for if we do not controvert the Truth of all Authority we will find the payment of Tithes much older Teinds were likewise accounted Spirituality by the Canonists vid. Rebuff Quaest. 2. num 9. How these Teinds came to belong to Monastries may be doubted since naturally the Curats of the respective Parochs are founded in jure communi quoad the Right to their predial Teinds so that they need not prove their Right thereto and this was very just because they having the Cure of Souls ought likewise to have had that which was given as an encouragement of that Cure and though to this the ordinary answer be that the Pope who had only Right to alienat such Teinds did use to give them to Monastries nam licet ille jus divinum tollere non potest tamen modificare potest yet I conceive that our Kings and even
the insufficiency of the Victual of these Countreys and so the greatness of the Measure does only equal the intrinsick value This Act having fallen in Desuetude as to the Linlithgow Measure is again renewed by the 16 Act Par. 23 Ja. 6. And many wish that Corn were now sold by the weight and not by measure weight being the only sure rule of the intrinsick worth of Corn but this being propon'd in the Par. 1681. the overture was rejected by a Vote Vide observ on Act 96 Par. 6. K. Ja. 4. supra King James the sixth Parliament 12. FOr understanding this Act it is fit to know that upon the 22 of May 1592. The Presbyterian party taking advantage of the Kings being engag'd against Bothwel and in other difficulties they held a General Assembly at Edinburgh wherein they drew up several Articles to be presented to the King and Parliament whereof Spotswood names only four 1. That the Acts 1584. against the Discipline of the Church should be abrogated and the present Discipline establish'd 2. That the Act of Annexation should be abrogated and the Patrimony of the Church restor'd 3. That Abbots and Priors c. nor none having Commission from them should Vote in Parliament as Representing the Church 4. That the Land should be purg'd of Blood The King rejected the second and third but in complyance with the first Article he did because of his present difficulties as Spotswood observes allow the present Church Discipline by General Assemblies Synods and Presbyteries but yet he does not here expresly abrogat Episcopacy only the Presentations are not ordain'd to be directed to them but to Presbyteries which Presentations are again restor'd to Arch-bishops and Bishops by the 1 Act Par. 21 Ja. 6. And Spotswood tells us that severals of the Bishops possest even then by their Titulars Episcopacy war again restor'd so that the Bishops did sit in Parliament by the 231 Act Par. 15 Ja. 6. but they were not fully restor'd to their Spiritual Jurisdiction till the 2 Act 18 Par. Ja. 6. but in that Act this Act is not abrogated as it would certainly have been if this Act had abrogated Episcopacy but this Act is abrogated by the Act 1 Par. 21 Ja. 6. By this Act the Collation and Deprivation of Ministers is declared to belong to the Church jure divino but these words or any siklike essential Censures having warrand from the Word of God are too general and may be abused This Act is now abrogated totally in all its Heads Clauses and Articles by the 1 Act 2 Sess. Par. 1 Ch. 2. which seems too general for though this Act establishes Presbytery yet there are many Clauses in it in favours of the Protestant Religion and to which no answer can be made but that what this Act has establish'd in favours of the Protestant Religion was formerly establish'd by other Acts but the truth is these Acts are not so full as this PEttie in his History tells us that by the seventh Article of the foresaid Assembly it was desired that Tacks set by the Depos'd Ministers should not stand But by this Act it is only declar'd that when Ministers are depriv'd their deprivation excludes them tam ab officio quam beneficio which has been doubted because Suspensions are only ab officio By this Act though the persons be depriv'd yet it is declar'd that their deprivation shall not be prejudicial to Tacks lawfully set by them before their deprivation and the Lords do expone the word lawfully so as to extend to the Setter himself so that his Successors can only quarrel these Rights upon such reasons as the Setter himself could have quarrelled them Vid. Hopes Major Pract. Tit. Kirk THis Act is explain'd by the 48 Act 3 Par. Ja. 6. BY this Act the Woman Divorc'd for the Crime of Adultery committed by her cannot Dispone her Estate to her Adulterer if she Marry him or to the Children procreat of that pretended Marriage which has been introduc'd not only as a punishment of the Adultery when committed but to discourage any from committing Adultery upon hopes that their Children might succeed to their Estates with whom they committed Adultery which is conform to the Canon Law by which non licet eam ducere in uxorem quam quis polluit adulterio and by the Civil Law that woman could not Institute that Servant her Heir with whom she had committed Adultery Inst. de haered instit in princip These Marriages are likewise declar'd null by the 20. Act 16 Par. Ja. 6. Vid. crim pract Tit. Adultery pag. 1â—2 THough regularly Liferent-Escheats do not fall while after year and day yet such as commit Slaughter within Kirks or Kirk-yards and the Resetters of them lose their Liferent-escheat immediatly after Declarator and this Liferent falls to the King though in other cases Liferents fall to the Superiour of whom the respective Lands hold IT was usual to mortifie to Abbacies formal and established Patronages of Kirks which were formally erected in Parsonages and to these the Monks presented Parsons and were only in place of Patrons at other times Tiends were Mortified and given to them and after the Reformation though Tiends were declared the Patrimony of the Church by the Act of Annexation yet thereafter the Lords of Erection did prevail by their importunity with the King to erect these Tiends in Rectories or Parsonages whereof the Patronage was given to the Lord of Erection but there can be nothing so unjust or illegal as these Patronages were and therefore by this Act the Parliament finding this abuse was growing did declare that all Erections of kirk-Kirk-lands and Teinds in Temporal Lordships and Livings to the prejudice of the Kirk and hurt of His Majesties Estate and priviledge of his Crown were null which is founded upon excellent Reason for such Erections of Tiends were extreamly to the prejudice of the Church Tiends being clearly by former Laws declared to be the Spirituality and so the Patrimony of the Church 2. Laicks having power to present whom they pleased such Erections did much hurt the Church since it gave to Laicks the power of presenting 3. It is too well known that such as are presented by these Patrons do ordinarly grant Tacks in favours of the Patron and to his behove which has been always lookt upon as not only Simony but as most prejudicial to the interest of the Church making the Ministry despicable and tempting them to ill shifts and discouraging worthy and honest men from seeking such slavish Benefices and therefore the Church has been always an enemy to such Impropriations even when made in favours of Religious Monasteries for Pope Alexander anno 1170 cap. Avaritiae extra de Praebendis says Intelleximus quod in Ecclesiis vestris pensiones percipere consuevistis antiquos reditus Minorastis ideo mandamus ut antiquos reditus cum consensu Archiepiscopi ad integritatem pristinam revocetis and therefore the same
did write such a hand and for proving of this must produce the Hand-writs of all these Servants at that time February 7. 1672. Kirk-hill contra Ketlestoun IT was Debated upon this Act whether the Lands of Duncow though here annexed by a publick Law were sufficiently annexed so as to exclude the Earl of Nithisdale who pretended that a year before this Act he had a valid Right under the Great-Seal from the King and so could not be prejudg'd by a posterior annexation which behov'd to be salvo jure quoad him To which it was Reply'd that this annexation being by a publick Law was not of the nature of Ratifications which were salvo jure and such Acts of annexation were in effect the Kings Charter and being granted by a publick Act of Parliament in favours both of King and People they could not be taken away but by another Act of Parliament sibi imputet he who had the prior Right and compeared not at the time of this publick Law and objected it but now after so many years the King had at least prescrived a Right by vertue of this Act this case was not decided but the Lords inclined to think that there was a great difference betwixt original annexations where special Lands were annexed as falling in the Kings Hands by a special Forefalture or other cause which they thought could not be quarrelled by the Session or other Inferiour Judicatory and general Acts where Lands formerly annext are only repeated such as this is in which Lands belonging to privat parties may be by mistake repeated Nota The Lands of Duncow annexed by this Act came to the King upon Forefalture of Robert Lord Boyd anno 1477. BEfore this Act Decreets pronunced by Magistrates within Towns could not be the ground of a Charge of Horning till a Decreet conform had been first obtained before the Lords but by this Act Letters of Horning are summarly appointed to be granted upon such Decreets It is observable that though this Act says That Letters of Horning shall be granted upon the Decreets of Burrows in the same way as upon the Commissars Precepts yet it would seem that Commissars had no such priviledge at the time of granting this Act for that priviledge is only granted them by the 7 Act 21 Par. Ja. 6. To which nothing can be answered but that Commissars had that priviledge even at the time of this Act de praxi though de jure it was only granted them by that Act for their further Security VId. Act 155. 12 Par. Ja. 6. THis Act giving the King twenty shilling of Custom of every Tunn of imported Beer is Explained in the Observations upon the 2 Act 4 Sess. Par. 2 Ch. 2. IT is observable that by this Act the Dean of Gild is founded in the power of judging all Cases betwixt Merchant and Merchant and is here declar'd to be the most competent Judge because the most knowing Judge in such cases and declar'd to have the same power that the like Judges have in France and Flanders and in France such Cases are Judg'd by these who are call'd les consuls des marchants The Lords have found that according to this Act the Dean of Gilds Court is a Soveraign Court in suo genere and not subordinat to the Towns Court July 21. 1631. and they use to Advocat Causes from the Admiral to the Dean of Gild's Court upon this Act it being declar'd that he is Judge to all actions betwixt Merchant and Mariner though it be alleadg'd by the Admiral that these general words should be restricted by the nature of the respective Jurisdictions and so the Dean of Gild should be only Judge competent betwixt Merchant and Mariner in cases which fall out at Land but not at Sea THe Act related to here is the 36 Act 3 Parl. Ja. 4. IT is observable from this Act that it is there declar'd in geneneral that Acts of Parliament should only in reason and equity extend ad futura for regulating future cases for though Declaratory Acts may oft-times extend ad praeterita yet Statutory Acts should only extend ad futura THis Act differs not one word from the 170 Act of this same Parliament and has been only repeated here by mistake BEfore this Act such as were at seid with one another us'd ordinarly to fight together upon the Street of Edinburgh and us'd to beat the Magistrates or their Officers when they came to red them and that truly gave rise to this Act though the Narrative here bears only that several persons used to Deforce the Magistrates in their Execution of their own or the Councils Decreets By the Act it is declar'd That whosoever disobeys or opposes the Command of the Provost and Baillies of Edinburgh when they are Executing the Kings Commands or Letters from the Secret Council or Session or the Ordinances of their own Burgh shall be punished as Committers of Deforcement as Seditious and Perturbers of the Common well It has been found that naked assistance at such Tumults without Arms is not punishable by Death though a person be killed in the Tumult December 1666. But Convocation at all such Tumults with Arms is punishable by Death if a person be Murdered as was found September 11. 1678. And the acting any thing either by word or deed was found to infer Death Observ. That the using Fire-weapons within Town is discharged by this Act and long weapons that is to say Halbards Picks c. are only allow'd lest innocent persons passing on the Street might be kill'd but yet if Souldiers shoot in defence of their Prisoners on the Streets they are not punishable and this Act was found not to militat against the Kings granting Commissions to the Magistrates of Edinburgh to raise a Company with Fire-locks within Town for the Act discharges only Fire-locks without the Kings consent and a Commission implys his consent THe Act here related to is the 159 Act 12 Par. Ja. 6. THis Act is Explain'd in the 7 Act 9 Par. Ja. 6. VId. Obs. on the 29 Act Par. 11 Ja. 6. THe Abbacy of Dumsermling was Dispon'd by Ja. 6. in a morning Gift to Queen Ann. This Lawyers call Morganeticum and King Charles the First was Infeft in these Lands as heir to His Mother Observ. That this Confirmation was under the Great Seal and under the Seals and Subscriptions of the States King IAMES the sixth Parl. 14. THis Act seems very ill conceived for it appears that wilful hearers of Mass shall be executed to the death how soon they shall be found guilty or declared Fugitive since no man by our Law dies upon his being Denunced Fugitive except in the case of Treason and wilful hearing of Mass is not Treason even by this Act. Observ. 2. That as this Act is conceiv'd the wilful hearing or concealing is punishable by death either by Conviction or being denunced Fugitive before
better and one of the Statutes bearing none should lodge within the Hospital save Students it was doubted if some un-furnisht Rooms which the Overseers could not furnish for want of Money might be set out to such as undertook to furnish them for some few years Tacks And it was thought that they might since that was no case which any wise man could think to exclude if he had had it under his consideration and these Rooms might be separated from the Hospital for that time by a VVall. THe Act here Ratifi'd is the 27 Act Par. 11 Ja. 6. Whereby all such as trouble Ministers for seeking of their Livings or siklike quarrels and put violent hand in them are to be punish'd with the tinsel of their Moveables albeit no slaughter or mutilation follow Which Act is here extended to Arch-bishops Bishops and all others having power to Preach and Administrat the Sacraments From which it is observable that Acts in favours of Ministers can not be regularly extended to Bishops though a Bishop may seem to be a Minister and more and because the former Act mentioned only siklike quarrels as for seeking their Stipends c. and that this might have been eluded by forg'd pretexts therefore this Act extends the same to all Invasions and from both these Cases it may be urg'd That Acts of Parliament are stricti juris and cannot be extended de casu in casum else this Act had been unnecessary Observe likewise from this Act a case wherein all Land-lords Heretors and Chiefs of Clans upon whose bounds the Invaders of Ministers stay for ten dayes the same being intimat to them are to be punish'd as Connivers This Act is Ratifi'd by the 5 Act Par. 2 Ch. 2. By which it is further appointed That if any invade Ministers either in their Persons or Goods not only within their Houses but Parochs the Parochioners shall be lyable to pay his Damnage if they cannot apprehend the Malefactors The Parliament there likewise Ratifies two Proclamations of Privy Council which ordain'd the same thing formerly and which Ratification is a great proof of the Councils Power in things relating to the Government TEinds are declar'd to be the Patrimony of the Kirk and therefore were not annex'd to the Crown by the 29 Act Par. 11. Ja. 6. But because the leading of other mens Teinds occasion'd great confusion therefore in anno 1628. There were three several Submissions made one by the Laick Heretors a second by the Church-men and a third by the Burrows wherein they refer to His Majesty what should be pay'd by every Heretor for his Teinds to the Titular or Tacks-man and accordingly His Majesty pronunced three several Decreets dated in September 1629. Wherein he appointed that the rate of all Tiends should be the fifth part of the constant Rent of what each Land pay'd in Stock and Tiend where the same are valu'd joyntly and where they are valu'd a-part the rate is according as the same were valu'd by the particular Commissioners for Valuation of Teinds with deduction of a fifth part call'd the Kings Ease and that all Teinds should be bought at nine years purchase where they consisted in Money and if they consisted in Victual that they be first liquidat into Money and then they should be bought at nine years purchase And if there were but Temporary Rights then the price is to be abated or hightned proportionally and the said Teinds being so bought the Hetors are to relieve the Titulars of His Majesties Annuity and Ministers Stipends pro rata and in case of wrong done by the Commission there is place for appeals left to the Parliament The Submission made by the Bishops did only relate to Teinds payable to them whereof they were not presently in Possession and therefore where any Church-men were presently in Possession of any Tiends His Majesty by His Decreet Arbitral did not ordain them to sell the same but they are ordain'd to sell such Tiends as belong to them that were not in their present Possession which they were ordain'd to sell at nine years purchase with deduction always of His Majesties Annuity forth of the exâ—ress of the Bolls and Rents arising to the Submitters after the expyring of their present Tacks The determination upon the Submission of the Burrows differs nothing from the former two but that the saids Burrows are to pay the Annuity forth of the superplus of their Tiends if they should be found to exceed what is due for intertainment of their Ministers Colledges Schools and Hospitals and the Terms of payment of what is to be pay'd for these Tiends is declar'd in all the three Decreets Arbitral to be betwixt Yule and Candlemass such likewise as had church-Church-lands and Tiends Erected in their favours in Temporal Lordships did grant Commission to surrender their Rights in His Majesties Hand upon the condition therein express'd and therefore by this Act the Commission granted by His Majesty for providing the Ministers serving the Cure with competent Stipends is here Ratifi'd and it is declar'd That the lowest Stipend shall be eight Chalders of Victual or proportionally in Silver except such particular Kirks occur wherein there shall be good reason to go beneath the same But it seems that by this Act they can only go beneath the said quota where there have already Valuations been led the reason whereof seems to be because till a Valuation be led it cannot be known whether there be more free Tiends in the Paroch then will amount to eight Chalders Victual As also because this High quota was granted to the Minister in respect of the power granted to the Heretors to value their own Tiends therefore where the Heretors had not taken the benefite of the Valuation the Minister ought not to have the high Stipend But yet the Commission for Plantation of Kirks do use to modifie less Stipends where it is notour that the Paroch is not able to bear the same and that albeit that quota was condescended on in the Commission of Surrenders and is renew'd in the 19 Act of this Parliament By this Act it is likewise declar'd that where Valuations are lawfuly led against all persons having interest that the samin shall not be drawn in question upon the pretence of enorme laesion at the instance of the Incumbent not being Titular or His Majesties Advocat except in the case of Collusion which is declar'd to be presumptione juris de jure where the Valuation is led with diminution of the third of the real Rent presently pay'd as is clear by the last Paragraph of the ninteenth Act. THis Act contains that Revocation drawn by Sir Thomas Hope His Majesties Advocat which is said to be of the things which gave the first rise to our late Troubles for therein His Majesty not only Revocks all Alienations of Lands formerly annex'd and all Rights made to His Castles Meadows Woods and Parks but His Majesty likewise Revocks all Rights made
to any Church-lands and all Infestments of Erections of Abbacies Prelacies c. Spirituality or Temporality and a Reduction of these Rights was thereupon rais'd Notwithstanding that by the 2 Act Par. 18 Ja. 6. His Majesty to remove all mistrust does for Him and His Successors perpetually Confirm all Erections Confirmations Patronages of the saids whole Benefices and promises in verbo principis never to quarrel the same But what was done afterwards being voluntar and upon the submission of all parties concern'd did not at all impinge upon the former Statute It is likewise declar'd in the end of this Act that the possession of any thing hereby Revocked shall not prejudge His Majesty and therefore it may be urg'd that fourty years possession of any Lands or others falling under this Revocation would not debar the King by Prescription and yet it was found That if the King be Denuded in favours of a Donatar This Revocation does not interrupt Prescription without a Reduction THis Act is wrong plac'd for it should be after the 14 Act for the Superiorities of kirk-Kirk-lands being by the said 14 Act Declared to belong to the King The saids Superiorities are by this Act annex'd to the Crown but they could not have been annex'd to the Crown till they were first declar'd to belong to it THere is here a Dissolution of the Annexation made in the former Act in which it is Declared That this Dissolution shall not warrand the Alienation of His Majesties Castles Woods Parks Meadows and Offices which is conform to the 235 Act Par. 15 Ja. 6. Whereby all Dispositions of these are declar'd null and though the Lomonts of Falkland be Dissolv'd particularly by the 19 Act Par. 18 Ja. 6. Yet it is Declar'd particularly in this Act that they shall remain inseparably with the Crown BEcause by the Act of Prescription 1617. It is appointed that such as might be prejudg'd by that Prescription of fourty years run before that Act 1617. might intent Actions within thirteen years after the Date of that Act and because the King could not intent particular Summons against every person whose Rights he might challenge Therefore it is allow'd by this Act that His Majesty might interrupt the said Prescription by open Proclamation at the Mercat Cross of Edinburgh and other particular Mercat Crosses where the Lands lye and at the Mercat Cross of Edinburgh Peer and Shore of Leith against such as are out of the Kingdom But least this interruption might have too much alarm'd the Subjects It is upon the Kings own Concession declar'd that the said interruption should be Restricâ—'d to the annulling of Rights of the annext Property of the Crown and the un-annex'd whereof account hath been made in the Exchequer and of the principality unlawfully Dispon'd by His Majesties Predecessors against the Laws and Acts then standing and to the annulling of Erections and other Dispositions of whatsoever Lands Tiends Patronages and Benefices formerly belonging to the Kirk and since annex'd to the Crown and of any other Lands or Patronages which should any way justly belong to the Kirk or Crown and of whatsoever Lands and Benefices mortifi'd and devouted to pious Uses and of Regalities and Heretable Offices and of the change of holdings from the ancient holding of Ward and Relief to blench and Taxt Ward since the year of God 1540. years The Earl of Southesk having Right to the Muire of Montromant as Heretable Forrester intented a Declarator against the adjacent Heretors concluding that they should be debar'd from Pasturing therein Against which it being alleadg'd 1. That they had prescriv'd the right of Pasturage It was Reply'd that the Prescription was interrupted by this Act. To which it being Duply'd that this edictal Interruption was introduc'd without a Warrant the Act 1617. having allow'd thirteen years for the Subjects to interrupt without any Reservation in favours of the King 2. This is neither His Majesties annext Property nor is it a part of that un-annext Property whereof the Ferms or Feu-duties have been counted for in Exchequer since the year 1455. and so the interruption which is restricted to these reaches not to this case 3. This Pasturage is but a Servitude and this Interruption extends only to Alienations but not to Servitudes or things of so small moment To which it was Triply'd that as to the first there was no necessity that there should have been a Reservation in favours of the King by the Act 1617. since the King not being mention'd in the Act which was the Rule There was no necessity to reserve His Right by way of exception but this Act of Parliament has supply'd that want though there had been an omission in that Act. To the second it was Triply'd That the interruption 1633. being to secure His Majesty against Prescriptions upon the Act 1617. It was just that it should extend as far as the Act 1617. And these words Whereof the Ferms have been Compted for in Exchequer are only Demonstrative and not Taxative the compting in Exchequer being only a publick Evidence of His Majesties Right and therefore where there were other publick Evidences of His Majesties Right as strong as this His Majesties interruption by this Act behov'd to take place else it should not extend to secure His Majesty as to any thing for which there were blench or Ward-holdings This Act mentioning only Feu-ferms it should not extend to His Majesties Castles or other things for which he gets no advantage 3. This has been compted for in so far as the Sheriff compts for the Blench-duties and Southesk payes Blench-duties for his Forrest 4. By an Act of Parliament in King Davids time 1357. and another 1367. All the Kings Forrestries are ordain'd not to be Dispon'd without consent of Parliament and so are to be lookt upon as a part of the annext Property To the third it was Duply'd That this Act as the Act 1617. was to be extended to Prescriptions and there were things of less consequence than Servitudes secur'd against by this Act such as change of holdings Patronages c. This case is not decided The reason why this Act restricts it self in this Clause to the year 1455. is because in that year was the first Act for annexing any Property to the Crown viz. The 41 Act Par. 11 Ja. 2. It being alleadg'd upon this Act that the King behov'd to produce the Letters of Publication at the several Mercat Crosses and the Executions thereof else His Majesty could not have the benefite of the Interruption It was answered That the Act of Sederunt of the Session did indeed appoint Letters of Publication but two years after that Act this Act of Parliament was made allowing the King this Interruption wherein the Parliament did certainly consider the Publication as having preceeded statuit lex hoc casu super praesumpto and so the Letters of Publication and Extentions need not now be produc'd Which Answer the Lords found Relevant
November 1682. Sir William Ker contra Grubet and others Interruption being thus made by the King does last for fourty years so that no Prescription can run against the King till fourty years after the date of this Act and that though the Executions and publication required by this Act of Parliament cannot be found for every particular Shire It may be likewise doubted whether Prescription should run against the King whilst he was out of the Countrey For which vid. observ on the Act of Prescription 1617. BY this Act the Parliament Rescinds all Rights of Regality made by King Charles King James or Queen Mary belonging to Abbots Priors or any Benefic'd person reserving alwise to the Heretable Baillies and Stewarts of the saids Regalities and Stewartries their Rights granted to them prior to the saids Erections for ordinarly even when these Regalities were in Benefic'd persons own hands they made Heretable Baillies but I confess I understand not what is mean'd by the Stewart of a Regality for Stewartries and Regalities are distinct and inconsistent Jurisdictions a Stewart being a Judge in the Kings Property only having the same power that a Lord of Regality has of the Lands Erected in the Regality holding of himself and the Lands holding of him But this Act has in this follow'd the words of the Act of Annexation 1587. By the Act of Annexation 1587. Act 29. All Regalities belonging to Arch-bishops and Bishops were thereby Annex'd because their whole Lands and Temporalities were then Annex'd but being restor'd in anno 1606. their Regalities are hereby reserv'd to them UPon the Submission and Surrender made by the Lords of Erection and other Titulars it is condescended to by this Act That His Majesty shall remain not only Superiour to the Lords of Erection but even to all the Vassals who held formerly of any Abbacy Priory or other Benefice Erected and therefore by vertue of this Act they may hold of the King if they please but according to an express condition in the surrender it self there is by this Act reserv'd to the Lords and Titulars of Erection who subscrived this Surrender the Feu-mails and Feu-ferms due by their Vassals ay and till the King pay to the saids Lords and Titulars of Erection a thousand merks for ilk Chalder or an hundreth merks of Feu-duty payable to them for there is nothing allow'd to them for the Service of Tennents Though the Lords of Erection did not expresly reserve to themselves the Casualities that might fall to them by their Vassals during the not Redemption for they reserv'd only their Feu-mails and Feu-ferms since inclusio unâ—us seems to be exclusio alterius and the Superiority being by this Act declar'd to belong to the King the Casuality should follow the Superiority yet by a Decision the 24 of July 1632. The Lords found that the Lords and Titulars of Erection had Right to the Casualities of these Superiorities ay and till they be Redeem'd but by the 30 Act Par. 1 Ch. 2. It is declared That the Feuars shall be bound to make payment of their Feu-ferms and Duties contained in their Infestments to the Lords of Erection ay and till they be Redeemed but it is not clear whether Escheat and Non-entry will belong to the King or Feuars except it be comprehended under the general word Duties Though the Feu-mails and Feu-ferms be reserv'd to such Lords and Titulars of Erection as subscriv'd the Surrender so that it may seem necessary to prove that these who seek Feu-duties did subscrive or else that these should belong to the King yet because the Surrender cannot be found the Lords found it sufficient that the Titular acknowledg'd the Kings Right conform to this Act But they found that they had not Right to the Arrages and Carrages of these kirk-Kirk-lands because by this Act all the Rents and Duties are Declar'd to belong to the King and the Reservation in favours of the Superiour is only of Feu-duties if they found no abatement of the Feu-duty in respect of Vastations since the Feu-duties were small and the Feuar might have gain'd by prior and subsequent years June 27. 1662. Watson contra Elleis Because the Superiorities of these kirk-Kirk-lands is by Act declar'd to belong to the King therefore the Lords of Erection cannot pursue a Reduction of these Feus nor is the concourse of His Majesties Advocat sufficient except there be an express Warrand under the Kings Hand for that effect Albeit it be uncontroverted by this Act that the King has no right to the Feu-mails and Feu-ferms due by the Vassals of Erection until he redeem the same as said is yet it may be doubted whether the King has Right to the Feu-mails and Feu-ferms of the Lands which pertain'd in property to the Lords of Erection before the said Surrender and which were mentioned in the old Infestments before the date of the Erection and that without paying for the saids Feu-ferms and redeeming them as said is as he is oblig'd to do in the case of the Feu-ferms due by the Vassals of Erection and it may be urg'd for the Lords of Erection that the King has not right to the Feu-ferms of their proper Lands except he Redeem them And that because 1. The Act of Parliament is relative to the Submission made by the Lords of Erection whereupon the Act proceeds but so it is that by the Submission they resign the Superiorities reserving only to themselves the Feu-duties till they receive satisfaction but it is expresly provided that under this Resignation their proper Lands should not be comprehended but that they should hold the same of His Majesty as the same was holden before the date of the Erection and so the meaning is that though they should hold the same in Feu yet they should not be oblig'd to pay the Feu-duties till they receive satisfaction 2. It were absurd that the Lords of Erection should not quite the Feu-duties of their Vassals till they receiv'd satisfaction and yet they should be oblig'd to quite the Feu-duties of their own proportion in which they had far more interest than in the Lands of their Vassals without any satisfaction 3. Custom is the best Interpreter of Law and by the general Custom of the Nation the Lords of Erection have never counted for the Feu-duties of their proper Lands 4. There being a Reservation made in the first part of the Act of the Feu-duties only in case of payment The Reservation in the second part of the Act must in Annalogie of Law be constructed to be burden'd with the same quality except the contrary were expresly declar'd in the Act. but on the other side it may be more strongly urg'd for the King that he has Right to the Feu-ferms of these their proper Lands immediatly without any satisfaction and that for these reasons 1. Because by the Act of Parliament they are expresly to hold their proper Lands of the King and to pay him the Feu-duties mentioned in
the old Infestments without any Clause obliging the King to make satisfaction Ergo The King is not oblig'd 2. The Parliament having had that Reservation of making satisfaction under their view in the case of the Vassals they had certainly renew'd it in the immediat subsequent case of the property if they had not expresly design'd the contrary 3. By the Charters granted under the Great Seal to the saids Lords of Erection since the Surrender and this Act of Parliament they are expresly by different reddendo's made lyable both to the general blench Duty due for the whole Lands of the Erection both Property and Superiority and for the Feu-dutie of their own proper Lands Ergo This Feu-duty of their proper Lands is due by their Charter which is a Feudal Contract and that without any Reservation of payment 4. The blench-duty of the Erection and this Feu-duty is due upon different accounts Ergo The payment of the Blench-duty is not sufficient for the Blench-duty is due by the Lords of Erection for the interest that they have in the Vassals Lands and for the Tiends and for the property that was Feu'd the time of the Erection Whereas this Feu-duty is due only for their own proper Lands Feu'd out before the Erection And to the contrary Objections it may be answered That Acts of Parliament are not to be extended de casu in casum especially in such favourable Cases as this which tends most ungrately to take from the King a part of that which himself gave freely 2. There was very good Reason why they should be lyable to pay the Feu-duties of their proper Lands without any satisfaction because the King having rais'd a Reduction of all the saids Erections The Lords of Erection did Redeem themselves from the hazard of this Plea by this surrender and the reason why the quality of satisfaction was adjected as to the Vassals and not as to the property was because the Lords of Erection had no interest in their Vassals Lands but the Feu-duties and so it was fit they should get a satisfaction for these though the satisfaction was made easie for the King But as to their proper Lands it was just because of the great advantage they had by them and that they were by this Act secur'd in the property of them It was just that the King should get the Feu-duties without any acknowledgement and without this the King had got nothing for securing them when he might have with Success quarrell'd their Rights And the pretence of the Vassals not having pay'd these Feu-duties for their proper Lands formerly is of no import since the negligence of the Kings Officers cannot prejudge him and the Times were Rebellious since the year 1633. Nor is this true though it were Relevant for the Earls of Roxburgh and others have pay'd Because these Arguments and Difficulties gave some Colour to the Lords of Erection to think that they were not lyable therefore they us'd to get ease as to bygones but they are made lyable still for the future in the payment of these Feu-duties The Superiorities belonging to Bishops and their Chapters is reserv'd to secure them against the Annexation 1597. and their Superiorities are likewise reserv'd from the Annexation mention'd in the tenth Act of this Parliament Some think it fit for His Majesties Interest that these Superiorities should be Redeem'd for he might thereby have a great and sure Revenue and a great dependence of Vassals and it seems also fit for the interest of the poor Vassals HIs Majesty having oblig'd so far the Heretors as to get them the leading of their own Teinds It was thought fit by this Act to give him some small interest in the Teinds viz. Out of every Teind-boll of the best Wheat ten shilling of the best Tiend-bear eight shilling of the Teind-meal Oats Pease and Ry six shilling and where the Oats will not render half Meal three shilling Where the Victual was of inferiour goodness power is granted to the Commissioners to modifie accordingly and in order thereto they did proportion the price on the several Shires which stands as a rule in the payment of Annuity to this day Though it be said in this Act that the Annuities shall be pay'd out of all Teinds except the Teinds pay'd to Bishops Ministers Colledges Hospitals and other pious uses yet it was thought January 3 1632. Renton contra Ker. Though there was no formal Decision that decimae inclusae are lyable in payment of no Annuity for they did not belong to the Titular nor needed the Heretor buy them in contemplation of which Liberty this Annuity is granted and in effect they are likewise lookt upon as incorporat with the Stock and participating of its Nature This Annuity was found to be made debitum fundi by this Act of Parliament and so to oblige all singular Successors because the Act says generally that the King shall have Right to all the Annuity bypast and to come though it be not expresly declared that singular Successors shall be obliged as our Law ordinarly uses to do when it resolves to make any thing debitum fundi It is Declar'd by this Act That Annuity shall not be annex'd to the Crown whereby the Crown got a great prejudice since thereby the King would have oblig'd every man to a Dependance upon him whereas Commissions having been granted to sell to every man his own Annuity the King made no advantage thereby THis Act is formerly Explain'd in Act 71 Par. 14 Ja. 2. BY this Act it is Declar'd That every man shall have the leading of his own Teind the Teinds being first valued and all Teinds in Scotland may be valu'd except 1. Where the Lands are Feu'd cumdecimis inclusis and Confirm'd before the year 1589. as was found January 21. 1631 2. Teinds belonging to Ecclesiastick Persons and whereof they were in possession the time of the Submission as is clear by the foresaid Determination upon their Submission conform to which by the 9 Act 2 Sess. 1 Par. Ch. 2. All Valuations led against the Bishops or Benefic'd Persons being Ministers since the year 1637. of any Teinds Parsonage and Viccarage wherein they were in possession by Leading or drawing of Rental-bolls are declar'd null but by a Letter the 13. of May 1634. It is declar'd that where such Teinds are set by Bishops or Benefic'd persons to Tacks-men that eo casu the Heretors shall have the buying of their own Teinds but prejudice to the Bishop c. to enjoy the same after expiration of the Tacks as they were accustomed the benefic'd persons always having the prerogative of buying if he pleas'd and this to be extended to the Heretors and Tacks-man of the Teinds of Laick-patrons And conform to this the Lords of the Commission decided February 1679. Hamilton contra Earl of Roxburgh though it was there alleadg'd that this would prejudge Church-men since it would discourage Laicks to take Tacks from them
made Work and yet to encourage our own Work-men there is double Custom laid upon all Forraign made Work by the Book of Rates and ten per cent by a late Proclamation which being joyn'd with the Sea-risk that those run who bring home made Work and the Exchange pay'd for the price of it is a sufficient encouragement to our own Trades-men who because they may live cheaper may likewise work cheaper than those abroad even beside these other Encouragements THis Act in favours of Sope-work seems needless because it was comprehended under the general Act concerning Manufactories being the 40 Act of this Parliament but probably it has been thought necessary for clearing the time for which the priviledge of Manufactories was to endure as has been observ'd upon that Act. THough by this Act it be Declar'd that upon the bringing down the annualrent to six of the hundred that six is declar'd to be free of all Retention or other publick Burdens Yet subsequent Parliaments have Burdened even the annualrents with Retention and otherwise expresly contrary to this Act upon pretext that the Impositions were voluntar offers and not formally Impositions Nota. It may be doubted if the Kings Officers may not lawfully ingage for more than six per cent to get Money for publick use BY this Act it is Declar'd that all sums whereupon no Infeftments have follow'd may be arrested though they be Heretable otherwise of their own Nature and because regulariter Heretable sums are not arrestable therefore this Dispensation was necessary Albeit this Act bear only that sums whereupon no Infeftments have follow'd be arrestable and determines not if arrestments may be us'd at his instance to whom such sums are due Yet a paritate rationis this may follow THis Act is formerly Explain'd in the Act 7 Par. 1 Ja. 6. THis Act is only a Ratification of the 10 Act of the 1 Par. of Ch. 1. Save only that it is here declar'd That notwithstanding of this Act any who have gotten or shall get any new Infeftment of Superiority of kirk-Kirk-lands the same shall stand good as to such Vassals who have given their consent to the said Right of Superiority In regard that such a consent as to His Majesty is of the Nature of a Resignation of their property in favours of the said Superiour to be holden of the King But prejudice nevertheless to His Majesty of His Highness Right of Reversion of the Feu-ferm-duties and Casualities conform to the foresaid Act of Parliament 1633. The design of which Clause was to secure such Lords of Erection as had got Bonds from their Vassals holding kirk-Kirk-lands of them to continue their Vassals and not to hold of the King notwithstanding of the Act of Parliament 1633. Declaring the King to be the Superiour of all kirk-Kirk-lands and albeit the Lords did not think that the single taking of an Infeftment from a Lord of Erection did infer the consent mentioned in this Act after giving of which consent the Vassal could not return to be the Kings Vassal Yet upon the 28. of July 1669. in a case betwixt the Duke of Hamilton and Weir of Blackwood The Lords found that such a consent as this might be infer'd by presumptions shewing that the Vassal design'd to oblige himself to hold of the Lord of Erection and not of the King and in that case they found that Blackwoods Father having granted a Bond that so soon as the Duke should obtain the Superiority his Son should become his Vassal and though the Duke had not then obtain'd it yet he has since the Lands being lately dissolv'd from the Crown and though the Father was but a Tutor yet he was the person who was instrumental to settle his Son in the Right and the rest of the Vassals of that Abbacy did take their Lands expresly holden of the Duke only But in my Opinion no consent can be founded upon by this Clause of the Act of Parliament except it be a clear and express consent to hold only of the Lords of Erection and not of the King it being so much the Interest both of King and People that the Subjects should hold of the King and the Parliament 1633. having so clearly introduc'd in the favours of Vassals of Erected church-Church-lands that they may hold of the King it were hard to take that benefit from them without their express consent FOr understanding this Act it is fit to know that because Tiâ—â—lars of Prebendaries Chaplanries and Alterages cannot be Infest and that there is nothing standing in any Register to shew who is Titular therefore singular Successors who are Vassals could not know by whom to enter to supply which this Act provides that the Vassals of the saids Provestries Chaplanries and Alterages and others of that nature may be Infeft by the Laick Patrons holding immediatly of the King because it is easie to discover by the Registers who is Laick Patron of the Benefice since it passes by Infeftment but yet the Laick Patron is to have no advantage and so the Liferent-escheat will not fall to him as Superiour but will belong to the Titular who is true Superiour nor can the Laick Patron pursue Reduction But yet it seems that since the Vassal did Enter by him that therefore he is bound both to produce to him and that he will have right to the Emoluments of the Superiority except the Vassal can show who is the true Superiour Nota. That when the Patron presents in such Cases he needs not the consent of the Chapter or Convent of the saids Prebendaries and the Provost and Baillies are Declar'd the only undoubted Superiours where such Benefices ly within their Towns they having formerly been Patrons of these Chaplanries which ablativi absolute positi seem to import a condition and so they must prove that they were formerly Patrons ALbeit by this Act it be appointed that there shall be a Cocquet for every Ship and that there shall be fourty shilling pay'd for it Yet it was alleadg'd that a general Cocquet for a Ship was not sufficient but that every Merchant should have a special Cocquet containing specially his Goods and enumerating particularly all the kinds of these Goods Because First The design of Cocquets was to know whether the Goods belonged to Free-Traders which could not be done if the Goods and Merchants Names were not condescended on particularly Nor could it be known if His Majesties Dues were pay'd for the Goods for which the Cocquets were granted 2. It were unjust that a great Ship with Rich Wares should pay no more than a small one with courser Goods 3. By the Customs of England and other Countreys there were for these Reasons special Cocquets given for proportional Dues 4. By the 255 256 257 Acts of the 15 Par Ja. 6. The Cocquets are to contain the particular quantities of the Goods vid. observ on these Acts. THis Act is Explain'd in the 11 Act Par. 18 Ja. 6.
in Fee and reserve the whole Liferent to himself or a person of quality may Marry one who Liferents the whole Paroch and so this Remedy becomes ineffectual because the Act mentions not Liferenters and in such cases Liferenters are found not to be comprehended November 14. 1679. Minister of Morum contra the Lady Beanstoun By this Act such as Kill Slay Hurt or Mutilat the away-takers or their associats in prosecution of their Goods are Indemnified Observ. That all who kill in such pursuits are not Indemnifi'd but such only whose Goods are taken or who are oblig'd to rise for else such as had privat Grudge might upon that Grudge follow and kill but yet it seems just that if men were desir'd though not oblig'd or if Gentle-men being in the House when Robbed should pursue and kill that they should also be indemnifi'd This Act is generally so well conceiv'd that if it were well prosecuted as that it alone might settle the Highlands THis Revocation seems to be very ill conceiv'd for it had forgot the Lands of the Principality which are still comprehended under all other Revocations and therefore the Parliament thought fit to add this to the Revocation and if this be valid there needs no Revocation under the Kings Hand but an Act of Parliament shall be sufficient without a Revocation It is likewise observable from this Act that the Parliament qualifies the Kings Revocation in sua far at His Majestie Revocks all Deeds done by His Father by Declaring that such only are Revocked as were made against the Laws standing in force before the Year 1637. For otherwise all Deeds done by the late King might have been challeng'd upon that Head of vis metus exprest in this Revocation but however Acts extorted vi majori either from King or Subject are null ipso jure by the Common Law without any special Revocation but Revocations are naturally only extended to Deeds done in Minority but not to Deeds extorted vi majore though this Revocation comprehends both WHen the Clergy submitted their Rights to the King both the Submission and Decreet Arbitral provides that the Bishops and others of the Clergie should enjoy the Fruits and Rents of their Benefices as they were Possessed by them the time of the Submission and therefore by this Act it is Ordain'd That any Valuations of â—einds whereof the Bishops and other Benefic'd Persons were in Possession either by Leading Drawing or Rental-bolls since the year 1637. should be null and yet this Priviledge is meerly personal in favours of Church-men for by a Missive Letter from King Charles the First the 9 of May 1634. It is Declar'd that this Favour shall not be extended to the Tacks-men of Bishops and other Church-men they being Laicks but that during these Tacks the Heretor may lead he finding Caution and accordingly a Valuation was sustain'd to James Hamilton of the Lands of Hetherwick against the Earl of Roxburgh the Bishops Tacks-man of the Tiends of these Lands though it was alleadg'd there that the Submission and Decreet Arbitral having no such quality but the Tiends whereof they were in possession being absolutely reserv'd no posterior Letter could have prejudg'd them and it was a great prejudice to them to have their Tiends valu'd during the Tacks for this could not but lessen the Tack-duty and the Grassoums In this Cause it was likewise doubted what way these Tiends should be valued during the Tack GOvernment belongs to the King and Property to the People Yet since the publick Interest must over-rule the privat all being still preferable to any one Therefore Government does so far Influence Property that all Lawyers are of opinion that the Prince may for a just Cause invert or take away Property res privatorum auferre jus alteri quaesitum tollere and thus we see that the King may make a Cittadale upon any mans Ground paying the just price c. And sometimes he may throw down the Houses of Suburbs when there is either actual War or fear of War in which Towns may be besieg'd so that He is the sole Judge of this justa causa by which Property may be inverted and amongst other just Causes one is the procuring of Peace amongst the Subjects for procuring whereof the Prince may remit both the Civil and Criminal Reparations due to Subjects that are wrong'd during the time of the War Gail lib. 2. observ 56 57. But with us general Indemnities are ordinarly granted in Parliaments wherein certainly all privat interests may be Discharg'd because every privat man is presum'd therein to be represented and this Act of Indemnity is one of the most full and formal that ever we had and in it all such are Indemnifi'd as acted by vertue of the publick pretended authority of these times and though an order be necessary to be produc'd in cases where Orders use to be given yet the benefit of this Indemnity was extended to such as were in Arms though they could prove no Orders since Souldiers use to get no written Orders except it were offered to be proven by their Oaths that they had no Order or that they converted the Goods pursu'd for to their own privat use February 15. 1666. Murask contra Gordon and that any promises made to restore such Goods did not bind after the Act of Indemnity though it was alleadg'd that the promise did Innovat the Debt from a military to an ordinary Debt because the Lords thought that that promise might have been given and emitted upon the Supposition that the Souldier thought himself lyable before the Indemnity and therefore the Lords found him not lyable notwithstanding of the promise except it could have been prov'n that he apply'd the Goods to his own use or that he wanted a warrant Sometimes also the King does by His Proclamation grant general Indemnities as He did in 1666 and 1679. to the Western Rebels but in this case it was controverted whether such as had Robbed privat mens Horses were lyable in Restitution notwithstanding of that Indemnity and it was urg'd that they were Because 1. What ever might be alleadg'd where the King had once acknowledg'd Rebellion to be a pretended Authority speâ—iem belli by exchanging of Prisoners and making of Truces with them c. Yet here there was not even those pretexts and so they were only to be considered as a Company of privat Robbers 2. Even this Act Indemnifies only such as acted by vertue of pretended authority Therefore since even the Parliament did not Indemnifie such privat Robbers much less should they be secur'd by Proclamations 3. Whatever an Act of Parliament might do because all persons injur'd were therein represented Yet those Proclamations were but general Remissions and no Remission could prejudge the Party injur'd of his Reparation and Assythment 4. This would incourage all Rogues to be Rebels that they might robb and thereafter be enriched by an Indemnity Whereas on the other hand it
115. l. 8. r. EsloinÈie P. 26. l. 9. for Reub r. Repub. P. 30. Act 137. l. 17. dele â—n P. 36. insert betwixt the 10 and 11 Acts K. James the 2 d Par. 6. p. 37. Act 17. l. 8. for revetis r. revives P. 38. l. 16. r. one helr P. 46. l. 35. r. person P. 47. l. 5. for â—s r. as P. 65. after the end of the 16 Act add K. James the 3 d. Par. 3. P. 68. Act 31. l. 2. r. get P. 71. l. 31. r. a 3 d. Comprising ibid. l. 34. r. 4 th ibid. l. 38. r. fiâ—th P. 72. l. 3. for prejudged r. perjured ib. l. 8. r. to more than 5. P. 74. l. 31. r. 3 d Session P. 83. dele the whole 20 line from â—y c. P. 87. l. 2â— for null r. quarrellable P. 113. l. 13. Act 74. for of r. under P. 129. l. 44. for reparation r. repetition P. 132. l. 2. r. 15â—5 P. 134. l. 21. Act 57. r. Judges P. 136. l. 5 Act 70. dele 8 P. 138. l. 5. Act 70. â— probioâ—atur P. â—41 to notwithstanding c. Add in the Margâ—n Act 82. ibid. for 82. r. 83. ibid. for 83. r. 92. P. 147. l. 4. Act 118. r. appoints P. 159. l. 7. Act 65. r. l. 1. § 2. ss de legatis 3. P. 170. l. â— Act 88. for Confirmations r. Inâ—estments P. 176. l. 28. r. § sed naturalia P. 185. l. â— r. Par. 9. P. 186. l. 2. Act 55. r. was first P. 187 l. 20. for Acts r. and. ibid. l. 21. r. for one only was only P. 188. l. 9. Act 66. r. their Rights P. 193. l. 18. Act 80. r. is probable P. 226. l. 12. r. quod Clericus in Patrimonialibus ut Laicus tractandus P. 228. l. 44. r. 189. P. 233. l. 4. for Erections r. Kirk lands P. 258. l. â— r. as P. 263. l. 5. r. Hujusmodi P. 276. l. 7. Act 156. r. Par. 11. Act 42. ibid. l. 11. r. l. 43. ss de via pub P. 278. l. 21. Act 166. r. Par. 3. Ja. 5. P. 298. l. 18. Act 251. r. volentibus P. 299. Acts 255 c. l. 8. r. 55. P. 300. l. 3. Act 263. for not in observance r. not put in practice P. 339. l. 7. Act 2. r. gestabat Ibid l. 8. â— tit 17. P. 358. l. 17. r. correctoriae P. 376. l. 8. r. this Act. Ibid l. 38. for proportâ—â—n r. property P. 377. l. 24. dele and for the property that was Feued out the time of 〈◊〉 Erection Ibid l. 29. r. â—nfavourable P. 379. l. 16. Act 17. for Beneficed person r. Heretor P. 396. Act 29. r 177. P. 399. l. 32 add after prerogative these words in matters of Trade and delet all that follows P. 405. l. 41. r. could not sell. P. 406 l. 19. for first Compriser r. Debitor P. 407. l. 42. r. a firâ—â— Compriser P. 413. Margin r. Act 4. P. 415. l. 4. r. l. 1. in â—in P. 416. l. â—â— dele as that P. 427. l. 30. dele refuse to P. 428. l. 10. Act 5. for satisfied r. â—ufilfied P. 4â—9 l. 6 for transact r. tranâ—mâ—â— Ibid. l. 2. r. Improving P. 437. l. 44. r. the half of the Fines of all who are not Heretors P. 448. l. pâ—n dele not Ibid. for short r. foresaid P. 462. all from before Act 16. should have been placed before Act 15. OBSERVATIONS Upon the STATUTES and ACTS OF K. JAMES I. Parliament I. IT is observable that our Parliaments do ordinarily begin with Acts in favours of the Church as Justi 〈…〉 codex Does and this Statute renews the first Statute Robert 1. cap 1. Our History observes that this Act was made to oblige the Clergy to assist the King against Duke Murdoch and this is the first of these Acts upon which the reduction of Erections was founded in anno 1627. It being subsumed there that though by this Act all Deeds done to the prejudice of the Church are declared null yet these Erections were very prejudicial to it being in effect alienations of Church-benefices and Lands in favours of Laicks TO make War against the King is Treason and even to make War against private Persons is punishable conform to the Common Law that is to say conform to the Civil Law for the Civil Law is still called the Common Law in our Statutes which word we have borrowed from the French who call the Civil Law Le droict commun and by the Common Law and our present custom the raising of Men in War-like manner by Mustering them or forming them in Companies or swearing them to Colours though no design against the King be proved is Treason for to raise War is a part of His Majesties Prerogative and whoever makes War usurps the Regal Power The Civil Law to which this relates is l. 3. ad l. Jul. Maj. l. un C. Vt armorum usus inscio principe interdictus sit Nulli prâ—rsus nobis insciis atque inconsultis quorumlibet armorum movendorum copia tribuatur but the Justices refused to sustain the raising of fewer than an hundred men to be Treason or to sustain that the raising them till after Letters of Fire and Sword did infer more than a Convocation Earl of Seaforth contra Assint Feb. 2. 1674. And Invasions made by one Subject upon another with numbers of Men without these qualifications was found only punishable as a Convocation by an Arbitrary punishment but I consider more the design than the numbers REbellion is properly rising in Arms against the Common-wealth openly and notorly It was called Perduellion by the Common Law and that is the species of Treason that is here punished by forefaulture of Life Lands and Goods vid. R. M. l. 4. c. 1. leg Malcol 2. c. 12. quon attach c. 19. THese who refuse to assist the King to punish notor Rebels are by this Act punished as favourers of them Notor Rebels are only such as are denounced Rebels or against whom there are Commissions of Fire and Sword granted by the Council or these who have risen in open Rebellion though there be yet no legal diligence against them as was decided February 1680. and these who refuse to assist against such are punishable as favourers of such Rebels that is to say as Art and Part of their Crimes as is clear by the 29 Act Par. 3. Jac. 4. where favourers of Rebels are declared punishable as Art and Part and consequently the staying from the Kings Host after open Proclamation commanding all Heretors to go thereto is punishable as Treason and it is clear by the Journal Books that this Crime has been punished by Forefaulture Jan. 9. 1577. and the 21 of April 1599. Likewise I find Andrew Naiff in Baldordy pannalled for Treasonable abiding from the Kings Host at the Raid of Bigger 1568. And yet I find that Absents from the Host are Bail'd March 15. 1576. though Treason is not of its own nature Bailable and that these Pannals who
are doom'd to have lost their Estates and Goods after much debate are notwithstanding quoad their Persons only warded during the Kings pleasure And His Majesty by His gracious Letter Nov. 1679 allowed such as were absent from the Host at Bothwel-Bridge to be only fined at most in two years valued Rent This Act was also the foundation of all our old Proclamations whereby all the Heretors betwixt sixty and sixteen were charged to come to the Kings Host when our Kings were either engaged against their Enemies at Home or Abroad at which occasions Heretors and Liferenters whether Men or Women holding immediatly of the King were cited and they cited and brought out their Vassals and therefore it was a good defence that they held not of the King as is to be seen in the Journal Books Feb 19 1600. But now the Council commands all Heretors by Proclamation to go to the Host under the command of such Captains as are named in the Proclamation This Obligation and Statute is not now taken away by the late Act giving His Majesty the Militia as was found by the Privy Council October 1677 and by the Justices in March 1680. so that Heretors must attend either but not both in the same Countries so the last Act abrogates not the first and that being given as a favour were none if it took off the first which is greater and arises from a feudal obligation or at least is due to the King as King and without which the peace of the Country could not be maintained and by the Act 25 Sess 3 Par 1 Car 2 after the Militia is granted the Parliament in the same Act makes a further tender of all their Lives and Fortunes betwixâ— sixty and sixteen when they shall be called for Secundo It was found that this Crime was not punishable now only by the punishment exprest in Chap 15 Stat Alexander 2 whereby a Thane was only punishable in six Cows and a young Cow an Ochiern in fifteen Ewes or six Shillings and a Labouring Man in one Cow and one Sheep for that Statute is justly abrogated by this Act that is posterior the Remedies in that Statute having been probably found ineffectual because of their meanness This Ochiern is by Skeen called a Freeholder but I find by many old evidents that an Ochiern is a Chief of the Branch of a great Family who has a considerable command and it is the corruption of the Irish Wochteran which signifies still in the Highlands a Master or Superior Tertio It was found that though such as were above sixty or below sixteen were not obliged to go to the Host themselves because of the 23. Stat K. Will and this is sustained Feb 21 1600 yet their Age did not excuse them from sending which clears why David Lawson was convict for byding from the Raid of Dumfries in Regent Mortons time though he was alleaged to be past sixty five Quarto That such Burgesses as had Lands in the Countrey were obliged to send one for these Lands though it was alleaged that Burgesses did not usually keep Horses except they had been commanded by the Town where they lived to serve there Quinto That the Captains under whom they were commanded to go to the Host could not warrand them to stay at home because this Feudal obligation could not be dispensed with by Captains who were only impowered to command but if they came once out and were listed it was found that the Captains might allow them to return home upon occasion of sickness or for other excuses of which he was a competent Judge Sexto That the King needed not prove that the Pannels came not to the Host that being a Negative but that it was necessary for the Pannel to prove that he was at the Host. Septimo That the King was not obliged to prove the Pannels to be Heretors but that they were obliged to renunce any Heretage they had in favours of the King if they denied they were Heretors even as in other cases the King is not obliged to prove that any were his Vassals but they behoved to disclaim upon their hazard and of old the notoriety of their being Heretors was refer'd to the Assize without any further probation as June 12. 1557. and some times to the Pannels oath as in the case of William Wallace July 2. 1600 Octavo That not only such as were Heretors by being actually Infeft were to send to the Host but that appearand Heirs and such as possessed the Lands were to send it being unreasonable that the appearand Heir's lying out and not entering should prejudge the King more in this case than it does as to the casuality of Escheat c. Nono It was found that such as possess'd by the courtesie of Scotland were obliged to go to the Host by an express Decision at this time though the curiality be but a Liferent and other Liferenters were not obliged to go since Heretors in our Law are exponed in opposition to Liferenters These words in this Act without a reasonable excuse seem to insinuate that not only relevant or legal Defences but even reasonable or equitable Defences ought to be received to defend such as stayed from the Kings Host And thus Inquests favour such as were known to be of so infirm a Constitution as that they could not without great danger to their life undergo the fatigue of an Army though they were not labouring under any present form'd Disease or Morbus Sonticus and for the same reason mean Heretors were excused though of old I find that this was found to be no Defence in the case of John Ross of Drumgranich July 2. 1600. but the reason that inclined the Judges in this year 1680. not to fine small Heretors was because the Proclamation commanded none to come out but such as were to come upon Horseback and so such only could be fined as could keep Horses and though the Decisions at this time did only oblige such as had 100 l of valued Rent to go yet by the 120 Act Par 9 Jac 1 such as can spend twenty pounds of Land-rent yearly are obliged to keep a Horse which by the 267 Act Par 15 Jac 6 is to be computed 200 l of yearly constant Rent I find by the Feudal Law that the Vassal qui Dominum in bello non adjuvavit aut periclitantem deseruit feudum amiâ—â—ebat Rosenthal Conclus 16 num 1 but yet the words of the Text in the Feudal Law feudorum lib 2 tit 24 Par 2. are only Item qui dominum suum cum quo ad praelium iverit in acie periclitantem dimiserit beneficio indignum se Judicavit and yet even by this Text it is implyed that he is obliged to go and the expressing of that Obligation seems omitted because it was unnecessar being implyed in the very nature of the Few Craâ—g expresses it thus Alia est etiam feudi si non anâ—iâ—tendi saltem Vassalli ob quasi delictum
puniendi ratio si Dominum se pro Caesaris expeditione instruentem non suerit Comitatus feudum enim eo casu amittet dimidium fructuum illius anni ex feudo domino pendet non enim hic tantum contra dominum sed contra imperium Remp peccatur so that it seems in his time the Vassal who hâ—ld of another Superior then the King forfaulted his Feu for not going to the Host but the immediat Superior had Right to half a years Rent and the reason of this seems to have been because by all our old Laws the Vassal was obliged to attend his immediat Superior in going to the Kings Host and the Proclamation then commanded every man to come with his Vassals and therefore as the King had Right to the Forfaulture for not attending his Host so the immediat Superior had right to this half years Duty for his not attending him and sometimes by the Journal Books it appears that when Vassals were Fined and not Forfaulted the immediat Superior craved the half of the Fine THe punishment of such as ride with moe than their ordinary Houshold is Arbitrary and this Act must only be interpret against such as ride ordinarly with great Trains and which may look like an unpeaceable design nor is any man punished for riding at solemn Occasions with his Friends and Followers and I also think that this Act would only extend to such against whom there lies a presumption that they gather or keep men together upon some sinistrous design either against the Government or their Neighbours for if this were allowed great men might keep Troups together and for this same reason are Convocations discharg'd by other Acts and betwixt these Acts and this there is this difference that by these the Convocating for a time irregularly those in whom the Convocater pretends no interest is discharg'd but by this Act the conveening men upon pretext of a Retinue is discharged and though it may seem that every man may keep as great a Retinue as he pleases yet quilibet tantum in suo facere potâ—st illud quod fieri potest sine aemulatione vicini but multo majus sine aemulatione Reâ—publicae THough by this Law it is only appointed that there be Officers and Ministers of the Law made through all the Realm indefinitly without telling by whom they are to be made yet by the 2. Act Par. 1. Ch. 2. The power of choosing Judges is declar'd to be one of His Majesties Prerogatives It is observable from this Act that none can be Judges who have not sufficiently of their own where-through they may be punished if they transgress which is very just for a Judge who Decerns unjustly by palpable unjustice litem suam facit and therefore it may be well argu'd that when any who is a Judge or has an heretable Office becomes insolvent he may be forc'd to find a Depute who is solvent or else he may be discharged to sit Obs. Though it may seem That if any Heretable Officer be incapable to exerce the King should name Deputs jure devoluto yet by this Act it is ordained That if the Heretable Officer be incapable he shall ordain others for whom he shall be answerable The Design of this Act is to empower the Sheriff to arrest Oppressors and Vagabonds By these words to sojourn Horse is meant to quarter Horse from the French word sejour By Husbands of the Land is still meant Husband-men in our Acts of Parliament By taxing the Kings Skaith is meant to cause modifie what is due to the King and by Assything the King is meant the causing the Malefactors pay what is modified Obs. That the Legislative Words in our Statutes are very various for in this and many other Statutes of this King the formula is the Parliament Statutes and the King forbids which words shew that the Legislative Power is in the King for to forbid is the chief and most vigorous part of a Statute In the 17 th Act it is said It is Statute and the King forbids In the 14 th It is Statute by the whole Parliament and the King forbids In the 13 th It is Statute by the whole Parliament and by the King forbidden In the 30 Act 2 Par. Jac. 1. It is Decreeted by the whole Parliament In the Act 37 It is Decreeted and Statute In the Act 47 Par. 3 d. It is ordained by the King and Parliament Act 50. It is ordained and forbidden Act 60 Par. 3. Jac. 1 Our Soveraign Lord through the whole Ordinance of the Parliament Statutes Act 125 Par 9 Jac 1 Through the consent of the whole Parliament it is ordain'd Act 62 Par 3 Jac 1. It is seen speedful Act 76 Par 5 Jac 1. It is Statute and Ordain'd and Act 78 and 79 It is Ordain'd Act 83 Par 6 Jac 1. Rex per modum statuti ordinavit Act 85 Rex mandavit In the old Statutes of King Robert and King Alexander c. It is said Dominus Rex vult or statuit Rex or desinivit Rex or prohibet Rex or decrevit deliberavit Rex without speaking one word of the Parliament or Estates Act 105 Par 7 Jac 1. The King with the consent of the Council Act 104. The King with the consent of the Parliament and Council Act 108. The King of deliverance of Council But the formula now is Our Soveraign Lord with advice and consent or Our Soveraign Lord and Estates of Parliament which last is not so proper and though in most of the Acts of the 14 th Parliament K. Ja. 3 d It be said That it is Statute and Ordained by the whole three Estates yet it may be easily seen that these Acts were but in effect Overtures propos'd by the three Estates to be Ratified in Parliament and so in effect are conceiv'd rather as Overtures than Acts As also where any thing is to be put in execution by the King there the Act runs in name of the Parliament and not of the King as in the 23 d Act Par. 1 Jac 1. It is said that the Parliament has Determined and Ordain'd that Our Lord the King garâ—mend his Money and in the 6 Act Par 3 Jac 2. The three Estates has concluded that Our Soveraign Lord Ride throw all the Realm c. THere are many wayes whereby the Superior may crave Production of his Vassals Evidâ—nts for the King sometimes gets an Act of Parliament ordaining all the Vassals of such a Countrey to produce their Evidents as 262. Act. Parl. 15 Jac. 6. whereby all the Heritors in the Highlands are ordain'd to produce their Evidents with certification of losing their Rights The Superior may also crave exhibition of these Rights But the ordinaâ— way is by an Imprâ—bation wherein certification is granted against the Papers that are not produced which is deriv'd to us also from the Feudalists who affirm that Vassallus imperari potest sub poena
101. Act Parl. 7. Jam 5. all the Visiters are to be appointed by the King and by our present Practice All Actions intented for causing Patrons or others Compt for their Intromissions with the Rents of Hospitals are still intented at the instance of the Chancellor By the Canon Law Curis Hospitalitatis Hospitalium ad Episcopi solicitudinem pertinet sed ubi non aedificantur Hospitalia cum permissione Episcopi locus non est sacer nec est sub Episcopi cura HEreticks are by this Act to be punished as Law of haliâ— Kirk requires id est by Excommunication with us they were burnt and by Act 46. Parl. 3. Jam. 6. Church-men who are Hereticks are to be Excommunicated and Depos'd if they revock not their Heresie the punishment by the Common Law is Burning and Confiscation of Moveables Clar. Num. 13. This Act was made against the first of our Reformers called then Lollards for the Rubrick in the Black Impression bears of Hereticks and Lollards Obser. From this Act it is observable that the Kirk was Judge to Heresie in prima instantia and Clarus makes the Tryal so far Ecclesiastick that the Cognition belongs to the Church and the punishment to the secular Judge but with us the Justices are Judges in prima instantia IT may be alledged from this Act that all Transgressions of Law are not punishable as contempt of Authority where there is no express sanction in the Law since by this Act it is appointed that the Breakers of Acts of Parliament are to be punished after the Form and Ordinance thereof By which words also it seems that all Acts of Parliament are with us stricti juris and not to be extended de casu in casum but yet with us Laws are extended by Parity of Reason and by Analogie as in the case of making Men answerable for their Wives not going to Church c. And the meaning of this Act is that Judges shall not have liberty commutare paenam Lege definitam expresse for the best Lawyers acknowledge that though an Statute should say And it is ordained that this Statute shall be understood exactly according to the Letter yet it is capable of even an extensive Interpretation if no unjustice follow on that extension but much more if without this it would be unjust Bald. de stat num 3. Voet. de statut sect 7. cap. 1. And a declaratorie Interpretation is by all Lawyers acknowledg'd to be a Literal Interpretation Voet. ibid albeit in general it cannot be deny'd that these who have power to make Statutes must by a necessarie consequence have power to modifie and qualfie them as they please and as they may allow inferiour Judges a Power to Interpret Statutes in general so they may discharge them in a particular Statute to use that their Power and in that Case an inferiour Judge cannot Extend or Interpret otherways than in the terms foresaid LEagues and Bonds are by this Act only declared null but by the Act. 12 Parl. 10. Jam. 6. and Act 4. Parl. 1. Ch 2. they are declared punishable as Sedition and were punishable by Warding Act 43. Parl. 6. Q. Mary IF any carry Horses under three Years old to be sold out of the Country they Eâ—cheat them by this Act and by the 22 Act Parl. 1. Jam. 6 If Horse without making difference as to their Age be carry'd beyond Sea the Horse and Ship and Goods of the Owner are Escheated and their Persons to be punished arbitrarly It is declared by that Act that there were several Acts before discharging the exportation of Horses whereas I see none save this and therefore these behov'd to have been Acts of Council or unprinted Acts of Parliament though generally all Acts inferring Escheat should be printed for Certioration These Acts are now in Desuetude carrying Horses out of the Country being an Improvement of Rent though that was then discharg'd upon the account of our Wars with England but it would appear that the carrying Horses out of the Kingdom till they be three Years old was not discharg'd upon the account of War but to the end the Horses should be kept till they gave a greater price and so should bring in more Money therefore this Prohibition it seems should still last BY this Act Tallow transported is escheated and the reason hereof is given by the 123. Act. Parl. 7. Ja. 5. because by the transportation thereof it became very dear at home and therefore the escheat of the transporters whole Moveables is added but the ill Increasing the Moveables of the Masters and Skippers of such Vessels in which it is transported are declar'd to fall under Confiscation Act. 40. Parl. 6. Q. M. And this Act extends the former to Strangers It is Observable that though this Act discharg'd all Persons to export yet all other Acts mentions Strangers when it is design'd that the Prohibition shall be extended to them as is also clear by the Act. 22. Parl 1 Ja. 6. and the 31. Act. Parl. 7. Ja. 2 d. So that it may be doubted if such penal Acts should be extended to Strangers where they are not mention'd and if the words all Persons are not in our Acts to be restricted to Natives Though by the Civil Law the owners be lyable for the Skippers fault in so far as concerns the prejudice done in the Ship yet it seems hard that an owners escheat shall fall for the Skippers taking in Tallow else Rich men would not be Owners and Skippers might Maliciously ruine their Owners and therefore it seems that by Masters here should only be mean'd Skippers and by the Civil Law the Skipper was call'd Magister Navis THough this Act punishes only Stealers or Cutters of Green Wood in the night time yet they are punishable for such Faults at all times the punishment is exprest Act. 84. Parl. 6. Ja. 6. but thereafter cutting of Green Wood is punisht as Thift with Death Act. 82. Parl. 11. Ja. 6. and yet I find none ever punished Capitaly for this Crime and the ordinary way of pursuing is by Process before the Sheriffs or the Lords for pecuniarie mulcts BY the Common Law no Judge can cite a Malefactor without his own Territorie and therefore if a man cut my Trees I could only pursue him within my Jurisdiction ratione criminis commissi if I find him within it but yet heâ—e it is enacted that if a man steal my Wood the same shall be punished in the Court within which tâ—e Lands lye out of which the Wood was stolne and none other but it seems that this being only introduced in favours of the Person injur'd he may renunce it and pursue before the Judge of the Jurisdiction in which the Offender dwels who cannot obtrude this Statute FOr clearing this Act Vid. infra Ja 1.9 Parl. Act 131. BY this Act Stalkers of Deer are to pay 40 shilling to the King and their Resetters ten pounds
Court which is a Spiritual Court and curia christianitatis Obs. 2. It seems that Oaths of Calumnie can only be craved in initio litis in the beginning of the Pley or Cause but yet now an Oath of Calumnie may be asked at any time Obs. 3. That though this Act appoints Advocats to give their Oaths of Calumnie if their Client be absent yet that only holds in matters of Fact as to which the Advocat is not obliged to swear if his Client be present but as to alleageances in point of Law the Advocat is obliged to swear though his Client be present Thir Verses are taken out of Hostiensis tit de jur Calum Gloss. in § 1. just de paen tem litigant which shews amongst other arguments that the Acts of Parliaments as we have them now Printed are not the same as they past in Parliament I have heard it debated in the Process Keith contra Purves March 1684. That an Adocat was not obliged to give his Oath of Calumnie whether he thought the Right upon which he Debated was really to the behoove of the Earl of Marshal but only in general that the Advocats had good reason to Debate it was not to his behoove because their Client said so to them But if this be allow'd an Oath of Calumnie will signifie nothing for Advocats may alwayes find subterfuges to depone that they have good reason to urge such a thing for they may think their Clients Information sufficient warrand for them though they are convinced the same is palpably false whereas the true Design of the Act of Parliament was to debar Advocats from proponing Defences and insisting in Pleas which they thought unjust and Calumnious ARe in Desuetude But I am of Opinion that Brieves with us have not their Origine from the Civil Law as Skeen thinks because sententia erat de brevi recitanda or from the breve testatum of the Feudal Law for these are very different from our Brieves but from the Court of Rome for their Brieves are exactly the same With ours as breve de capienda possessione breve contra intrusum vide Amydenium de stilo datariae cap. 28. lib. 1. Rebuff praex Reg 34. THis Act is abrogated by the Union of both Kingdoms but from it may be observed that to go and live in a Countrey that is in War with the KING is Treason since the Enemy becomes thereby stronger and richer and the Kingdom weaker and poorer UPon this Act is founded the stile of Law-burrows which bears That the Raiser dreads Bodily Harm of him against whom he seeks Law-burrows and that he has given his Oath to that effect This is like that Oath of Calumny Quod tenetur ille prestare qui novum opus nunciat l. 5. § 14. ff de novo oper nunciat But it is the same exactly with the cautio de non offendendo us'd both in France and Flanders in which the Oath of the Party is sufficient ubi expectatio mali juramento ejus qui securitatem petit confirmari sufficiet Christien ad leg Mechlin art 1. tit 4. num 4. And with us such as break Law-burrows are pursu'd by an Action of Contravention Which Term is likewise us'd among them in the same sense art 8. num 16. Ibid. Observe That though the Letters of Law-burrows contain no such Warrand in the Body of them for taking the Chargers Oath that he dreads bodily harm and though the Messenger who executes the saids Letters does not exact the said Oath from him at whose Instance the Letters are to be Execute yet that neither annuls the Letters nor the Act of Caution though it would seem that Caution is only to be found because that Oath is given but yet the Party might have Suspended upon that ground and would not have been oblig'd to have found Caution till the Charger had given his Oath conform to this Act. FRee-holders or their Acturneys should compear at Head-Courts but though this Act sayes That if they be absent upon a necessary Cause they may send their Acturney yet de praxi though they can prove no reasonable Cause they cannot be Unlaw'd if they send any person with a Letter of Acturney which is rais'd out of the Chancellary and the sending of Seals is now in Desuetude for Services and Verdicts in Criminal Causes which are the only Papers that need now to be Seal'd may be Sealed with any borrowed Seal Obs. primo Several Regalities in Scotland have Chappel and Chancery of their own and grants Acturneys themselves Obs. secundo Regalities are still a part of the Shire and therefore the Sheriff may cite the Vassals of the Regality but the Lord of Regality cannot cite these who live within the Shire without Letters of Supplement obtain'd by deliverance of the Lords for that effect vide Act 10 Par 5 Ja. 2. Obs. tertio That the Unlaw warranted by this Act to be impos'd by Sheriffs for absence from Head-Courts cannot exceed 10 pounds February 7. 1624. December 6. 1628. And the same Unlaw of 10 pounds is allow'd for absence from Baron Coutrs March 16. 1622. It has been likewise found that though a Vassal having been in use to have his Servant received as his Acturney at those Courts without a formal Letter of Acturney out of Chancellary cannot be Fined quoad by gains because of the preceeding Custom Yet for the future they will be oblig'd to send formal Letters of Acturney or else they will be Fineable Intimation being made to them that the former Custom will be no more allow'd July 11. 1678. The Bailie of the Regality of Paisley against the Laird of Duntreath THe taking of Salmond at all times is allow'd on the Waters of Saloway and Tweed as long as Berwick and Roxburgh are in the English Mens Hands but it is Rescinded upon our Kings succeeding to the Crown of England by the 5 Act 18 Par. Ja. 6. King JAMES the first Parl. 10. THis Act discharging the selling Salmond abroad except the one half of the price be pai'd in Money is in Desuetude THis Act is Declaratory of the former Law else it could not have been drawn back to the prejudice of the private Right here mentioned and this was suitable to the Common Law for the Governour of the Kingdom is but a Tutor and a Tutor cannot alienat Lands belonging to the Crown King IAMES the first Parliament 11. THese who break the Kings Protections are ordained to be pâ—nish'd and the Protections here mention'd are these Letters which our Kings of old granted to Monastries Burghs c. taking them into his special Protection and discharging all his Subjects to injure them under pain of his highest Displeasure and it is observeable that Assizes were to sit upon these whether the Party accus'd was present or absent Those Protections are now in Desuetude nor can any Pannel be proceeded against now in his absence except in the case of
guilty it is not just to admit Caution and the true speciality upon which the Council founded that Resolution was because above four thousand were delated in that Porteous Roll for Treason and it was almost impossible to Imprison all The Acts 50 51 52 53 are abrogated by the Union of England and so is the 56 but though they be abrogated yet the following Observations may be made from them Obser. 1 o. From the Act 52. that the supplying the Scottish Towns then under the Command of the English is declar'd Treason as is in general the assisting of all Enemies to the State vid. Ja. 1 Par. 13 cap. 141. Ja. 2 Par. 12 Act 50. For though we have no special Statute declaring the assisting of Enemies of the State to be Treason Our Acts running generally against such as assist declar'd Traitors or assure with English men in particular yet it is Treason by the Common Law l. 3. ff ad l. Jul. Maj. And such of our Nation as continued in the Dutch Service during the War with Holland in anno 1666. were forfaulted as Traitors By the second part of this Act it is declared Treason for any who ride with the Warden of the Marches or any other Chiftain to go away with any manner of Goods till they be thirded that is to say till they be divided for one third by the Law of the Borders belongs to the King a second third to the Warden or Chiftain and a third to the Apprehenders For understanding whereof it is fit to know that Lands when taken from Enemies become the Kings or the Common-wealths by the Laws of all Nations but Moveables by the Law of GOD Deut. chap. 20. vers 14. Josh. chap. 8. vers 1. when taken were divided equally amongst the Takers But sometimes there was a Division the one half falling to such as Fought the other to these that stayed with the Baggage and a fiftieth part of their part who Fought not was dedicated to the LORD whereas one of five hundred was only Consecrated out of their part who Fought Num. 31. verse 50. At present Grotius distinction lib. 3. de jur Bell. c. 6 11 12. Is generally observ'd whereby if Moveables be taken by a party led on by an Officer who only knew the design then the Souldiers get no share but all falls to the publick but if the Moveables be taken in Excursions or free Adventures they belong to the Takers And Voet. c. 5. n. 19. de jure milit Sets down the several proportions whereby Goods are divided amongst a Party and Officers in Holland where if the Party exceed 50. the Captain gets a tenth the Leiutenent a fifth the Ensign a third the Quarter-master a double portion the Serjeant one and an half and each Souldier a single share but still the Horse get double of what is due to the Foot BY this Act which is a continuation of the former it is declared Capital for any man to take from another Goods or Prisoners which they are in Possession of from which it is observable in War that Possession or Capture gives only right thus Inst. de rer div Par. 17. It is said Item quae ex hostibus capiuntur statim jure gentium capientium fiunt and therefore a Ship being pretended to belong to the King because one of the Kings Friggots had beat the Convoy that Guarded her and was in pursuit of another and had taken both her and this Ship here controverted if the Privateer had not interveen'd and it being answer'd that an actual Capture could only establish the Property and this Statute requir'd Possession The Lords before answer granted mutual Probation for trying whether this Ship could have escaped from the Friggot if the Privateer had not taken her IT is Treason to raise a Fray wilfully in the Kings Host for this wilfully done shews a Design to ruine the Army and I find that the Master of Forbes was Hang'd for raising a Fray in the Kings Host at Jedburgh July 14. 1537. The words without Cause are added here because if a man doing his duty was the occasion of raising a Fray he ought not to be punish'd as if an Officer punishing a Mutineer should by that occasion raise a Fray this would not be punishable By the Civil Law such as were Authors of Sedition in an Army for a Fray is properly Sedition were punish'd as Murderers l. 3. § 4. ff ad l. Cornel. de sicariis But if the Common-wealth was in danger they were punish'd as Traitors as in this Statute and in l. 1 ff ad l. Jul. Maj. and they are every where now punish'd by Death Sand. Decis 165. tit 9. des 12. vid. Voet. de jure milit c. 4. num 40. And if the Authors cannot be known all involv'd in the Guilt are forc'd to cast Lots Voet. ibidem Sometimes also if the Sedition was carried on sine gravi tumultu intra vociferationem the guilty were only Casheir'd l. 3. § 20. ff de re militi if the Tumult was rais'd upon privat picques or grounds but if it was rais'd upon prejudices against the Common-wealth or Prince it was punish'd even in that case and though no actual prejudice follow'd as Treason d. l. 1. ff ad l. Jul. Maj. King IAMES the second Parliament 13. THis putting the Kingdom in a posture of Defence was formerly ordain'd Stat. Will. cap. 23. Stat. 1. R. 1. cap. 27 But all these Acts are now in Desuetude and the Act concerning the Militia is regularly come in their place but yet the King may call for either vid. observ on 4 Act 1 Par. Ja. 1. By the Kings Letters by Bailis is mean't Letters to raise Fire or Takenings for advertising the Countrey By Out-hornes is mean'd these who follow'd the Sheriffs and whose Office it was to raise the Kings Horn for warning the Countrey to assist the Kings Officers THis Act contains what is fit to be done in time of Pestilence and because it was an Affair to be Govern'd by Christian Charity therefore the Regulation of it was referr'd to the Clergy and upon this account it is that the Act says The Clergy thinks without speaking of King or Parliament it being ordinary in our Acts of Parliament to set down the report without drawing it into the formality of an Act of Parliament and thus in the 91 and 92 Acts Parl. 13 Ja. 3. It is said The Lords thinks it expedient by which word Lords must be interpreted Lords of Articles THere was of old Distresses taken from such as came to Fairs that is to say some thing was taken to be a Surety for their good behaviour and was deliver'd back at the end of the Fair if the Owners committed no wrong during the Fair. THis Act is only to be interpreted of the Fees due to the great Constable of Scotland who is now the Earl of Errol for he only can exact during the time of Parliament but
yet that Exaction by him at Fairs in time of Parliament is in Desuetude and other Constables have Fees which they exact in time of Fairs by special Infestment as the Constable of Dundee and it is observable from this Act that a long Custom of exacting Fees and Customs from the people is not Warrantable except either that old Custom be founded upon an old and express Infestment or warranted by an Act of Parliament King JAMES the second Parliament 14. SPuilzies are here divided in SpuilÈies of Moveables and SpuilÈies of Fee or Heretage but that improper way of speaking is not now us'd for the Dispossessing a man out of Heretage is called Ejection and Ejections are now pursu'd before the Lords as ordinary Actions but not in the special way here prescribed That Maxim of Spoliatus ante omnia restituendus extends to SpuilÈies of both Moveables and Heretage ALL those Forms of Process are to be consider'd at the Institution of the Session by King James 5 th By this Act Appeals to King or Parliament are utterly discharged But the Question is whether only Appeals stopping execution be hereby discharg'd and it is alleadg'd that Appeals were only discharg'd here because the Session was then a Committee of Parliament and there lyes no Appeals from the Parliament but it seems there is likewise no Appeals from the Session as presently Constituted because they are invested in all the priviledges the former Session had and that the 99 Act Parl. 6 Ja. 4. allowing Appeals after this Act must only be interpreted of Appeals from inferiour Judicatures but even these are also in Desuetude Whether Protestations for remeid of Law be allowable notwithstanding of this Act was Debated in Anno 1674. and the King determined by his Letter in Anno 1674. That they were not to be allow'd to Advocats nor Parties after the Lords of Sessions Decisions albeit it was alleadg'd then that by an Act of Sederunt in Anno 1567. Protestations for remeid of Law were expresly excepted in the Act discharging Murmuration against the Lords and that Lethingtoun Balfour and Hope in their Practiques Tit. Lords of the Session do express these as allowable nor are they discharg'd expresly by these Acts and though neither Appeals to the Parliament nor Protestations for remeid of Law before them be not now to be practised by Parties or Advocats yet it is not yet decided how far the Parliament may Rescind the Decreets of the Lords and though they might yet it was urg'd that it is not fit they should since Parliaments may seem more subject to passion and factions then the Session great men have too much influence there and by these and such Appeals the sitting of Parliaments would be very much lengthen'd and because their sitting is uncertain the Sentences of the Lords could not be acquiesced in as a Security and all Pleas would be thereby both endless and expensive and there is as great reason for discharging Appeals to King and Parliament as there was at this time for the Lords then though a Committee of Parliament were not more Learn'd than the Session now and upon these considerations the Parliament 1661. Did by a Letter to the King in a case betwixt Sir Thomas Hamilton and Alrud declare that there could be no Appeal from the Lords of Session THis Act against Litsters buying and selling Cloath is extended so by the 12 Act Parl. 2 Ja. 3. That no Crafts-men may use Merchandise and the reason of this Law is because if they were allow'd to buy they would make none and so neither improve themselves nor the native Commodities of the Kingdom this Act is renewed by the 47 th Act 1 Sessi 1 Parl. Ch. 2 d. EVery Merchant must Sail with at least three Serplaiths of Goods and the Serplaith contains 80 Stone of weight but by the 13 Act Parl. 2 Ja. 3. It is appointed that no man Sail without half a Last of Goods which was introduced because pedling Merchants having very small Stocks were both a discredit to the Nation and were also forc'd to sell at any rate for they could not wait for a price but now all such Acts are in Desuetude Obs. That by this Act it is appointed that none Sail or Trade but free Burgesses which is restricted by the 11 Act Parl. 2 Ja. 3. In which it is declar'd lawful for Prelats Lords Barons and Clerks to send their own Servants and by the 5 Act Parl. 2 Ch. 2 Sess. 3. It is declared lawful for Indwellers in Burghs of Regalities or Baronies and others to send abroad Corn Cattel Neat Hydes and all the Native Commodities of the Kingdom IN all Acts for visiting Hospitals the Chancellor is still one and though by this Act where the foundation of Hospitals cannot be found the Remeid is refer'd to the King Yet by the Act 10 Parl. 1 Ja. 3. It is appointed that where the Foundation cannot be found the Rents shall be bestow'd upon the Poor By the Canon Law Hospitals are not Benefices and yet the care of them belong'd to the Bishop tit 10. quest 2. vid. not on Act 27 Parl. 2 Ja. 1. Supra THis Sumptuary Law is in Desuetude by Musling of Women here is mean'd being Masked FEues being free and gratuitous Donations bestow'd for Service it was just that the Vassal should not have liberty to sell without the consent of the Granter for else others might be obtruded upon him as Vassals and he might want the service of that Family which he particularly chus'd but yet the Feudal Law allow'd the Vassal to grant a Sub-feu which though it may seem a kind of Alienation yet was allow'd by that Law lib. 2. tit 3. § Sed etiam Because in Alienations the Superiour would have lost the Service of the first Family and would have had but one Vassal whereas in Sub-infeudations the first Vassal must still remain Vassal and be lyable to all the Casualities and Services and the Superiour gets likewise another Vassal viz. the Sub-vassal a Sub-feu being likewise but Emphiteusis the Sub-vassal is but in effect a Tennent and therefore by this Act of Parliament the King declares that for better cultivating and labouring of the Kingdom he will allow all his own Vassals to set their Lands which they hold immediatly of him in Sub-feu and it is declar'd that this Act shall be equivalent to a Confirmation And these Sub-feues are by this Act only call'd Assedations and are by the 9 Act Par 6 Ja. 4. ordain'd to be Set for the Policy of the Realm because as I conceive the Kings Vassals being thus freed from the Labouring of their own Lands they might be the abler to serve the King in his Wars and the Land likewise be the better Laboured by these Sub-feuars who could attend the Labouring thereof Upon which Words Our Soveraign Lord shall Ratifie and approve the said Assedation It was Debated whether a Sub-feu set by vertue of this Act
removetur ab officio sed hoc non tenet in judice perpetuo Farin Q. 3. num 423. says that Majores Officiales non removentur sed minores facile removentur by thâ— cap. 14. Stat. Rob. 2. A negligent Judge viz. a Baillie of Regality is to be punish'd by escheating his Moveables and their life is to be in the Kings will A faulty Judge is also punishable by this Act in the same way as a negligent Judge which must not be mean'd of the meanest fault seing the punishment is so great but whereas by this Act the punishment is the loss of Office for ever if it be not Heretable yet by the 26 Act Parl. 5. Ja. 3. The Heretable Officer loseâ— his Office for three years whereas this Act bears this being lawfully prov'd and notorly kend we must not conclude that a Judge may be convict upon this notoriety without probation for these two are only exegetick of one another and the sense is they being convict upon notor probation Vid. supra observ on Act 16 Parl. 6 Ja. 2. THe Form now to be follow'd in case any man should masterfully possess another mans Lands is that if violence was us'd at the entering then the Council upon a Complaint will restore the party dispossess'd but if the Intrant entred in vacuam possessionem though without any Right he behov'd to be pursu'd before the Session by an action of Intrusion K. JAMES III. Parliament I. BY this Act the third of the KING'S Rents of Assyse that is to say the third of His Lands and Customes belong to the Queen as her Dowrie or Terce allenarly which is conform to the Common Law of this Kingdom by which the Wife has right to a Third of all the Lands in which a man dies Infest and that though she be otherwise provided if she be not expresly secluded from it by her Contract of Marriage so that it seems the Queen would have had right to a Terce of proper Lands belonging to the King though this Act had not been made But now by the 10 Act Parl. 3 Ch. 2. If a Wife be provided to a particular Provision though never so small either in her Contract of Marriage or in any other Write she will be secluded from a Terce except her Terce be expresly reserv'd to her by and attour the particular Provision Nota The Rents of Assize comprehends the Kings Customes and Lands as was found Decemb. 9. 1466. and March 11. 1500. Ogilvie contra Gray It may be doubted whether this Act was Temporary relating only to this Queen or if any Queen of Great-britain will have right as Queen of Scotland to a third of the Property conform to this Act since the Act seems to be reasonable in it self and that the Queen is founded in this right by the Common Law and if this had been only a Temporary Right relating only to this Queen it would not have been inserted amongst the general Laws or at least it would not have been generally conceiv'd as this Act is in these Terms The Dowrie of the Queen for terminus indefinitus aequiâ—ollet universali I find that in the 191 Act Parl. 13 Ja. 6. Queen Ann is provided to the third of the Property but not to the third of the Customes but that being by express paction derogats not from this Law SOmetimes Benefices Ecclesiastick were bestow'd upon secular persons who were call'd Commendators because the Benefice was commended and intrusted to their oversight and they were Procuratores in râ—m sâ—am habebant tantum detentionem possâ—ssionem but were not Proprietars and so could not Dispone Roman Concil 350. And because Commendators were but Trusties or Tutors Therefore Rights made by them though with consent of the Chapter are no longer binding in our Law than during the Commendators own Right And by this Act these Commendams are discharg'd and yet the Deeds done by them are not annull'd and therefore many Rights made by Commendators since this Act are sustain'd as valid though they were not Proprietars By the Canon Law only the Pope could grant commendam perpetuam and the Bishops could only grant Commends for six Moneths c. Nemo Elect. l. 6. THe pain of Lawburrows here exprest is hightned by the Act 166. Par. 13 Ja. 6. by which every Earl or Lords Penalty is made two thousand pounds every great Baron a thousand pounds every Free-holder a thousand merks every Fewar five hundred merks the un-landed Gentleman two hundred merks and the Yeoman one hundred merks which last Act is now observ'd and though Penalties be exprest here against breakers of Lawburrows found to Church-men and that there be no mention made of them in the last Act yet an Arch-bishop or Bishop can pursue now for the same penalty that is due to an Earl and Bishops and their Wives are allow'd the same Solemnities at their Funerals that are allow'd to Noblemen and their Wives by the 14 Act 3 Par. Ch. 2. And though there be no mention made here of Dukes and Marquesses yet the priviledge granted to Earls is extended to them 2 o By this Act the Penalty is to be apply'd to the King and is due by and attour the Reparation due to the person les'd but by the last Act and the present Custom the Penalty is to be divided betwixt the King and the Party and though by this Act the Master is free if he present his Servant who breaks the Law-burrows Less than the Law-burrows that is to say he who found the Lawburrows bring the Trespassors to the King or Sheriff within fourty days Dominus noxali judicio servi sui nomine conventus servum actori noxae dedendo liberatur yet by our present Custom the Master finds Caution that the Raiser of Law-burrows shall be skaithless from him against whom it is rais'd and his Men-Tennents and Servants and therefore the Master seems now lyable though he should present his Servants Albeit these be the ordinary Penalties allow'd where there is no other proof of the Danger then the Oath of the Complainer yet if the Complainer prove Threatnings the Council or Criminal Court may ordain surety of Law-burrows to be found upon such sums as they think proportional to the danger Vid. Not. on Act 129 Par. 9 Ja. 1. Supra THough by this Act all Summons are to be on twenty one days Warning yet all Summons that are priviledg'd by their own Nature or the Lords Deliverance come in upon six days vid. Hope Form of Process and by an Act of Sederunt July 21. 1672. It is declar'd that no Actions can be priviledg'd except Removings recent SpuilÈies recent Ejections Intrusions succeeding in the Vice Exhibitions Causes alimentary Summons for making forthcoming Transferrings Poyndings of the Ground Walkennings special Declarators Suspensions Prevento's and Transumpts all which and all second Summons in all Actions are to come in upon six days warnings except recent SpuilÈies because by the 65 Act Par.
to a boll of victual and the price of the boll to have been valued to 18. shilling Scots yearly and this was by and attour the Sheriffie for which the like proportion of Lands was appryzed as the several appryzings bears and for the better making of the proportion they also bear that the Sheriff and Inquest came to the ground of the Lands and measured off the aikers and set a constant price on the victual but by one of the Decisions cited by Balfour later than these It 's like that five per cent has been theirby appointed to have been the Rule in time coming as he sayes When Annualrents out of Lands were appryzed the Inquest did never exceed 5 per cent without a Dispensation from the Lords of Session or else they were prâ—judgâ—d sayes Craig pag. 332. And the Compryzings were reduceable but Dispensations were easily granted and Craig sayeâ— they were sought to free the Inquest from hazard of perjury but upon what ground it was that the Inquest scrupled more in Compryzing of Annualrents than in Compryzing of Lands where they allowed a Rent answerable to 5 per cent I cannot conjecture except for one or two Reasons 1. That annualrent is a thing odious and unlawful by the opinion of many Divines and therefore not to be stretched 2. Annualrents were free of publick Burdens to which Lands were subject and therefore a greater allowance might have been given of Land-rent than annualrent When Life-rent Rights such as Conjunct-fee Simple-liferent Terces or Curialitie were comprized the estimation was made according to the age of the Life-renter or Life-rentrix when within 40. years the estimation was 5 years purchase that is as much as the Fruits and Rents had yeelded for 5. years preceeding or might yeeld in 5. years thereafter and when the Life-renter exceeded 40. years of age and was not of the age of 50. compleat four years purchase was the estimation and if 50 years of age was exceeded and the sixtieth not attained the estimation was three years purchase and if the Life-renter was weak or sicklie or that there was any other cause that might interrupt the Liferent-right the Inquest did value as the Circumstances determined Craig pag. 331. in fine dict pag. 332. in princ And when any Servitude was apprized the Inquest did also value as they thought the Servitude profitable Craig loco citato This was the way of Procedor in old Comprizings in making a proportion betwixt the Debt and the thing Appryzed The form and stile of Decreets of Compryzings of old was shortly thus the Clerk of the Compryzing who was ordinarily the Sheriffs Clerk did extend a writing upon Parchment containing all the particulars of the procedor to wit that the Creditor having obtained a Sentence before the Sheriff decerning his Debitor to pay a certain sum and there being no Moveables to pay it the Sheriff came to the ground of the Land with an Inquest of most knowing Persons within the Shire selected for that effect and there measured off some aikers for the Money and Sheriffie corresponding each aiker paying so much victual and the victual being valued to a suitable Rate redeemable always by the Debitor within the time contained in the Act of Parliament and which Writing is Seal'd with the Seals of the Judge and of the Inquest 2 o. Though this Statute appoints the Sheriff to sell yet upon deliverence of the Lords of the Session they will appoint the Compryzing to be led before Messengers or Macers whom they will make Sheriffs in that part It being debated whether a Compryzers Marriage fell to the King where the Comprizer was payed within the Legal though he was not payed when the Marriage fell but was payed thereafter and before the Legal expired it was urged that it did fall because the Compryzer was Vassal and so as all Casualties due by other Vassals should fall and that the King should rather have this casualty from Comprizers than from any Vassals because a Compryzer could by a special Statute be entred by the King though a singular Successor 2 o. If the King were seeking this casualty by the Debitors Death the Comprizer would exclude him by alledging that the Debitor was Denuded and it were unjust that by this means the King should want his casualty from both 3 o. The King falls all other casualties by the Compryzer such as Recognition Liferent Escheat and the Compryzer by being entred can do all Deeds that other Proprietars can do and therefore should be lyable in all other casualties as they are 4 o. If this were not allow'd the King might be still defrauded of this casualty for the Comprizer might still secure the Debitor and if his own Marriage fell he might thereafter cause redeem himself And whereas it was pretended that a comprising is but a pignus praetorium in pignoriâ—us non transfertur dominium and so the Debitor being still Proprietar remain'd still Vassal To this it was replyed That though a Comprysing resemble pignus praetorium yet it is truely an alienation and this Statute appoints the Land to be sold to the Creditor and by the whole Tenor of Comprisings it is clear that it is a judicial Vendition made under Reversion and so resembles more a legal Wodset and therefore as in Wodsets the Wodsetters Marriage would fall so ought the Comprizers and its being a legal Vendition and Alienation appears from this also that it falls under Recognition and Recognition presupposes still alienationem dominij The Lords upon this Debate which clears much the nature of Comprisings prefer'd the King for they found that the Compriser being Vassal the Marriage fell by his Death he having died before the Comprysing was redeem'd and therefore it may be doubted whether the Compriser will have his relief for the damnage incur'd by this casualty from his Debitor before the Lands can be redeem'd from him since it fell by his fault in not paying him nor is the Debitor much prejudg'd for if the Lands had not been Compris'd this casualty might have fallen by his own Death and the inconveniency urg'd from the multitude of Marriages that would fall by the great number of Comprizers is of no wâ—ight since if a man had sold his Land and divided it amongst his Creditors all their Marriages had as well fallen in that case as in this 3 o. Whereas by this Act the legal is to extend to seven years only so that if there be one shilling resting after seven years the Comprysing expires yet by the 62 Act 1 Par. Ch. 2. Anno 1661. This legal is extended to ten years but both the seven and ten are to be compted from the Date of the Decreet of Apprising and not from the Date of the allowance by our practick 4 o. Though Superiours be not oblig'd to receive singular Successors yet they are bound to receive Comprizers upon payment of a years Dewty of the Lands Comprised and this singularity is introduc'd in
aestimatio rei creditae creverit aut decreverit yet in Money perpetua est aestimatio l. 1. ff de contra hend Empt. For clearing of which Question Vid. Vin. Quest. Select lib. 1. cap. 39. and so this Act is in Desuetude Vid. Act 19 Ja. 3 Par. 3. But though Debts upon privat Obligations were to be paid with Money at the same avail that the Money was at the time of the Contract and not the time of the payment Yet the Kings Taxations and publick Dues were by the Kings own Concession to be paid according to the value of the Money at the time of the payment and are not to be exacted in Money according as the Money was worth before it was cry'd up Vid. last Act Par. 3 Ja. 3. It has been much doubted whether it was true Policie to cry up Money for though this seems to be an encouragement to forraigners to Export our Commodity of which we have too much and to Import Money of which we have too little Yet it is urg'd on the other hand that in crying up Money we do but undervalue our own Commoditie and our own Land and raise the value of Money which is the Commodity of a forraign Countrey such as Spain and other places who have Mines as for instance if we have use for carrying our Money abroad Forraigners will only give us Commodities conform to the intrinsick value for they will not consider our raising of it and so he who got the Money which was so rais'â— is cheated in as much as the Money is rais'd above the intrinsick value 2 o. As to our own Commodities at home either they are rais'd to the same proportion with the Money and then forraign Merchants will not bring in Money for our Commoditie because they can gain nothing by bringing it in and so we lose the design of raising our Money or else the Commodities are not rais'd in value to the Money and so the forraign Merchant does only cheat us as for instance if our Money be rais'd a tenth part the forraign Merchant gives us only nine Pieces for ten 3 o. This raises the Exchange to our great loss for he who draws the Bills upon London or Paris considering that our ten Pieces are but nine there he will add the value of a tenth Piece to the Exchange 4 o. If forraign Princes find we have advantage by this raising of our Money they will either raise their own to the same proportion and then we shall have no gain or to a higher and then we shall have loss and at best diâ—ferent raisings of Money will occasion but great variation and uncertainty in Coyns COurts of Guerra here forbidden seem to have been Courts holden upon Neighbour-feid and Riots and Skeen founds them upon § ult tit 17. de pac tenend lib. 2. de feud Si ministeriales alicujus domini inter se Guerram habuerint comes sive judex in cujus regimine eam fecerint per leges judicia ex ratione prosequatur King IAMES the third Parliament 9. THis Act is Ratifi'd by the Act 30 Par. 11 Ja. 6. Vid. Observ. on that Act. King JAMES the third Parl. 10. THough all men be allow'd to bring in Victual from forraign Countries by this Act yet the Importation of Victual from Ireland is Prohibited by Act 3 Sess. 3 Par. 2. Ch. 2. THe Act concerning Cruives is explain'd in the Act 11 Par. 1 Ja. 1. Which is the Act here related to THis Act appointed the taking more than just â—raught to be a point of Dittay because it was oppression and irregular exaction and this is still taken up as dittay in Circuit Courts yet the Council does also punish it and I think the Master of the Ground where the Ferry is may punish such irregular Exactions THe unlaw of such as burn Muires is by this Act five pounds which is renew'd Act 71 Par. 6 Ja. 4. but by the 11 Act Par. 4 Ja. 5. The punishment is five pounds for the first time ten for the second and twenty for the third time and these penalties are Ratifi'd Act 84 Par. 6 Ja. 6. THe using other Barrels than the Hamburg Measure is made point of Dittay because other Barrels were lookt on as false Measure but our Barrel now is ten gallons for Salmond and eight and an half for Herring THe Act here related to is Act 7 Par. 1 Ja. 1. Where this Act is Explain'd PVrprusion is the usurping and appropriating our Superiours Lands or High-wayes and Purpresture is much now in Desuetude The ordinary Remedy now being actions of Molestation or Declarators of Property but Purprâ—sion is not absolutely in Desuetude For by the 5 Act 16 Par Ja. 6. It is ordain'd that such as Till the Kings Parks or Commonties shall be lyable in Purprusion and punish'd according to the old â—aws the same being Try'd either by way of Molestation or before the Lords of Session and the old Punishment was an arbitrary Punishment and the loss of his Lands which he held of the King and the reason why that Act did appoint the Tryal to be by Molestation before the Lords was because of old it was only Try'd by an Assize before the Justices Vid. lib. 1. cap. 5. num 4. lib. 2. cap. 74. R. M. It is doubted whether Vassals of Regalities Building upon the Streets of Burghs of Regalitie may be punish'd for Purpresture or whether the Building a Foot or two furder than formerly even in Burghs Royal would infer that punishment From these words of the Act That nae Vassal nor Sub-vassal or other Tennent under the Baron has Power or Jurisdiction to hold a Court. It is fit to observe that this holds not only in Purprusion though that be the case mention'd in this Act but generally Vassals nor Sub-vassals cannot hold Courts except they be Infest cum curiis and even then they have only power to hold Courts for payment of their own Rents or such other things as necessarly follow the labouring of Land except the Vassal be a Baron in which case he has power to jâ—dge ryots and unlaw for Bloodwits as Sheriffs do This Act is not â—o be found in the black Impression There is an Act omitted by Skeen which is the last in the black Impression whereby the Parliament delegats their full Parliamentary power to some of their Number for hearing some Ambaciâ—itors and deciding some Causes licet delegatus non potest delegare and such Delegations of the Supream Power may be dangerous King JAMES the third Parliament 11. THough this Act appoints Barons and Lords who led their own Men or Vassals at that time to the Host to be lyable for the skaith they do in coming to the KINGS Host Yet this Act is now upon the parity of Reason extended to all Officers who are now come in place of these It may be alleadg'd from this Act that it is not lawful for such
quod ejus est auferri ab eà nequit sine consensu suo 5 o. Tochers are oft times augmented in consideration of the Coniunct-fie and therefore its most unreasonable and illegal that what was given her for an onerous cause should be taken from her and applyed to the behove of one who represents the Contracter who was bound to warrand her Life-rent and who got good deed upon that account And it is unjust that the Husband by spending his Estate should burden her or that his Heir should not rather want than she 6 o. Whatever may be said to oblidge a Mother jure naturae to entertain her own Children and I think this Aliment has been at first founded on that Principle of Justice whereby Donatores Patroni Parentes were only lyable in quantum facere potuerunt called by Lawyers Exceptio competentiae yet there is no reason that a Life-rentrix should be oblidged to entertain an appearand Heir who is a meer stranger and this jus naturae oblidges the Mother not only to entertain the appearand Heir but all her Children as was found in the case of the Countess of Buchan And albeit the Act of Parliament speaks only of Heirs yet by our Law even appearand Heirs will get an Aliment allow'd them though thereafter they renounce but it is less clear if it will be allow'd them after they have renounced July 16. 1667. Hamilton contra Symington And yet in this case they are but meer strangers and can no more be called Heirs or appearand Heirs after Renunciation as also though this Act mentions only Ward Lands yet it is ex praxi extended to others who have no Ward Lands the 22 Feb. 1673. Finnay contra Oliphant And though both the Rubrick and the words of the Act provide only Aliment for Minors yet it is extended to appearand Heirs who are Majors as in the case of Rig contra the Lady Carberrie nor will it be sufficient that the Life-rentrix offer to entertain the appearand Heir in the Family with her as Durie observes the 14. Feb. 1627. Noble contra his Mother nor is this only extended where the Mother Liferents all but it is even extended to the case where all the Minors Estate beside what is Life-rented is not sufficient to pay the debt and is affected by legal diligences as was found 13 Feb. 1662. Antonia Brown contra her Mother but it may be very well doubted whether this last Decision may be extended where the debt is only personal and I find the Lords did refuse to decide this point in a case debated 1667. betwixt the Lady Staniehill and her Son though the Son there alleadg'd that he sold his Land to hinder Comprising and if it had been Comprized she would have been lyable And this Action for Alimenting the Heirs was still sustained against both the Grand-Fathers Relict and the Fathers Relict pro rata of their Life-rents which they had of the appearand Heir albeit it was alleadg'd that the Mother having a nearer relation and being the Wise of him who spent the Estate should be only lyable or at least first lyable 12. Decemb. 1677. Laird Airdrie contra the two Ladies but yet I find the Grand-Father was found lyable in no proportion with the Mother where he had only reserv'd a mean proportion to himself when he did Infest the appearand Heirs Father 7. July 1629. It may be doubted whether a Husband marrying the Life-rentrix having given her a provision in contemplation of this Joynture will be lyable to Aliment since he is a meer stranger to which all that can be answer'd is that he was oblidg'd to know it was lyable to this burden and if he will be found lyable it may be doubted if he will not be free from the provision given in contemplation thereof tanquam causa data causa non sequuta As also it may be doubted whether the pursuing such an Action as this will infer a Passive Title seing the appearand Heir is thus lucratus but yet I think it will not since he reaps thereby no advantage which would have accresced to the Creditors to whom no part of his Aliment would have belong'd and even appearand Heirs renuncing will have right to an Aliment as is observed before The Civilians think that a Mother is oblig'd to Aliment her Child till it be past three years of age l. 3. C. de Patr. Pot. ibid. gloss and even after three years of age if the Father be not able to Aliment the Child the Mother is because the Child is oblig'd to Aliment and reverence the Mother vid. Surd. de Aliment quaest 14 tit 1. But they make no mention of such an alimentary action as this which we allow THough buyers of Land be obliged to keep the Tacks set by their Predecessors yet the Superior is not obliged to keep them when the Land falls to him in Ward during which time he is Proprietar nor are Life-renters nor Conjunct-fiars oblig'd to keep them during their temporary Rights but when these Rights expire the Tacks revive and yet by this Act the Superior or Life-renter cannot remove them till the next Whitsunday after the Ward or Life-rents fall the Tennents paying the Maills and Duties to the Superiors or Life-renters but it may be doubted whether this will hold when the Duty is only a simulate Duty and not near the Rent of the Land for this was design'd to secure the Tennents reasonably but not to prejudge the Superior or Life-renter but certainly this Act will not defend these Tennents who have payed their Duties to their Masters before hand THough particular pains be set down as to Law-burrows in Civil cases by former Acts yet in Criminal cases because of the importance and danger it is left Arbitrary to the Judges to cause the Parties find Caution under what sums they please and before the Council likewise the sum under which Caution is to be found is de praxi Arbitrary Since this Act sayes that the Party complainand shall be harmless it would seem by this Act the Council can oblige no party to keep another harmless except where the party himself complains in which case he must give his Oath he dreads bodily harm conform to the 129 Act Par. 9. Ja. 1. vid. observ on that Act. But yet the Council is in use to cause men find Caution to keep others skaithless even where the parties do not crave it but this is only in cases where there have been previous breaches of the peace amongst them so that either a party does complain and then he must give his Oath and if he complain not there must be a previous breach of the peace and in that case there is no need of an Oath or a Complaint that he does fear bodily harm Though the Council or Justices may by this Act exact Law-burrows yet by this Act it is only ordain'd where Complaints are rais'd before them and by Complaints here is not to be
because even by the Canon Law Benefices cannot be united without consent of the Laick Patron Bengeus de Benefic cap. 3. § 3. num 7. Unions are now made by the Commission of the Kirk and the ordinary reasons upon which Churches are united with us are the meanness of the provision the meanness of the two Parochs and the paucity of the hearers To the granting of which Unions the Patrons must still be call'd because of the above-cited Constitution of the Canon Law but they may be united though the Patron consent not if he shew no good reason for his dissent The Popes also us'd to value Benefices upon new informations whereby the value was much hightned and therefore by that Act it is ordain'd that no Benefices be higher than they were in Bagimonts Roll which Bagimont was a Cardinal who had made a Rental of all the Benefices in this Kings time as Skeen de verb sig observes Verb Bagimont and this Taxation of Benefices is founded on Extravag suscepti Regiminis lib. 6. It is therefore appointed that none supply with Money those who are to go to Rome to make such purchases Act 86 Par. 11 Ja. 3. But that Act seems unnecessary for the Purchasers being declar'd Traitors it was certainly Treason to assist them with Money so that the said Act was made to certifie and clear ignorant people which the Law calls ad majorem evidentiam THis Act is formerly Explain'd and that part of it which appoints the Hosts with whom strangers lodge to be comptable for their uncustomed Goods is in Desuetude except they were conscious to the guilt Vid. observ on Act 3 Par. 1 Ja. 4. supra CRafts men who exact from these of their Craft are to be punish'd as oppressors but I doubt what is the meaning of these words and shall buy their life as common oppressors and the most probable meaning is that they shall be bound to take Remissions for so doing as for a capital Crime Nota Common oppression is capital by this Act and such Statutes or Impositions laid on by Crafts-men for extortioning the Leiges are reprobated by the Laws of all Nations as a species of Monopoly Vid. Tritz de monopoliis cap 12 Vid. observ on Act 21 Par. 2 Ja. 4. Supra CRafts-men leaving off mens work if others refuse to compleat it because of Statutes among themselves forbidding them to undertake any such work such are punishable as oppressors but if they refuse upon any other account they are not punishable for this Act punishes only such as make use of such unlawful Statutes and if Crafts-men should come in to cheat this Act by a general resolution not to suffer any to compleat what another had begun I believe that the Magistrat might punish this as a cheating contravention of this Law Nota That Trades-men who make Statutes against the Common-well of the Leiges are punishable as Oppressors for otherwise Crafts-men might extortion the people at their pleasure This is also discharg'd l. un C. tit 59. lib. 4. de monopoliis nov 122. cap. 1. Aedificiorum quoque artifices vel Aergolabi aliorumque operum professores penitus arceantur pacta inter se componere ut ne quis quod alteri commissum sit opus impleat vid Trith cap. 12. and observ on Act 80 Par. 5 Ja. 1. supra IT is free to sell Victual in all Burrows any day of the Week though it be no Mercat day by this Act yet now every Burgh has its own Mercat days for Corn as well as for other things THough by this Act the users of false Measures and Weights be only punish'd as Falsaries yet the Justices found that the havers of false Measures should be also punish'd as Falsaries though using could not be proven since these who had them are presum'd to have had them only for use except the presumption were taken off as by proving that the Weights were only borrow'd or laid aside upon Tryal May 1671. In the case of Porteous at a Justice-Court in Jedburgh but by the 14 cap. Stat. Dav. 2. The users of false weights were only to pay 8 Cows to the King IT is clear from this that the Masters commanding his Servants or Cottars to break Laws such as Muir-burning specifi'd in this Act does not free the Servants but makes both lyable albeit Ignorance and Command when joyn'd might seem to excuse the breach of a penal Statute at least a poenâ ordinaria but the Masters Command should not excuse from the punishment where the Transgression is either against the Law of God of Nature Nations or the Crime is atrocious in it self SOme of the Nobility having most Rebelliously fought against King James the third upon a false pretext that he was bringing in the English upon the Kingdom they advanc'd his Son King James the fourth to be Leader and having prevail'd they secur'd themselves by several Acts yet extant in the black Impression but which are omitted in this Impression except this one THe King Revocks all TailÈies made to Heirs-male in prejudice of heirs general because as Craig observes this is against Conscience and is defrauding of the Righteous Heir and I have seen old Licences granted by the Pope to make such TailÈies and Alienations for reasons exprest in the Bull and upon Consideration whereof the Pope dispences with the matter of Conscience and in the Act 50 the Estates without the King revock all such Rights quod notandum Nota The King here Revocks all change of holdings from Ward to blench and not from Ward to Feu because it was lawful at that time to change from Ward to Feu by the Act 71 Par. 14. Ja. 2. Nota Union of Lands in Barony is revocked by this and all the posterior Revocations of our Kings because one Seasine serves after the Union and the Proprietar is only oblig'd to answer at one Court so that the King loses several Casualties Vid. Act 93 Par. 6. Ja. 4. King JAMES the fourth Parl. 5. BY this Act Barons are to cause their Sons learn Latin jure that is to say Law because the Act sayes that they may have knowledge of Law to prevent needlesse coming before the King 's Principal Auditor for which reason also Advocations are much discourag'd by many subsequent Acts Auditor was not a proper term for the Session for Andientia is properly allow'd only to such as have not Jurisdiction as is clear by Gothesr ad Rubr. C. de Episcopali Audientia BY this Act all Actions of Error against Brieves or inordinate Process are to be pursued within three years else they prescrive And by the Act 13. Par. 22. Ja. 6. It is declared that the prescription secures only the Assyzers against wilful Error but that the Retour may be quarrelled within 20 years as to the right of Blood prejudg'd by the said wrongous Retour And it is observable that the Law favours still revenge less than
superfluous and therefore I rather incline to think that these words were only designed to show the Parliaments great desire to have recent SpuilÈies dispatch'd though ill exprest it may be doubted whether recent SpuilÈies being only such as are raised within 15 days after the SpuilÈie is committed Sabbath or Feriot days should be counted amongst the 15. Observ. 3. That it may be argued that SpuilÈies regularly cannot be pursued before the Sheriff or else why is it allowed here as a priviledge to recent SpuilÈies that they may be pursued before the Sheriff and it seems the reason why SpuilÈies regularly should not be pursued before Sheriffs is because the dammages in SpuilÈies must be taxed by an Oath in litem and that is nobilis officii and consequently cannot be administrated by any inferior Judge nor can these inferior Judges modifie what is sworn by an Oath in litem that being yet nobilioris officii BY this Act the Sheriff is to have 12 pennies of every pound as Sentence-money which was called Sportulae by the Civil Law and this Sentence-money is still in use THis Act appoints every Lord and Laird to have a Cuningare but it may seem strange why none are allow'd to have Dove-coats except they have ten Chalder of Victual in Rent and yet men are commanded to make Cuningars since Cunins may prejudge Neighbours as Doves do which makes Craig as I conceive doubt whether the Vassals may have a Cunigare except the same be granted to him But though the Superior grant Cunigars with the clause cum Cuniculis Cuniculariis the former doubt remains for the Superior cannot prejudge third Parties To which these answers may satisfie 1 o. That it was necessary by this Act once to invite men to plant Cunigars whereas Dove-coats were frequent before the Act 1617. that restricts them 2 o. This command is only to Lords and Lairds which implyes men of Estates but is not given to all the Lieges and I doubt not but if an Heretor of ten Chalders of Victual or thereby should plant a Cuningar but his Neighbours might by common Law and an Argument drawn from the Act 19. Par. 22. Ja. 6. force them either to inclose their Cuningar or to give it over BEfore this Act the Heir could not have been pursued for any debt till the Executor was first discust but by this Act the Heir is made lyable to the Creditor after his annus deliberandi expires both as to Heretable and Moveable debts which was very just because quoad the Creditor they all represent the Defunct but yet he will get his relief of all Moveable debts from the Executor as far as the Inventar extends and if he be served Heir within the year the Creditor will get action against him for heretable debts even within the year for by entering Heir he renounces his benefit of deliberating and if he possess the Estate he ought to pay the Heretable debt but though he enter Heir within the year he should not be lyable for Moveable debts by this Act till the year expire since as to these he has no benefit by entering and though he renounce the benefit of deliberating yet he does not renounce the benefit of this Act Hading Tit. Heirs Nota Heirs are call'd in this Act Heretors from the French word Heretiers But Quaeritur if the Executor be discust and found insolvent may not the Heir eo casu be pursued within year and day and the affirmative seems strongly founded upon the reason and decision of this Act And yet by the present practice the Heir enter'd is lyable even for moveable debts tho pursu'd within the year Item Though by this Act the Executor is bound to find Caution to relieve the Heir of all moveable debts yet there is no Law obliging the Heir to relieve the Executor of Heretable debts but de practica the Lords sustain ex paritate rationis actions against the Heir for relieving the Executor of all Heretable debts 7. March 1627. Faulconer contra Blair vid. Spotswood tit Executor Carnoussie contra Laird Meldrum which seems to be contrary to the words of this Act whereby it is more than insinuated that the Fathers Moveable Goods should pay his debts and by the Narrative of 106 Act Par. 7. Ja. 5. is yet more clear By the Civil Law the Children that were in potestate patris were forced to enter Heir but thereafter this was thought too severe and therefore the Roman Praetor allowed even to these Heirs a liberty to abstain and a year to deliberate whether they would be Heirs which we have borrowed from thence but jure novissimo the Heir was to be only lyable according to the Inventar if he made one non ultra vires Inventarii which holds only with us in Executors who are Heirs in Moveables for Heirs in Heretable Rights are lyable in solidum if they once enter IF the Marriage was not quarreled by a Process in the Husbands time as unlawful the Wife will have right to her Terce without necessity of proving a lawful Marriage and will possess her Terce till the Marriage be found to have been unlawful for in the common Law and ours an unquarrel'd cohabitation is a valid probation of the Marriage l. in libera 24 ff de rit nupt Yet it cedes to a contrary probation as all praesumptiones juris do vid. Pacian tract de prob lib. 2. cap. 3. And in our Law Bastardy is not inferr'd because the Marriage cannot be proven but it must be prov'd positive that the Defunct was reputed Bastard Feb. 19. 1669 K. Advocat contra Craw June 15. 1670. Livingston contra Burn And if that be prov'd he who pretends to be Heir must prove also that the Defuncts Father and Mother were lawfully Married By the same parity of reason the Husband will have right to the courtesie of Scotland till the Marriage be found null and the allegiance of Bastardy is not receivable summarly against the service of an Heir vid. infra observ on Act 94. Par. 6. Ja. 4. ALL who did hold of the King were of old oblig'd to come to Parliament till by this Act these whose Lands are within 100 Merks of new extent are indulg'd not to come except they be specially called by the King This Act seems obsolet for none are specially called now whether the King may yet call any Barons he pleases is dubious both because they were once bound as well as impowerâ—d to come and this faculty was only remitted for their own advantage and after that this Act allows the King to call them And it seems reasonable that if there be any wise Baronin the Kingdom the King who calls Parliaments for consulting the great affairs of the Kingdome should have liberty to call him albeit the Shire choose him not and the King may make any man a Lord of Parliament Nota These who were then Members of Parliament could have sent their Procurators but now
to the Party injur'd for Assythment may be called before the Lords of Council either in Session or out of Session but this is now abrogated by the late Constitution of the Session who are come in place of the Lords of Council who then were The meaning of these words in the Act And as for Slaughter and Mutilation to keep the order of the Act made thereupon of before Is that Slaughter and Mutilation are not comprehended under this Act because by the 63. Act Par. 6. Ja. 4. No remission can be granted for these Crimes and therefore there can be no Assythment THis Act is further explained in Crim. pract tit Fire-raising but it is fit here to observe that in these words that particular Justice Courts shall be set thereto as shall please the Kings Grace his Council and the Justices the word And is taken disjunctive as is often in the Civil Law and our Statutes l. 66. ff de haered Instit. Nota The killing of Thieves is declared no Crime King JAMES the fifth Parl. 4. EXcommunication is here called the Process of Cursing and Excommunication used in time of Popery to be granted for not payment of Civil debt or not performing of Contracts or not restoring of spuilÈied Goods is now in desuetude for all these were held to be mortal sins and by this Act Letters to Poynd or Appryze were to be granted thereupon And by the 7. Act Par. 4. Q. M. their Moveable Escheat falls to the King if they ly under the Process of Excommunication for a year the Creditor being first payed which Acts are further enlarg'd by the 3. Act 20. Par. Ja. 6. By which their whole Rents and Revenues are to be applyed to the use of the Publick and all Gifts of Escheat granted to the behove of the Wife Children or Confidents of such as are Excommunicated for Popery are declared null Act 197. Par. 14. Ja. 6. It may seem strange that Excommunication repells ab agendo sed non a defendendo and yet Horning debars from both though the person Excommunicated be the greatest Delinquent being at Gods Horn 8. July 1636. Colstoun contra Cranstoun Vid. observ on Act 11. Par. 6. Ja. 2. supra THis Act is innovated and enlarged by the 1. Par. Ch. 2. Sess. 1. Act. 41. THis Act is in observance to this day but it holds only in Forrests notoâ—ly known to be such for if there was probable reason of doubting whether it be a Forrest the Goods feeding in it will not be escheat for bygones vid. Leg. For. c. 2. § 2. sequen Because this Act sayes if any person be found putting their Goods in Pasturage in the Kings Forrest they shall escheat the same therefore it seems reasonable that if Goods be only found there this is not sufficiâ—nt to escheat them since they might have strayed there Dominus non tenetur ad poenam si animal ex seipso ingrediatur in locum prohibitum ut est Forresta Borel de Magistrat Edict lib. 4. cap. 6. num 18. VId. Annot. on Act 61 Par. 7 Ja. 3. supra THis Act relates to Act 88 Par. 14 Ja. 2. Whereby Hares are not to be kill'd in time of Snow and Act 59 Par. 11 Ja. 6. and Act 266 Par. 15 Ja. 6. whereby Hares are not to be kill'd at any times by Guns Girns Nets or Cross-bows which last is yet in observance and all these Acts are reviv'd by a Proclamation of Council in Febr. 1680. BY the 25 Act 3 Par. Ja· 4 It is ordain'd that the Superior of Ward lands or his Donatar shall find Caution to leave the Houses Orchyards Woods Stanks Parks c. in as good condition as they found them they taking their Sustentation or using them in needful things without waste or destruction which is extended to all Liferenters and Conjunct-feers who are ordain'd to find the like Caution by this Act. By which also all Sheriffs Stewards Magistrats within Burgh and Spiritual men within their bounds are also commanded to exact this Caution These Acts are also extended to all such as have Life-rent Tacks from the Heretors without payment of any considerable duty though the words of this Act run only against such as have Liferent Infeftments but this Act should not be extended to such as have Liferent-Tacks for payment of an equivalent Duty Qui sunt conductores non usufructuarii for the Heretor is rather oblig'd to entertain the Houses to such Tacks-men than they to him January 23. 1635. Laird of Laidly contra Boyd But this is to be understood of such Tacks-men as pay a Dewty equivalent to the Rent for else Relicts would in place of Liferents take Tacks during their life for any imaginary Dewty which should not free them from the finding of Caution In that case it was also found that this Act did oblige Donatars of Liferent-Escheats to find Caution to maintain the Houses Orchyards c. which fall under his Gift but quid juris if the Fisk retain Liferents so faln in his own hands peregr de jur fisc tit 1. num 35. is of opinion that usufructu sisco legato siscus non satisdat de utendo fruendo arbitrio boni viri but it is hard that the Heir should be in a worse case by the Crimes of the Liferenter or their going to the Horn so that his Estate should be thereby expos'd to mis-managment and albeit where a Liferent is left to the Fisk Caution may seem to be remitted by the intention of the Party yet that should not be extended to the case of its falling to the Fisk without his consent and it rather seems that since a Donatar is ty'd to find Caution that therefore the Fisk should Nota There needs no precognition to be taken by an Assize of the condition the Houses were in conform to the 226 Act. Par. 14 Iâ— 6. For that Act only ordains such precognitions to be taken when Houses are ruinous within Burgh and the Liferenters refuse to concur in Re-building them in which case the Heretor is allow'd to repair he finding Caution to pay the Liferenters the Dewty that these Houses pay'd formerly March 23. 1626. Foulis contra Allan Though this Act ordains the Sheriffs and others who refuse to exact this Caution to be lyable to the Heretor of the ward-Ward-lands without mentioning that they shall be lyable to Liferenters or Conjunct-fiars yet doubtless they are lyable to them also for the damnage sustain'd in not exacting this surety Though in some cases cautio juratoria be allow'd yet it would not be allow'd here Gail lib. 2. obs 47. for that Caution cannot secure the Heretor and there is as little reason to receive it in this case as in Removings But Perez is of opinion that cautio juratoria is receivable si offerens sit probatae honestae vitae There was likewise cautio usufructuaria by the Civilians introducta est per senatus
of Sums than in possessing of Lands because Creditors might alter their Sums and take new Assignations or retire old Rights whereas no man could quite his principal Lands 26 June 1677. Cramond contra the Tennents of East-barns But a Fathers possession as Life-renter was not sufficient to prefer a base Infeftment given to the Son to a posterior publick Infeftment granted to a second Wife or to any Creditor the like in a base Infeftment granted by a Good-sir to his Oye by the Daughter which was not found sufficient being cloathed with the foresaid Civil possession of the Good-sirs reservation of Life-rent to exclude a posterior publick Infeftment 17 of July 1635. And this possession by the Husband or Father or Disponer is called possessio per constitutum and is not favourable in a competition with other Creditors and therefore a Factory granted by the Father to the Son to uplift the Mails and Duties of Lands dispon'd to be holden base by the Son of the Father was not found sufficient to cloath the Sons Infeftment though there were several Processes intented upon the Factory 10 July 1669. This Act requires natural possession by labouring the Land or Civil by uplifting the Mails and Duties and before Registers were invented that kind of possession was only able to put their Creditors in mala fide but though Civil possession hath been found sufficient such as obtaining of Decreets and payment of Annualrents albeit the same had no relation to the Infeftment of Annualrent but was only relative to the Bond whereupon the Infeftment followed yet the setting of a Back-Tack by the accepter of a Wodset hath not been found sufficient to maintain a base Infeftment except payment of the Back-Tack-Duty had likewise followed so that it appears that possessio Naturalis vel Civilis sufficit sed non illa quae a doctoribus dicitur civilissima as is a Back-Tack By this Act also such as make double Dispositions to defraud their Creditors shall be declared infamous and shall be punished in their persons and Goods at the Kings pleasure and this punishment is extended against such as make double Assignations and the 140 Act Par. 12 Ja. 6. bears That no Dewty shall be Dispon'd to two sundry persons which is Crimen stellionatus by the Law and though this Act does not make double Dispositions to be crimen Stellionatus yet it is so in effect but the Civil Law distinguisheth thus l. Quin. duobus ff ad l. Corn. de falso Qui rem unant duobus vendidit dicens rem esse suam tenetur falsi at si non dicat esse suam tenetur Stellionatus Though by this Act Superiours receiving double Resignations are guilty and punishable as said is and seing to receive such Resignations is a great prejudice because it puts the Parties to great expences and that the Superior is presum'd to get and may get advantage by accepting such double Resignations or contributing to the making of such double Rights therefore they ought likewise to be lyable in Damnage and Interest to the Party injured BY this Act it is Statuted that a Charge to enter Heir may be directed against the Successors of the Defuncts they being of perfect age to enter to their Lands within fourty days Year and Day being first past after the Decease of the Predecessor and a Comprizing being led upon their failÈing to enter the same shall be as valid as if they were Infeft Nota Though this Act bears the being of perfect age yet Minors may be validly charged to enter Heir de practica but seing this Act is only made against such as may enter but wilfully ly out It might have been doubted whether Minors in Ward-Lands may be Charged to enter Heir for these cannot enter till they be twenty one years compleat but by our constant Practique they may be Charged since this is necessary for compleating the Creditors Diligence Nota That this Act does not appoint that generally such Execution should pass against the appearand Heir as if he were entred but only that his Land may be apprized and therefore quaeritur what execution may be gotten against his moveable Heirship and it may be urg'd that the same may be affected as the Defuncts other moveables for though they be Heirship respectu haeredis yet they are but moveables respectu Creditoris for they become only Heirship after they are drawn and yet it hath been found that the moveable-heirship may be adjudg'd and by that Decision it would appear that they can only be affected by apprising but there is a Warrand wanting in this Act for apprising them there is an Act of Sederunt anno 1613. allowing Charges to enter Heir to be rais'd within the Year and Day but the Summons thereupon must be execute after the Year and Day expire but not till the fourty days expire after the execution of the Charge but this annus deliberandi being introduced in favours of the appearand Heir he may omit the same and Renunce within the year if he pleaseth Neither can an Adjudication following within the Year be challeng'd ex eo capite July 14. 1631. albeit that the said Act appoints that a Charge to enter Heir may be rais'd after Year and Day expire after the Defuncts Death Yet the Year and Day must only be computed from the appearand Heirs birth if he was posthume Spots tit Heirs Livingstoun contra Houlerton de jure civili posthumus non habetur pro nato cum de incommodo ejus agitur l. etiam § Ille ff de minor THough the meaning of this Act seems to be that where Tradesmen who are Free-men either desert their work or delays the same the Owner of the Work may choose other Free-men or complain to the Deacon Yet it was found in July 1675. by the Council in the case of Borlands against the Masons of Edinburgh that where a Free man either deserted or delay'd the Owner of the work might imploy any even Unfree-men though it was alleadg'd it was not just to punish all the Free-men for the fault of one Nor was it convenient for the Common-wealth that Unfree-men should be admitted for whose work none can be answerable THis Act is Verbatim formerly set down Act 90 Par. 6. Ja. 4. BY the Civil Law Testaments and all Writs of importance were to be Seal'd and with us the appending of the Seal without the Subscription of the Party was sufficient R. M. lib. 3. cap. 8. num 3 4. and Papers were then Tri'd by comparison of Seals as now by comparison of Subscriptions but by this Act the Subscription of the Party and Witnesses is likewise to be added with the Seal and thereafter K. Ja. 6 Par. 6. Act 80. all Papers of importance are to be both Seal'd and Subscrived but now they need only be Subscrived without being Seal'd and though by this Act the Subscription of the Notar is sufficient Yet by that Act two Notars
has spent more blood and money in the French service than all those priviledges were ever worth and it 's known that the last Concessions were granted to the Scots for giving Q. Mary in Marriage to the Dauphine of France whereby if he had had Children Scotland it self had been annexed to France and because the Scots did refuse her to K. Edward the 6 of England they were thereupon invaded by the English and their Nation was almost ruined 3. Though renumeratory Concessions might be quarrell'd as they cannot yet mutual Treaties and Contracts can never be abrogated nor taken away without the consent of both the Parties Contracters 4. The Scots being secured by Decisions of the Supream Courts of France as said is they have thereby the greatest security that the Law of any Nation can give As these reasons may convince any man that it were against the Justice of France to take away the priviledges of the Scottish Nation so the principles of prudence and policy seem very much to oppose the taking them away for 1. What can any other Strangers expect from Concessions Treaties or Contracts when so old and well deserved priviledges are questioned it being very well known to all Nations that Scotland has deserv'd extraordinarly of France and this Alliance has been famous beyond all the other Alliances now known in the World 2. The Scots and Scottish Nation have upon this account refused all other Alliances to their great loss and prejudice in so much that they have oft times suffered their Kingdom to be invaded harrass'd and ruin'd by the English because we preferr'd the French Alliance to theirs and as our Countrey-men have alwayes been ready to spend their lives for the French so within these 50 years we have lost 100000 men in their service who did not amongst them all bring home 20000 Livers to this Kingdome and it 's very well known how ready we are to own the French interest in all Courts and Countreys where we live abroad The Kingdoms of Scotland and England may come to divide by the failure of the Scottish Line in England and so it still seems prudent for the French King not to extinguish his interest in Scotland And whereas it may be pretended that we have forfeited our priviledges by declaring War against the French to this it is answer'd that 1. The denouncing of War by us was only the effect of a necessary obligation upon us as being a part of Great Britain and not a War enter'd into by Scotland upon any National account 2. By Treaties following upon the War all things are restor'd to the former condition they were in except in so far as former Treaties were innovated by express conditions but so it is there is nothing inserted in any of those Treaties to the prejudice of our former Leagues and Priviledges and therefore they must revive and return to the same force and vigour they were in before the War I find this Act Registrated and Recorded in the Books of Sederunt and generally it is observable that most of the publick Papers whereupon any legal Debates or Securities might depend were inserted in the Books of Sederunt which was somewhat like the French Custom of verifying in the Parliament of Paris that is the same with our Session the Kings Edicts and thus the pacification betwixt the Regent and the Hamiltons in anno 1572. and many such Papers are inserted there and of old even publick accidents were likewise insert such as Ecclipses c. Queen MARY Parl. 9. ORdinaâ—ly in Acts of Indemnity which follow Civil War as this is the King or State does only discharge all action that may be competent for all manner of Omissions or Commissions by vertue of any Power or Warrand of those in power for the time as is to be seen in the 10 Act 2 Sess. 1 Par. Ch. 2. But here in this Act all actions that may be competent for any Cause or occasion during the time for which the Troubles lasted are once discharg'd except there be a Warrand given by the persons named in the Act for intenting actions during that time but thereafter by the Act 44 11 Par. Ja. 6. the Lords of Session are made Judges to the Interpretation of that Act of Oblivion and all Decreets recovered during these times are declared irreduceable if they be not pursued within Year and Day and this short Prescription is declar'd to run against Minors which is likewise conform to the said 10 Act in which late Acts the nature oâ— Amnesties and Oblivion shall be more fully declar'd VId. obs ad Act 11 Par. 1 Ja. 1. VId. obs ad Act 49 Par. 13 Ja. 1. UPon this Act the Forgers or Bringers home of false Money use to be forefaulted as was found in the case of John Drummond November 27. 1621. and many other Cases and though it was alleadg'd in defence of Hamilton and Burn October 1677. that only Officers of the Mint-house used to be forefaulted because of their exâ—berant Trust and that it was easie for them to commit such Crimes yet Drummond was no Officer but a Sadler in Pearth the words of this Act that are ordinarly founded upon are that the Revealers of Forgers or home bringers of false Coyn shall have the one half of the Escheat of all their Lands and Goods moveable and immoveable and this punishment is peculiar to Treason and it seems that Forging or Coyning is an incroachment upon the Kings Prerogatives one of which is the Coyning of Money but I see not why bringing home of false Coyn could upon this account be declared Treason It is also observable from the former case 1677. that the meanness of the quantity or value Coyn'd excuses not from the punishment of this Act Vid. Crim. observ Tit. Falshood BY this Act it is appointed that no Parson Vicar or other Kirk-mans Manse or Gleib can be set in Feu or long Tack and therefore an Heretor to whom the Vicars Gleib was Feu'd though a year before this Act was refus'd relief when that Land was design'd to the Minister because the Feu set to him was contrary to this Act and though the Feu was set prior to this Act yet it was null because it was not confirm'd before this Act February 12. 1635. Vid. obs on 48 Act Par. 3 Ja. 6. ALL such as practise Witchcraft or consult with them are by this Act punishable by Death as are also all such as pretend to have any such Craft or Knowledge there-through abusing the people from which it is observable that such as pretend to fore-tell things to come or to tell where things are lost may by this Act be punish'd with Death though really they have no such skill By this Act also all Sheriffs Lords of Regalities and other Judges having power to execute the same are ordain'd to put the same in execution but it does not therefore follow that Stewarts and Bailliffs and Sheriffs are competent
but now by the foresaid 5 Act 1 Par. Ch. 2. all sums to be rais'd for maintainance of Forts or Armies must be first concluded in Parliament or Convention of Estates And now the King has a considerable Revenue by the Excise for defraying those small necessities for which the Council then impos'd and it is certain in the general that all Countreys should supply the Monarch with Means to defray the expence of the Government Vid. Arnis de jur Majestatis in bona privatorum Vid Act 85 Par. 6 Ja. 4. BY this Act the making privie Conventions or Assemblies within Burghs to put on Armour or display Banners c. without Licence from the Soveraign are punishable by Death Observ. 1 o. It seems that meer Convocations or Assemblies are not per se punishable by Death without putting on Armour or displaying Banners Observ. 2 o. That Naked-assistance at such Tumults with a Batton was not found by the Justices to infer Death in anno 1665. and I conceive that though a previous design were prov'd yet the assistance with a Batton would not be sufficient since the Act requires putting on Armour or Cloathing themselves with Weapons which imports hostile VVeapons for neither of these can be verifi'd in a Batton and penal Statutes are not to be extended but yet the appearing with a Batton is sufficient to punish arbitrarly such as assist at Tumults THis Act Confiscating Ship and Coals wherein Coals are Transported is in Desuetude but is not expresly abrogated by any Law and though at first Licences for Transporting Coals were necessary yet now even these Licences are in Desuetude we having now discovered more Coals than serves our Nation THis Act Confiscating Beeff and Mutton that comes to Mercat without Skin and Birn is still in observance and was made for discovery of Theft for the Skin being upon the Beast that is kill'd does bear all marks whereby it may be known and for the same reason in the Southern Shires the meaner sort who kill any Beasts are oblig'd to keep their Ears and if the Flesh be found where the Ears cannot be produc'd it is commonly look'd upon in these Countreys as a point of Dittay not only must the beasts be brought to the Mercat with their Skins according to this Act but by Acts of Burrows the Skins that are brought to the Mercat must not be scor'd nor holl'd which Fleshers did before negligently nor must the Haslock be pull'd that being the best part of the VVool and by the Acts of the Convention of Burrows made at the desire of the Conservator the Skins of Beasts within this Kingdom did rise in value a third more than when they were carried beyond Sea Qeen MARY Parliament 10. BY the second Act 1 Par. Ja. 2. which is the Act here related to the Kings lawful age was declar'd to be twenty one Years but it seems that because it was left dubious by that Act whether the Year twenty one was to be inceptus or completus when begun or ended therefore by this Act it is declar'd to be twenty one Years compleat and the word compleat is twice repeated And it seems that before this Act even the year it self was debateable for in the 93 Act 7 Par. Ja. 5. It is said that the King after his perfect age of twenty five years Ratifies c. By an Edict of Charl. the fifth of France anno 1375. Their Kings are declar'd Majors hors de tutelle at their age of fourteen IN this Act all Confirmations of kirk-Kirk-lands not Confirmed by King or Pope before the Year 1558. at which time the Reformation begun were declar'd null and by this Act Confirmations from Rome after that Year are discharg'd and the Queens Confirmations are declar'd equivalent to the Popes and I find that by Act of Secret Council September 10. 1561. the sending to Rome for such Confirmations is by Proclamation discharg'd under the pain of Barratry K. JAMES VI. Parliament I. QUeen Mary being Queen during her Life appoints the Earl of Murray to be Regent and his Election is Confirmed by this Act and it is Declared to last till the Kings age of seventeen at which time it is Declar'd that he shall enter to the exercise of the Government I find amongst the Un-printed Acts subjoyn'd to this Parliament a Resignation of the Crown made by her which it seems was necessary she being Soveraign during her Life as the King is during his Life Observ. She calls the Earl of Murray Brother though he was her natural brother which was conceal'd ob honorem but Ineptly and though the Earl of Murray is here call'd the Kings Cousine yet he should have been call'd his Uncle Nor are Uncles properly Cousines But I think this was because all Earls who are Counsellors are call'd Cousines and Counsellors but yet if he had been to have been call'd a Counseller for this cause he should have been call'd Cousin and Counseller I have also seen a Commission to one of the Kings Natural Sons in England wherein he was call'd our Cousin It is observable that sometimes the Acts of this Parliament bear to be by Our Soveraign Lord my Lord Regent and the three Estates as the 20 21 and 29. which is not well exprest for the Estates and Regent had no power to make Acts and therefore the rest bear better Our Soveraign Lord with the advice and consent of his clearest Regent and three Estates Nota The Parliaments saying my Lord Regent seems very ill Grammar for it should have been the Lord Regent THose Acts Confirm and relate to former Acts past in the Parliament holden by Queen Mary August 24. 1560. and yet we find no such Parliament but the true answer to this is as appears by Spotswoods History that the Lords of the Congregation having met in anno 1560. and having past those Acts abolishing the Popish Religion many of the Members of that pretended Parliament protested that this meeting was no Parliament because there was none there to re-present the Queen nor the King of France her Husband whereupon Sir James Sandilands was sent over to procure a Ratification of these Acts which being deny'd the same Acts are here Ratifi'd by the Earl of Murray when he came to be Regent as if they had been past in a lawful Parliament FOr understanding of this Act and the nature of Patronages it is fit to know that the Right of Patronage is a power of Nomination granted to him who either was Master of the ground whereupon a Kirk was built or who doted any thing to the Maintainance of it or who did build a Church to present one to serve the Cure thereat in all which cases he is accounted Patron and may present a person to be Minister or to any other Benefice and that only if he reserve such a power to himself in his Mortification for Hope in his Lesser Practiques is of opinion that
exegetick only of the Coronation and by them is meant the recept of his Authority in the Coronation This Act is Ratified by the 99 Act 7 Par. Ja. 6. vid. Act 2. Par. 3. Ch. 2. IT is fit to know that whatsoever of the thirds was not assign'd to Ministers did appertain to the King and it was called Superplus whereof there was yearly a Book made which altered and was more or less according to the Assignation to the Ministers and according to the Superplus-Books the Kings Collector did charge for the Superplus for the King's use and with it also the omitted Benefices which the Prelats and Beneficed persons omitted in the up-giving of their Rentals and also for common Kirk and Friers Lands which also with the thirds were appointed for the uses aforesaid The Rent of the thirds for the King's use is altogether extinguished partly by restitution of Bishops who have right to their own thirds and partly by erection of Abbacies and Priories in which the thirds are discharg'd in favours of the Lords of Erection they planting the Kirks Likewise in Parliament 1617. and 1621. And in our late Parliaments there was Commission granted by the Parliament for planting of Kirks which has made the old Book of the Assignations of Ministers Stipends and yearly Plat thereof to be out of use Many of these Books of Assumption are still preserv'd and they are very useful for clearing what the old Rentals of Benefices were so that it may be known whether Benefices be set with diâ—â—â—nution of the Rental FOr the better understanding this Act it is fit to know that a Provost with us is that which praepositus is in the Canon Law praepositura est dignitas quando est Collegiata alias non Fed. de sen. Consil. 80. Alia ergo est Jur. Can. praepositura Collegiata alia non Collegiata But with us where there was a Colledge Kirk it was govern'd by a Provost and Prebends and generally it was institute for Divine Service but there are Colledges institute for instructing of Youth as the old Colledge of St. Andrews which is governed by a Provost A Provost is in our Law no Prelat and therefore Tacks set by him are null without consent of the Patron 12 July 1616. Hope tit Kirk but è contra the Patron may gift Prebendaries without consent of the Provost or Prebends except it be otherwayes provided by the Foundation The Collegiat Kirks Provostries Prebendaries having been founded by Noblemen for their own ease and advantage they retain still a greater power over them than over any other Benefices and therefore by this Act the Patrons of these may provide them to Bursers or others notwithstanding of the Foundation which is ratified by the 158 Act. Par. 12 Ja. 6. and by the 54 Act Sess. 1 Par. 1 Ch. 2 vid. observ on that Act. FOrnication is now punish'd only by the Kirk Session and this Act is not exactly observed for the offenders now only pay an Arbitrary Fine and stand upon the Stool of Repentance THis Act and the next are explained in my Criminal Treatise Tit. Incest THe melting down of any Money already Coined within the Kingdom under the pains here exprest is punish'd with us because our Coyn being as fine as our Plate it would be thus melted down and so the Stock of the Money would be impoverished and as the 66 Act Par. 8. Ja. 3. observes it would waste and minish by translation in the fire but the Question being agitated whether forreign Coyn may be melted for Bullion it was urg'd that by this Act no Gold nor Money already Coyn'd within this Realm was to be melted for by the said 66 Act no Gold nor Money that bears Form and is Printed should be melted but to reconcile these the answer is that if Money be once allow'd to be current here by direct allowance as by Proclamation it is not thereafter to be melted down and so it was decided in the Lord Hattons case Feb. 1683. THough the Lords of Session are not Judges competent to reduce Sentences past in Parliament as the more Soveraign Judicature yet they are Judges competent to reduce Rights confirmed in Parliaments whereby the Confirmation falls in consequence quia confirmatio nihil novi juris tribuit vid. 25 March 1631. Bishop of Dunkell contra the Lord Balmerinoch This Act against forbidden Weapons is explained by me in my Criminal Treatise Tit. 32. VId. the Criminal Treatise tit Falshood THis Act was to supply the nullities which could have been objected against such Rights by the Court of Rome who pretended to the only right of bestowing Church-benefices so that our separation from the Church of Rome was first authorized by the Parliament in the year 1560. VId. Crim. tit Theft But it is now fit to observe that when any-man cryes for help against Thieves all who are desired are obliged to concur with the Owners of the Goods under the pain to be holden partakers of the Theft which Huy and Cry with us was called Quiritatio by the Romans by the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vid l. 1. 2. Cod. de his qui lat l. 1. ff de serv. fugitiv ALthough by our Law Pactions for Gifts or Rights to accresce to private men though not actually as yet fallen to them are valid and thus it has been found that a man may renounce or sâ—ll haereditatem futuram yet by this Act a gift of Escheat when a Party shall be denounced is declared not to be valid because this may occasion the person whose Escheat is so gifted to be denounced viis modis and this proceeds upon the same reason that the Civil Law discharges such deeds quae praebent votum captandae mortis alienae and by the Canon Law a Benefice cannot be promised or bestowed when the same shall happen to vaik nec confirmatur sequenti vacatione colâ—atio C. proposuit de con preb Ca. 2. de preb in 6. argumento hujus legis it seems that the survivances of Offices should be null by the same parity of reason for these preclude the King from his free Gift and are the occasion of snares Likeas such Gifts by our Law and Style should express modum vacandi which cannot be done where there is no vacation and though we have no express Statute yetâ—by our Practice which observes Styles as Statutes if a Gift express not modum vacandi it will be null so a Gift of Escheat not mentioning the Horning whereupon it proceeded was not sustained though a Horning year and day before the date of the Gift was Libell'd on in the Declarator and though the Gift was past the King 's own Hand at Court where Hornings could not be got 20 November 1628. Welston contra Stuart For if this had been sustain'd no Horning had ever been exprest thereafter but the Donatar had still choos'd out one of the meanest Debts since he is
Grant contra Grant Nor was for the same cause the breaking up the Tennents House and taking some Goods out of his Chest found a Contravention February 9. 1633. Lindsay contra Denniston But since it was not a Contravention because the Master was not concerned in the Injury as these Decisions bear I see not how the Tennents concourse could have altered the case quoad the Contravention though in both cases the Tennent may pursue damnage and interest All Lawyers are clear that there must be clear grounds of Injury alleadg'd and therefore feeding bestial upon controverted Lands is not sufficient December 20. 1592. But in mutual Contraventions upon that head The Lords allow'd both parties to turn their Libel in a Molestation and granted Commission to Examine Witnesses hinc inde January 24. 1663. Rouchlay contra Wood. Nor would the Lords find that pasturing upon waste High-land-ground should infer contravention except it had been done by the Masters Command or frequent herding to his knowledge July 8. 1664. Earl of Airly contra M cintosh But yet if Deeds of Violence be done even upon debateable Lands that will infer Contravention such as the hoching of Oxen. This animus injuriandi is so necessary that Deeds done by drunken-men are by many Lawyers thought not to infer a Contravention Christin Tit. 4. Art 8. and the adulterating the pursuers Wife will not infer a Contravention because this is not done animo injuriandi but animo libidinoso Christin Art 7. He likewise thinks that threatning real injuries is sufficient and threatning is a great breach of the Peace especially when it is by a man who uses minas prosequi but verbal injuries per se are not thought sufficient by Lawyers nor have we any Decision sustaining a Contravention on that head Since by this Act the King and the Party have different interests therefore Imprisonment or paying of a Fine to the King by prior Sentence will not exclude a pursuit of Contravention at the parties instance March 20. 1623. Futhie contra Carmichael and January penult 1622. Johnston contra Laird of Westnisbit And certainly that Decision related by Hope tit contravention Forrest contra Turnbul Where it was found that the Kings Advocat could not insist alone in a Contravention if the party injur'd discharged the Deed though after the intenting of the Cause is an illegal Decision for seing the King is injur'd crimine fractae pacis and that by this Act the King has right to the half of the penalty and had formerly right to all by the 5 Act Par. 1 Ja. 3. The party cannot Discharge the Kings part Contravention is a penal action even at the privat parties instance and therefore titulus coloratus will defend against it and thus a Contravention being libelled as infer'd from the casting of a Ditch whereby the pursuers Land was overflow'd The Lords found that a consent from the pursuers Father though he was but Liferenter did defend against that action January last 1633. L. Weyms contra L. Gairntilly Without prejudice to pursue an Action of Damnage and Interest to which the Lords turned this Libel without necessity of a new Process And this action is likewise elided for the same reason by subsequent Dissimulation and therefore a pursuit of Contravention founded upon cutting of Trees in the pursuers Wood was elided by the same pursuers granting Licence thereafter to the same Defenders to cut in the same Wood which posterior Licence the Lords found did infer a presumptive Remission January 11. 1633. Denniston contra Lindsay Nor is this Contravention infer'd by Injuries done upon provocation or self-defence but though provocation seems to be good against the provocker yet it seems not to be good against the King and it may be doubted whether the penalties of the Acts of Parliament may be sought by and attour the damnage and interest or if the damnage is to be a part of the penalty HOpe observes from the Narrative of this Act that as only Landed men can be Judges in Perambulations so Landed men ought only to be received Witnesses in Heretable Debates but this Observation holds not in our Practique which allows any habile Witnesses in perambulations and all other Heretable Debates BY this Act all Heretable Obligations or Writs of importance are to be subscriv'd and seal'd before two famous Witnesses if the parties can Write or by two famous Notars before four famous Witnesses if they cannot write Observ. 1 o. That Sealing is not necessary but Subscription is sufficient in parties and is not necessary in witnesses by this Act though it be requisit by the 5 Act 3 Par. Ch. 2. even in Witnesses also and though the Sealing be only remitted in Papers to be Registrated by the 4 Act 9 Par. Ja. 6. Yet it is not necessary in any Writ by our present Custom Observ. 2 o. That in our practice all Writs exceeding an hundred pounds are Interpreted to be Writs of importance and so to need Witnesses January ult 1623. But if any sum be to be annually pay'd that Writ whereby it is to be pay'd requires Witnesses though never so small because yearly Prestations may arise to a considerable sum July 4. 1632. and though sums above 100 pounds require Writ Yet Intromission with Victual or any thing else probable by witnesses as all other things consisting in facto are as also intromission with uncoyn'd Money or Silver in mass is probable by Witnesses though exceeding 100 pounds But promises nuda emissio verborum though for less sums than 100 pounds are only probable by Writ because By standers may mistake the position and force of Words January 19. 1672. Douchar con Brown Observ. 3 o. This Act is only to be extended to such things as require Writ ex sua natura and to which Writ uses to be adhibit for Merchant-bargains made in Mercats do not require Wâ—â—t and so are probable by Witnesses for men use not nor cannot adhibit Writ in such cases nor are Witnesses requisit in Discharges granted to Tennents by the Masters because of their Rusticity and the smalness of the sums Nor are Witnesses requisit in Contracts of Marriage upon which marriage has followed nam notorietas facti habetur pro testibus July 1. 1662. Breidie contra Breidie But it may be doubted whether this holds in Strangers such as are third parties and I think they are not oblig'd to pay the Tocher though it certainly holds in the Man and Wife themselves who Contract and though it hold not in third parties who are meer Strangers yet it should hold in the Father when he obligeth himself to pay the Tocher where there is a tripartite Contract subscriv'd by many parties they are in place of Witnesses to one another all parties having subscriv'd July 19. 1676. Forret contra Veitch And a Writ having the Substantials filled up with the Granters own hand is equivalent to its being Subscriv'd by Witnesses January 23. 1675. Vans contra Malloch Observ. 4
matriculam cujuslibet Ecclesiae un de intitulari dicebantur in Canon Sanctorum distinct 70. or from the old custome of fixing upon the Altars or Churches the Titles of these who were presented to it some also think that most Offices in the Church had their denominations from the Offices in the State and Army there being an Analogy inter militiam armatam Coelestem and that there were Titulars allow'd in the one as in the other vid. Bengaeum de titulis beneficiorum cap. 1. It is clear by the said Canon Sanctorum distinct 70. that singula beneficia certo loco Ministerio circumscripta erant as in this Act of Parliament BY this Act it is not lawful for any who are provided to Benefices under Prelacies to dilapidat their Benefices That is to say to set them with diminution of the Rental which they payed at their entry and if the Minister contraveen he is to be deprived and the right to be null But by the 11 Act Par. 10 Ja. 6. All Rights made by Prelats with diminution of the Rental are null and the conversion of Victual payable to them into Money below the worth is by that Act declared a diminution they are also thereby ordained to find Caution not to dilapidat the Benefices Likeas by the Act 3 Par. 18 Ja. 6. the dismembering any part of the Benefice is declared a species of diminution and so null It has been justly doubted whether a Bishop obtaining certification in an improbation whereby the Land returned to the Bishoprick might thereafter dispone these Lands by a new right and it has been decided that this was no dilapidation if given for the same Rental or Feu Duty they payed before the Act 1606. for such certifications being frâ—quent and the design of these certifications being only to force the Feuers to produce it were hard to extend them especially since the design of these Acts is only to hinder the Beneficed Persons to diminish the Rental and value of them the time of their entry 27 January 1676. Bishop of Caithness contra his Vassals It seems that there is eadem ratio for sustaining Rights by the Successor of that Beneficed Person who obtained the certification though it may be alledg'd against him that he is oblidg'd to leave the Benefice in as good a condition as he found it It may be alledg'd that the same reason should sustain Rights made by Beneficed Persons who have obtained Reduction ob non solutum Canonem These Acts are so comprehensive that the Act 5 Par. 22 Ja. 6 seems unnecessary BY this Act if any man was rob'd by any of a Clan he may kill or arrest any of that Clan if it be found by a legal Tryal that the Clan'd man who did the injury was harbour'd amongst the Clan after the Injury was committed But though this seems as just as Letters of Reprysal are yet it is now in Desuetude justly for crimina suos tenent authores THese two Sumptuary Laws are in Desuetude But in the Act 113 a case is observable wherein even the Kings Licence for Transporting wool is not to be respected but is to be esteemed surreptitious THis Act seems strangely insert here since Popery was abolisht long before this Act. VId. observ on Act 77 Par. 6 Ja. 6. BY this Act all actions of Deforcement and breaking of Arrestment are ordain'd to be summarly discust by the Lords without delay and therefore they might have been excepted from the order of the Roll set down in the late Act of Regulations but yet they are not for they must abide the Order of the Roll as other actions and all the priviledge that they have quoad this is that they come in upon six days warning and need not be continued that is to say they have but one Diet. It is fit to know that these Actions may be pursu'd Civily or Criminally and the punishment is Confiscation of Moveables and an arbitrary punishment of their person Observ. 1. That the Creditors injur'd by the breaking of the arrestment are to be prefer'd to the Fisk the Reasons whereof was that it seem'd unjust that a Creditor doing Diligence for his own Debt should be disappointed by his own Diligence as he would certainly be if when he had pursu'd and prevail'd in his Action for breaking of Arrestment that the parties Escheat falling by this Diligence the King should be prefer'd to the User of the Diligence and we see likewise in all such cases the party offended is still prefer'd to the Fisk and thus where parties are at the Horn for a Civil Debt the Donatar of the Escheat is still lyable for the Debt And in Theft by Act of Parliament the party injured is prefer'd to the Fisk but it seems strange why by this Act the Gift of Escheat is declar'd null if it be not expresly burdened with the Creditors Debt It might seem more convenient that the Gift should rather have been burdened with it as in other cases Observ. 2. Though by this Act it be declar'd that the Debt shall be pay'd out of the Offenders Moveables yet that does not hinder the party offended to do Diligence against the offenders real Estate for what sums the Lords shall modifie Observ. 3. That Arrestments may be made not only in the hands of these who owe any thing to the Debitor But Arrestments may be even made in the Debitors own hands which though it may seem strange yet it is done to the effect that if the Debitor shall be found to have alienated any of his Moveables so arrested after the arrestment is laid on he may be pursu'd for breaking of Arrestment and punished conform to this Act. These Arrestments are used in the same sence and are execute in the same way that we use them and all this Subject is very well treated by Christin Tit. 3. ad leges Mechlin Argent Tit. des arrest 8. BY the Civil Law prodigals under which Name were comprehended all such as manag'd not well their affairs got Curators only by a Judge But with us they are Interdicted and their Interdicters are their Curators and that either judicially or by consent but though it may seem that if a man Interdict himself he cannot Reduce that Interdiction because he has consented Nor yet should Obligations granted by him be sustained though he be thereafter found by the Lords to have been provident since the publication did put all in mala fide to Contract with him yet Papers granted by him will be sustain'd on that head and even the Interdiction it self will be Reduc'd as contrary to natural liberty the Granter being mentis compos rei suae satis providus And there having no precognition preceeded December 4. 1623. Gerhan contra Hay February 1â— 1633. Forbes contra Forbes which leaves the people in great uncertainty and it seems much better that voluntar Interdictions were absolutely taken away Though I believe voluntar
Interdictions have been introduc'd amongst us for preservation of ancient Families for they extend not to secure Moveables or against personal Execution and it was found that many weak persons would consent to a voluntar restraint who would not compear Judicially to be restrained and the Letters of Publication passing upon a Bill by Deliverance of the Lords of Session seems to be a kind of interposing of the Authority of a Judge and so to make the voluntar Interdiction a Judicial Interdiction But the Narrative of this Act confesses that Interdictions upon consent are beyond the first design of the Law It is observable 1 o. That Interdictions need not be Intimated to the party Interdicted or execute against him December 11. 1622. Seaton contra Elleis Though Inhibitions must be execute against the person Inhibited The reason of which difference is because the person interdicted having consented there needs no intimation be made to him Obs. 2 o. The Stile in all such Letters is ordinarly the rule of all Decisions upon them and yet interdictions were found not to annul moveable Bonds though the Letters did discharge the granting such Bonds and that because Interdictions do naturally strick only against alienation of Heretage Our Law thinking Moveables of lesser importance or else because that would stop Commerce and straiten too much the person Interdicted July 11. 1634. Bruce contra Forbes June 20. 1671. Cranford contra Hamilton And though an inhibition did expresly discharge the granting of Renunciations Yet a Renunciation of a Wodset was not Reduc'd as granted after Inhibition since the Wodset was prior and so the Renunciation by the person Inhibited depended upon a prior Obligation July 16. 1667. Elleis contra Keith But by a late Act of Sederunt the 9 of February 1680. It is declar'd that if the User of an Inhibition shall intimat to the person who has Right to the Reversion that the Wodsetter or Annualrenter stands Inhibited at their instance and shall produce the said Inhibition duly Registrated at the time when he intimats that then the Renunciation or grant of Redemption though proceeding upon true payment shall not be sustained without Citing the Inhibiter There were no formal Inhibitions in the Civil Law but the Doctors speak of a prohibitio alienationis equivalent thereto Mâ—vius de Arrest c. 9. num 25. Arrestari possunt res moâ—iles immâ—bilium supervacanâ—um est arrestum cum loco moveri non possunt ejus tamen vice quoad illas obtinet prohibitio alienationis quae impetrari solet a judice quoties justus metus est ne alienando debitor deteriorem reddat petitoris causam essicitque ut non â—iat alienatio ipsius rei num 29. Judex ob aequitatem talem Inhibitionem decernere debet num 32. pro arresto habetur in immobilibus interdictio usus corum so that Interdictions and Inhibitions are a resemblance if not a species of Arrestments and I think with Maevius that the word comes from the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 placitum incorruptum vel inviolatum because by all these remedies the obtainers rights are preserv'd inviolable Inhibitions have their Origine from the Canon Law whereby if the Secular Judge did interpose in any thing that was Ecclesiastick the Ecclesiastick Judge did Inhibite him to proceed And Inhibitions are mentioned cap. causam Ext. qui sil sint legit cap. tuam Ext. de ord cognit and with us they were first used in the matter of Teinds in the same sense but now the word is extended to Letters whereby the Judge inhibits debitors to sell in prejudice of Creditors The publication of Interdictions comes not from the Canon Law but from the French where it is necessary that they be published in Paraeciâ Mercatu as with us Vid. Argent tit des Mineurs Art 492. where he likewise determines that if a third party knew of the Interdiction either by being a Witness or by a privat Intimation made to himself that any right made to him would be null with us also the raising of an Inhibition upon a Bond of Interdiction was found equivalent to a publication the design of the Letters of Publication being only to put the Lieges in malâ side 10 November 1676. Stewart contra Hay of Gourdie where it was likewiâ—e found that the person Interdicted might after Interdiction sell his Land notwithstanding thereof to a third party if the Bargain was profitable and that without the consent of the Interdicters but in that case the Bond of Interdiction was many years kept up and the Inhibition thereupon was never execute till about the very time the communing begun for sale of the Interdicted persons Lands Observ. 3. That albeit all Inhibitions and Interdictions are to be Registrated by this Act within 40 days yet Inhibitions for Teinds need not to be Registrat for an Inhibitions for Teinds is but in effect a Summonds or Warrand discharging the Party to lead but not discharging third Parties to buy and so needs not be Registrated Obs. 4. That though by this Act they are to be null if they be not Registrat in the Sheriffs Register yet by 264 Act Par. 15 Ja. 6. It is sufficient to Registrat them in the Registers of Stewards or Lords of Regalitie within which they dwell and now they may be Registrat in the general Register at Edinburgh which is not here mention'd because it was not extant the time of this Act and Registration in the general Register at Edinburgh is allow'd by the 13 Act Par. 16. Ja 6. Observ. 5. Whereas this Act appoints them to be Registrat within 40 days after the publication it is doubted whether the day whereupon the Letters were execute or Registrat is to be numbered amongst the 40 days But by the late Decisions it is found sufficient that either of these days be free Nota Inhibitions prescrive from the last Execution but not from the date of the Registration for Actions might have been intented upon them before Registration 19 February 1680. Lutesoot contra Glencorse THis Act appointing such as are absent from the Convention of Burrows to be fyn'd and that upon their Acts the Lords of Session grant Letters of Horning c. is in observance except in so far as these Letters are ordain'd to pass at the instance of the Burgh of Edinburgh for by an unprinted Act of Parliament 1607. Execution is allow'd to pass at the instance of the Agent of the Burrows and the Letters are now still raised in his name This Act ordains the Burrows to be cited to their General Convention by a Missive Bill but this is now done by a Missive Letter in which the chief Articles on which they are to treat are exprest to the end they may consult on them with their Constituents and these are call'd the Heads of the Missive but this excludes them not from consulting on new Emergents which could not have been foreseen THat part of this Act which
the Process or Sentence of the Forfaulter yet the Assize must retour what the Rebel did possess the very time of the Process or Sentence and the King or his Donatar is to be entered thereto summarly and cannot be removed for the space of 5 years that in the mean time he may search and seek after the Rebels Rights for he cannot be presum'd to know quo jure the Rebel possest and albeit it may seem both by reason and by this Act that this should only hold where â—acks or previous possession though somewhat shorter than 5 years by vertue of a right could be proven yet the Lords found that this part of the Act holds even where no right could be shown if the forfaulted person was in possession though for never so short a time and it being alledged that these 5 years in this last part of the Act should be counted from the time of the forfaulter and not from the time that the Donatar enters to possession for else he might by lying out prejudge the Creditors The Lords found that if the Rents were extant he had right thereto from the date of the forfaulture though prior to his possession 24 January 1667. Home contra the Tennents of Kello But that case being a competition betwixt the Donatar and an Appryzer from the Rebel the Lords found the Donatar might summarly redeem the Appryzer and enter in possession ibidem THe reason upon which this Act is founded is that when any person raises a multiple poynding the party who is troubled by many who pretend Right ought to be secur'd when he pays to that person who prevails nam res judicata pro veritate habetur and he payes authore praetore and though Minors have by the Civil Law and ours a double remedy if their Tutors and Curators suffer a Decreet to pass against them for not compearance viz. That he may either reduce the Sentence or pursue the Curators for damnage and interest in suffering the Decreet for no compearance to go against them yet in this Act it is declar'd that if a Major who compeats with a Minor in a multiple poynding be prefer'd to the minor because of the Minors not compearance in that case the minor has only action against his Tutors and Curators but cannot Reduce the Decreet of preference but if the Minor have no Curators it is declar'd he shall be restor'd as accords of the Law that is to say he may reduce the Decreet since in this case he has no other remedy but if the Decreet of preference be quarrellable for any error in the execution or if the party absent can show a necessary reason for his absence then the Decreet is quarrellable either by Majors or Minors yet the Lords found that payment bona fide conform to this Act does secure the Payer not only against the principal Competers but against their Assigneys November 24. 1676 Weir contra the Earl of Callender but it has been debated whether the party who has been prejudg'd by the Decreet of multiple poynding may be Repon'd against the same by way of Suspension or if a Reduction be necessary and it has been found February 1 1670. Watson contra Sympson that a Decreet of multiple poynding obtain'd against the party could not be taken away without Reduction at the parties Instance nor was a Suspension at the Tennents Instance sufficient because the Narrative of this Act bears expresly That the parties used to crave to be reponed by intenting Reduction and that the party who obtains the Decreet is by the Statutory part only oblig'd to answer in the second Instance which the Lords found to be by way of Reduction and from that Decision it is very clear that these words The second Instance in all Statutes are only Interpret by the Lords to be mean'd of Reduction and not of Suspension Observ. 1 o. That the party absent will not be prejudg'd if he have a necessary cause of his absence for it were unjust to punish a man for what was not in his power and yet by this Reservation he who gets payment is still unsecure but he who pays by vertue of the Decreet before Reduction be intented can never be call'd in question Observ. 2 o. That the party prefer'd in the multiple poynding is only thereby secure as to the bygone profits which are paid and so in effect facit tantum fructus consumptos suos and if the sums be extant unpaid to the party so prefer'd he who had the best Right before the Decreet of multiple poinding will still be prefer'd and it seems by the words of the Act that if the profits themselves be extant the best Right will be prefer'd for the words are Nor yet shall have any Right to the bygone profits intrometted with This is by the 19 Act Par. 10 Ja. 6. Declared only to be extended to such actions of multiple poinding as were intented after this Act was made THe first part of this Act dispensing with the not Sealing of such Papers as are to be Registrat is explain'd in the 117 Act Par. 7 Ja. 5. and whereas this Act declares that a Seasine is sufficient if Subscriv'd before one Notar and a reasonable number of Witnesses that reasonable number is understood to be two though by a vulgar error it is believed that a Seasine requires four Witnesses and now by constant custom four Witnesses are always adhibit in Seasines and by the 5 Act 3 Par. Ch. 2. their Subscriptions are necessary BY this Act it is appointed that all kirk-Kirk-lands set in Feu-ferm should be confirmed by the King else they are null by way of exception Observ. 1 o. That though the Narrative of this Act bears That all Feus and long Tacks set since the Year 1558. should have been Confirmed yet the body of the Act does not declare that long Tacks need to be Confirm'd Vid. manticam de ambig convent lib. 5. Tit. 10. And Balfour relates Decisions bearing That Tacks for three nineteen years are esteem'd as alienations and so should be Confirm'd Observ. 2 o. This Act Declares that of old all kirk-Kirk-lands should have been Confirmed by King or Pope Yet the 187 Act Par. 13 Ja. 6. seems to insinuat that neither Confirmation of Pope or King was necessary but that the Kings consent was sufficient and that therefore the Act does Statute That no right can be quarrelled for want of Confirmation where the King has consented under the Privy Seal but that the Kings Confirmation was necessary of old is clear R. M. lib. 2. c. 23. and the reason there given is quia corum terrae sunt de eleemosyna Domini Regis and being presum'd to have been given by the Kings for praying for them they should not be appropriat to another use without their consent Observ. 3 o. That only Feus of Kirk-lands are ordain'd to be Confirm'd and therefore the Lords inclin'd to think that Feus of Salmond Fishings set by Church-men
perceperit Ecclesiae non reddiderit Christiana Sepultura privetur But yet before that time Laical Infeudations were Discharg'd per Concilium Turon 1096. Though we in this Nation consider only the Discharge in the Lateran Council It remains clear from these Informations that our decimae inclusae are in effect the same with the decimae infeudatae in the Canon Law and these are call'd decimae inclusae where the Stock and Teinds were never separated but were feu'd joyntly before the Lateran Council but yet it seems that all decimae infeudatae are not esteem'd inclusae with us for in a Case betwixt Monimusk and Pitfoddels Teinds were found not to have the priviledge of decimae inclusae though Transmitted by Infestments and call'd decimae inclusae because there was separat a Reddendo paid for the Teind and Stock and so it could be known to be different from the Stock albeit it was contended that decimae inclusae and infeudatae were pares termini and a different Reddendo did not evince that the Teinds had ever been separated from the Stock but only that there was a different Duty as is in Lands of the same holding oftimes and it may in general seem strange why we should add since the Lateran Council for that Council did find that Laicks before that time were incapable of any Right to Teinds and therefore all Feus of Teinds whether before the Lateran Council or after should be null and this Error it seems has been occasion'd by our concluding that because Laicks were declar'd uncapable of them by that Act therefore they were capable of them before it and yet with us a Laick cannot prescrive Teinds because he is not capable of them and Balsour tells us a Decision wherein not only alienations of Teinds but even Tacks of Teinds for three nineteen years were accounted alienations and so null for else Discharging alienations might have been eluded by setting long Tacks But now Teinds pass by Infestments as the Stocks does since the Surrender and His Majesties Decreet thereupon wherein every man may buy his own Teinds and so may set as long Tacks of them as he pleases or Feu them out cum decimis inclusis But it may be alledg'd this tenth part payable to the Ecclesiastick person for Teinds may be made liable to Ministers Stipends since this tenth part must be constructed as Teinds and so should be lyable to all the burdens of Teinds but to this it is answer'd that these decimae inclusae are consider'd as a part of the Stock and so no more liable to Ministers Stipends than the Stock is this division of the Feu-Duty doth not alter the nature of the decimae inclusae but is only insert to regulate the way of payment of the Feu-Duty even as if after a Feu granted of Stock and Teind promiscuously for a Feu-Duty the Church-man should dispone nine parts of the Feu-Duty and reserve only the tenth to himself that tenth part could not be liable to Ministers Stipends 2. Since this Act by the death of the Titular both Temporality and Spirituality came in his Majesties hands and so were dispon'd to the Lords of Erection and return'd to them without this distinction of nine or tenth parts Though by this Act Teinds are declared the Spirituality of Benefices yet they may be sold and are appointed now to be sold by the Parliament 1633. and the Heretors are to be infest in them as in their other Lands which seems inconsistent with their being the Spirituality of Benefices and the Patrimony of the Church but it may be answer'd that they are even in that case burden'd with payment of Ministers Stipends till they be competently provided Observ. 8. By this Act all Lands and others mortified to Colledges are excepted from the Annexation and the reason is because Kirk-Lands remain still to be such albeit they be mortifi'd to Colledges 12 Feb. 2635. Tock contra the Parochiners of Achtergoven and therefore it was necessary to except them Maisons Dieu or Hospitals are also excepted and Maisons Dieu are Hospitals dedicated to the honour of GOD it is a French word signifying the House of God the Canon Law calls them Domus Dei and makes them Hospitals Observ. 9. Pensions likewise out of Church-Benefices are excepted if they be authorized either by Decreets or Possession but possession of a part is repute possession of the whole and by the 137 Act 12 Par. Ja. 6. this Act is ratified and it is declared that all Pensions out of the Spirituality or Temporality neither clad with Decreet nor Possession in the Prelats lifetime who dispon'd the same before this Act of Annnexation shall be null but if they be clad with possession in manner foresaid they are valid against singular Successors though Pensions granted by Laicks are not valid albeit they be clad with possession prior to the singular Successors right as was found the 11 of December 1662. Clappertoun con the Lady Ednem but by the Act 140 Par. 12 Ja. 6. Pensions granted by Church-men should contain the particular names of Tennents and Duties vid. observ on the 62 Act of this Parl. Observ. 10. By this Act it is declared that the Bailie or Steward of the Regality shall have the same power he had before to repledge from the Sheriff or Justice-general in case he hath prevented the Justice-general by apprehending or citing the person before he be apprehended or cited by the Justices but if the Justices have prevented as said is then the Bailie of the Regality or Steward shall not have power to repledge but he may sit with the Justice-general if he pleases so that in effect by this Act there is this difference betwixt the Ecclesiastick and Laick Regalities that there is a right of repledging competent to the Laick Regalities whereas Ecclesiastick Regalities have not this priviledge except they prevent the Justices but otherwise the Bailie of Regality may only sit with them the reason of which difference is that the Regalities having been only granted in favours of the Religious Houses which were supprest the Regalities became extinguish'd with them and his Majesty having ex gratia only reserved their Offices to the Lords of Erection he thought that they were abundantly gratified by this new Concession without allowing them the power to exclude his own Justices in case of prevention and this was also a favour to the Lieges in not troubling them with two Courts nor were the Lords of Regality much prejudg'd for by this same Act they retain the whole right to the Escheats and Fines even of these who are condemned by the Justices Observ. 11. That the Parliament has been so careful of the Vassals and Feuers of kirk-Kirk-Lands that because the King who is declared Superior by this Act of all these Lands was a more powerful opposite Therefore by a Clause in this Act it is provided that the King shall not quarrel their Rights to these Kirk-lands save by Improbation or by
our Laicks with the consent of our Kings did think they could bestow the Teinds belonging to these Kirks whereof they were Patrons upon Religious Houses whereof I have seen very many Instances in our old Charters one whereof I shall set down for an Example Alexander Dei gratia Rex Scotorum c. Sciant tam posteri quam praesentes nos concessisse c. Deo Ecclesiae sanctae Mariae de Dryburgh Ecclesiam de Lanarch now Lanerk cum terris decimis omnibus rebus juste ad illam pertinentibus Item How the other Church-lands became first to belong to Monastries I shall God-willing clear in an express Treatise concerning Kirk-lands and Teinds THis Act is Explain'd in the former Revocations only here the Fees and Pensions granted to the Officers of the Crown are excepted from this Revocation and the Officers of the Crown are declar'd to be the Thesaurer Secretary the Collector which Office is since joyn'd to the Thesaurer the Justice that is to say the Justice-General Justice-Clerk Advocat Master of Requests Clerk of Register and the Director of the Chancellary the Director of the Rols is but his Deput The Order wherein they are set down makes the Advocat to preceed the Register and though the Justice Clerk be named before the Advocat yet that is only because in all this enumeration these of one Court are still set together and therefore the Justice Justice Clerk and their Deputs are still set together but it would appear that the Justice-General should by this preceed both the Register and Advocat But by Ch. 1. His Revocation which is the 9 Act of his first Parliament the Register and Advocat are rank'd before the Justice and Justice-Clerk posteriora derogant prioribus Nota The Privy-Seal and Thesaurer-Deput are not here marked though they be both Officers of the Crown The Precedency amongst the present Officers of State was by Act of Council February 20. 1623. thus determined Lord Chancellor Lord Thesaurer Lord Privy-Seal Lord Secretary Lord Register Lord Advocat Lord Justice-Clerk Lord Thesaurer-Deput by Act of Parliament 1661. the President of Session was then and not till then ordain'd to preceed the Register Advocat and Thesaurer-Deput and the Register and Advocat then were ordain'd to preceed the Thesaurer-Deput By this Act of Revocation all the Exceptions in any former Acts are likewise Revocked but under this part of the Revocation do not fall the Exceptions in the former Act of Annexation for King James was then major and though he had not been major yet these Exceptions being made by a publick Law it may be said that publick Laws cannot be taken away by a Revocation for the Revocation is but a privat Act of the Kings whereby His Majesty secures Himself against privat Deeds done by Himself in His Minority but not against what He consented to as publick Laws By the last Clause of this Act it is provided that his Majesty shall not be prejudged by suffering any party to possess any Lands or others fallen under the Revocation but that his Majesty may put his hand thereto at any time but any obstacle by the first part of which Clause it is not meant that prescription shall not be valid against the King but only that the possessors shall not have the benefit of a possessory judgement and by the last Clause it appears that our King 's having revock'd they needed not intent Reductions ex capite minoritatis but may brevi manu intromet with what falls under Revocation even as they may do in their annex't property for this same Clause is like to that contain'd in the Annexation Ja. 2. Par. 11. Cap. 41. and which is repeated in all the other Acts of Annexation See Observ. upon that Act but it is more reasonable to think that the King needs no Reduction because he must prove Lesion in case of Reductions ex capite minoritatis but the King needs prove nothing in the case of Annexation yet our King is still in use to pursue Reductions and not summarly to dispossess these who have right WHilst our Parliaments grew very factious in the time of Q. Mary the Popish and Protestant Party contending who should prevail in Parliament the Popish Clergy who were very numerous in Parliament since all the Bishops and Miter'd Abbots did sit there as Church-men each of them who had Lands and Heretage craved two Votes one as Church-men and another as Barons To prevent which for the future this Act was made discharging any of the three Estates to take upon him the Office of all the three Estates or any two of them but the following words are not so clear viz. That every man shall only occupy the place of that self same estate wherein he lives and of which he takes the style which was designed to keep Barons who could not get themselves chosen to represent their Shires from being chosen as Burgesses of Parliament though they were Provosts or Magistrats as they then ordinarily were and by it also a Burgess who is ordinarily so design'd may be debarr'd from being chosen as a Baron of a Shire This Act was long in Desuetude but of late by Acts of Burrows all Burgesses are discharged from electing Gentlemen to represent them in Parliament under the pains specified in these Acts for they found that Gentlemen did not adhere to nor understand the true interest of Burghs and the King found that none desired to be so elected except such as had private designs albeit upon the other hand it is represented that this is the way for Burgesses to have their interest maintain'd by Lawyers or able States-men either of which they may choose and the people of England who are very jealous of their priviledges do choose such by which likewayes their Parliament is so considerable and their Laws are made by so judicious Lawyers But by an Act of the 3 Par. Ch. 2. it is determin'd that only actual Trading Merchants can represent Burghs-Royal in Parliament and that Act was founded upon an express Decision of the Session THe unlaws for absents from Parliaments here set down are 300 pounds for every Earl 200 pounds for every Lord 100 pounds for every Prelat and 100 Merks for every Burgh but there is no penalty appointed for Barons and I think that they are comprehended under the word Lords for the Lords and Barons make but one State of Parliament and Laird is but a corruption of the word Lord of old 10 pounds only was the unlaw or amerciament as is to be seen by the Preface of all the Acts of Parliament which bears ordinarly these words alii vero quasi per contumaciam se absentaverunt quorum nomina patent in rotulis sectarum quorum quisque adjudicabitur in amerciamento decem librarum THis Act appointing every State of Parliament to have three Apparels conform to a pattern to be made was not made that every man might have three several Habits
at eleven of of the Clock in the forenoon yet it does not irritat and annul all Courts holden at any other hour and Courts are ordinarly held at other hours but it may be doubted whether a party cited to a peremptory Diet and staying till twelve of the Clock and taking Instruments thereon could be unlawed in the afternoon for absence but if the Court once sit parties are obliged to attend THough this Act appoints the Expences of parties accus'd and acquitted to be modifi'd by the Justice-Clerk and his Deputs yet they are now only modifiable in full Court by the Justices but it is doubted whether the Justices can modifie Expences where the Defenders are absent since the only Certification against absents is that they shall be Denunc'd Rebels But yet the modifying Expences seems to be the necessary result of all Processes and that inest officio judicis It is also doubted whether the Justices can ex intervallo modifie Expences none having been sought the time that the Letters were brought back and the party declar'd Fugitive and the Justices are in use to do both but the case has not been yet fully Debated BY this Act the Roll of Assizers was to be given by the party accuser or a Notar in his name but now by the third Article of the Regulations for the Justice-court the Assizers are nam'd and the List subscriv'd by the Justices for it was thought too severe that the Kings Advocat or the party accuser should have the naming of the Assizers BY this Act Customers passing Customable Goods for Gratitude are to be Try'd Criminally and their Moveables to be Escheated in case they be convicted Observ. 2. That the Kings Servants are only to be punish'd in case they transgress for Money so that negligence is not punishable except it be gross but yet if Customers should wittingly and willingly pass Goods for Friends or Relations I think it would be punishable by a Fine And since the stealing of Customs is Theft this connivance in strict Law seems a Theft-bute or accession to theft Observ. 2. Though this Act declares this accession punishable in a Justice-air yet the Exchequer and Council do also punish the same by arbitrary punishments THis Act is Explain'd fully crim pract tit Assizes but it is fit to add that His Majesty having written a Letter in anno 1683. desiring the Justices to Examine Witnesses in Treason when the Council requir'd them at any time before insisting in the Process to the end His Majesties Advocat might know how to Libel and to prevent the absolving of Rebels who were truly guilty by the mistake of citing the wrong Witnesses it was alleadg'd that the desire of that Letter was contrary to this Act ordaining all probation to be receiv'd only in presence of the Pannel 2. That this would ingage Witnesses to adhere to the Depositions that might be Elicited from them by the too great zeal of His Majesties Servants or the influence of others To which it was answer'd that as to the first the Depositions to be taken in that previous Tryal were not to be made use of to the Assize which was all that was discharg'd by this Statute As to the second It was not to be imagin'd that the Judges to whom only this was to be intrusted would prejudge any Pannel or be corrupted by any influence and before the Witnesses Depon'd these Depositions should be destroy'd so that the Witnesses could be under no apprehensions upon that account and the people were in a better condition by this Letter than formerly for it was securer to trust previous examinations to the Judges than to the Kings Advocat who did alwayes Examine alone formerly and this would prevent unjust trouble when there were no Witnesses who could Depone against the persons accus'd through error or malice THis Act is also Explain'd in the Title Assizes But it is fit to add that Blair and others being Convict of Error for assoilÈying some Traitors wrongously and their Escheats being gifted they rais'd a Reduction of the Gift as founded upon a Verdict that was null by this Act in so far as the Kings Advocat had spoke with the Assyzers after they were inclos'd which reason was repell'd because the Justices had declar'd that the Advocat had only spoke to the Assyzers in their presence when the Assyzers were desiring to be solv'd of some doubts which was ordinary and allowable December 21. 1682. It may be also doubted whether such Verdicts can be reduceable for though the Act declare that the Assizers may assoilÈe if any speak to them yet if they and the Justices proceed it seems not quarrellable or at least before the Session for I remember that the Justices having declar'd a Bond of Glenkindies forefaulted for not producing some Witnesses against himself the Lords declar'd that the Justice-court being a Supream Court their Acts and Sentences were not quarrellable before the Session Queritur if both these may not be quarrell'd before the Parliament and I think they can not except the Decreets of the Session can THis and the following Acts to the end of this Parliament were made for quieting the Borders and Highlands as to which the same courses are to be taken though now the Borders are Governed by a Commission of both Kingdoms so they are not put to find Caution as they were by these Acts but the Acts here set down are generally observ'd as to the Highlands still except in so far as I shall here observe upon the respective Acts. Observ. 1. Though this Act appoints that the first day of every Moneth shall be appointed for hearing Complaints concerning the Borders and Highlands yet that is in Desuetude as to both Observ. 2. That that part of the Act ordaining a special Register to be made for Borders and Highlands is in observance quoad the Highlands by a late Act of His Majesties Privy Council BY this Act all the Lands-lords contain'd in this Roll are ordain'd to find Caution which Roll is subjoin'd to the Acts of this Parliament but that Roll is now very much alter'd for many others are now ordain'd to find Caution who are not therein specifi'd but are now in the Proclamations of Council March 17. 1681. c. because the Heretors mention'd in the Acts of Parliament are often extinct and the Lands for which they were to be bound are dispon'd to others And whereas by these Acts these Landlords and Chiefs of Clans were ordain'd to produce their Delinquents before the Justice or his Deputs they are now to produce them before the Council or else to pay the Debt which are great arguments to prove that in matters of Government de facto we consider more the Reason than the Letter of the Law Though this and the 103 Act of this Parliament which is coincident with this may seem severe because the innocent is bound for the guilty yet necessity and publick interest has introduc'd
alter the Taxation of any particular Burgh according as the number of Burghs increaseth or according as any particular Burgh grows unable and they divide this sixth part amongst themselves according to the total of 100 pound Scots which is the imaginary Standard or Assis and each Burgh pay accordingly some being valu'd at 6 ss some at 12 ss c. And if any Burgh resign its priviledges they must also resign in favours of the Burghs Royal their common Good after which Resignation and not otherwayes their proportion is divided amongst the rest for it were unjust that they should retain their common Good which was to pay the proportion of publick burden and yet be free from the burden it self BY this Act a Burgh selling any part of their freedom without consent of his Highness and his three Estates loses their whole freedome Observ. 1. That the reason given by this Act is because they as Vassals cannot sell without consent of the King their Superiour and so this seems to be a kind of recognition and it would have appeared reasonable that therefore the King's consent might have seem'd sufficient because he is only Superior but the reason why by this Act the Parliaments consent is declared necessary seems to be because Burghs-Royal bears a part of the Taxation of the Kingdom and so alienating any part of their freedom they seem to lessen the subject-matter out of which the Taxation is payed Obseev 2. It may be doubted whether a posterior Confirmation or Ratification by the Parliament will be a sufficient consent Obsrrv. 3. That Magistrats and Council cannot alienat the priviledges of a Burgh and therefore Alienations made by them would not infer this forfaulture or recognition and therefore all the Inhabitants behoved to be cited by Touck of Drum to such Alienations as they were per sonitum Campanae in the Civil Law tit Cod. de venditione Bon. Civit. BY this Act the Parliament having referred to the King to determine who should represent the Barons which shews what great deference our Predecessors had to their King His Majesty determines that none but such free Barons as are Free-holders holding of the King and residing within the Shire shall represent the Shire but by an Act of Parliamant 1669. It was declared that such as are free Barons might elect or be elected though they were not actual Residenters and that notwithstanding of this Act which is thereby abrogated as to that point and most reasonably for their interest in the Shire ceases not by their not residence and conform to this Act the Convention decided in all Elections June 1678. Nota All Elections are to be subscrived by six Barons at least and though in controverted Elections these who have six will be preferr'd to these who have five and if neither of the Competitions have six a new Election will be order'd because both are unlawful yet if all the Barons were cited and fewer than five were only present a Commission by these five may seem sufficient because the absence of Barons should not prejudge the Shire yet in the Convention 1678. many inclin'd to think that a new Election should be order'd in that case because of this Act and that that Shire ought not to have a Vote who would not send legal Commissions Though by this Act the Missives for calling Parliaments or Conventions which are here called General Councils should be directed to such as were the last Commissioners in place of the Sheriffs yet now they are ordinarly directed to the Sheriffs and sometimes to any the King pleases as in the Parliament 1661. By this Act the Commissioners are to be choos'd at Michaelmass Head Court and failing thereof at any other time the Free-holders meet or when his Majesty requires them and therefore it may be doubted if every Shire are obliged to choose at Michaelmass since that seems to be ordered here and the other dyets are only ordered to be failing of that Head Court But yet many Shires in Scotland use not to choose at Michaelmass but delay Elections till they be required Though by this Act the names of such as are elected are ordained to be notified in Writ to the Director of the Chancery by the Commissioners of the last year yet that is not now in observance since his Majesty uses no more to call Parliaments and Conventions by Precepts out of the Chancery but by general Proclamations It is to be remembred that where there are Elections at Michaelmass the Shire cannot choose of new as was found in the Convention 1678. in the case of the Shire of Perth and ordinarly the Proclamations bear as it did there that the Shire should choose where they had not formerly chosen at Michaelmass and so these Elections were made without warrand but it may be doubted whether such Elections would be invalid if the Proclamations mention'd nothing as to this point it was there alledged that the Shire might make a new Election because the Commissioners then chosen were denuded and were become no Barons to which it was answered that this should have been represented to the Council who would have ordered a new Election but the Shire could not proceed to elect by their own Authority contrary to the Proclamation THough this Act has adjusted the Weights and Measures of the whole Nation and ordain'd the Linlithgow Furlot to be the Standart as to that measure yet it is expresly provided by this Act that if any persons be founded by Infestment Tack or Contract in a different Measure that Measure contain'd in their private Right should stand but should be proportioned to the Linlithgow Measure without prejudice to either Party that is to say they should have right to the old Measure fully but it should be payed according to the new Measures as for instance the Boll of Galloway being six Furlots the Master should have six Furlots payed in to him which exception was most just because of the intrinsâ—ck value of the Lands to which the old Tacks c. were proportion'd but yet the Lords sustain'd in Milns a Moulter though much greater than the ordinary fourth part of a Peek because of constant possession and found that this Act did not extend to Milns since therein different Measures are used according to the proportion of the service nor was this Act ever observ'd in any part of Scotland as to Milns In Conjunct-fees and Life-rents also the Husband being oblig'd to provide the Wife to particular Lands which he obliges himself to make worth so many Chalders of Victual it has been found that he is oblig'd to make them worth so many Chalders according to the measure of the Countrey where the Land lyes because his own Rent is so payed and Ministers in Galloway and other places where great Measures are used will get their Stipends according to these Measures the reason of all which I conceive to be that these measures were made greater at first because of
such as are in Prison there needs no Solemnâ—y and yet for the more security Inditements of Treason are also executed against Prisoners by a Herauld That part of the Act which relates to the Deprivation of Messengers is formerly Explain'd Act 46 Par. 11 Ja. 6. Only it may be observ'd that though the Lyon by this Act is ordain'd to deprive Messengers by advice of the Lords of Session yet he uses to Deprive them by his own Authority and in his own Court and though he publishes the Deprivation at the Mâ—reat Cross yet Executions after that Publication have been sustain'd if the Messenger after that Publication was habite and repute a Messenger November 10. 1676. Stenart contra Hay And though it may be alleadged that this Publication should put the Lieges in mala side as well as the Publication of Interdictions and Inhibitions yet the answer is that there are publick Registers in these cases which may inform these who are to Transact which cannot clear them as to the Deprivation of Messengers THough this Act appoints that the Justice-Clerk or his Deputs shall within six days after Criminal Letters are returned deliver the names of the persons Denunced with a brief Note of the cause of their Denunciation to the Thesaurer as also the Names of such as are Unlawed for absence from Assizes yet this is not now in observance all that is observed now being only that upon a Command from the Thesaury these Lists are given in so that this Act is rather forgot than in Desuetude By the last part of this Act all Commissions of Justiciary for longer space than the particular affair for which it is granted are Discharged and therefore by this Act it would appear that Commissions for Justiciary granted for a year or any definite time and not for a particular Business are null It is likewise appointed by this Clause that such as procure Commissions of Justiciary shall find Caution to Re-produce the Process and to pay that part of the Commodity which by the Commission is destinated for the Kings use which is most rational because this would likewise oblige these who get the Commission to do Justice knowing that the Process may be revis'd when it is lying in publica custodia that is to say in the Books of Adjournal for such Processes ought to be brought back and are usually Registrated there but this is oftimes neglected and it was Debated in the Case Turnbul against the Lord Cranstoun July 1678. That the Tenor of a Decreet of Forfalture pronunced upon a Commission granted to the Earl of Dumbar could not be proven except the Process were produced whereupon it proceeded conform to this Act since all that the Witnesses could prove was that they had seen such a Decreet which is not sufficient for else an unjust Decreet of Forefalture might be pronunced and lost to the end the Tenor thereof might be proven without any possibility of quarrelling the VVarrands whereupon it proceeded It may be doubted what is meant by that part of the Commodity which belongs to the King and I conceive that when such Commissions of Justiciary are granted the whole Escheat belongs to the King and the Commissioners have only Right to their necessary Expence tanquam mandatarii except a particular Quota be condescended on in their Commission though some are of opinion that these Commissioners have right to the same Quota's that Sheriffs have since they are Sheriffs in that part BY this Act the Comptrollers consent is requisit in all Infeftments of Feu-ferm or Confirmations of the Kings proper Lands and though there be no Comptroller now yet the consent of the Commissioners of the Thesaury or Thesaurer if he were supplies the same Hence it is that this Act appoints all Feu-ferms and Confirmations to pass the Comptrollers Register which is likewise Ratifi'd by the 171 Act 13 Par. Ja. 6. It is sit to know that the Thesaurer and Comptroller had different Registers but now there is but one Clerk to all the Exchequer who is called the Thesaurers Clerk and he keeps but one Register each Volumn whereof is divided in two parts the one whereof contains only Gifts that pass the Exchequer and the other all other Signatures of Confirmation c. BEasts found in His Majesties Forrests or Parks may be brevi manu intrometted with Vid. Act 12 Par. 4 Ja. 5. But since Forrests are not now Fenc'd it seems unreasonable that a Beast straying should be Escheated though where Beasts are designedly driven into a Forrest it deserves punishment and this Act seems only to speak of Fenced Forrests for it says Parks or Forrests and it requires advertisement before Beasts even found in these can be Escheat Vid. Argent Tit. des Assize where this matter is fully Treated ALL English Goods may be searched for and if they be not Sealed by the Customers may be Confiscated which Act being put in practice at Edinburgh in anno 1664. occasioned a great Tumult and the Act was alleadged to be in Desuetude The word Selling in this Act is wrong Printed in the last Impression for it should be Sealing Nota This Act Ratifies only an Act of Privy Council which ordained formerly Confiscation and this shews how great the Kings power was of old in the matter of Trade Vide Act 24 Par. 16 Ja. 6. which renews again this Act. VId. last Act 1 Par. Ch. 1. THis Act is Temporary but from it it is observable that as the King may as Superiour call for production of any Vassals Rights and Infeftments in a Reduction or Improbation and even by way of Exhibition which is conform to the Feudal Law and to c. 24. Quon Attach so the King may by Act of Parliament sometime call for production of all the Rights of His Vassals of kirk-Kirk-lands together as in this Act or of all the Rights of any particular place as of the Isles Act 262 P. 15 I. 6. And I think the King might have call'd for them without this Act by Proclamation and albeit it be said c. 25. Quon Attach That the Vassal shall only be oblig'd to shew his Evidents once in his Life to the King this is not now observ'd and the true meaning of it is only design'd against too frequent troubling of the Liedges which as no Calumniousness is never to be presumed in the King or His Officers THis Act appoints Lords of the Session not to be admitted till they be twenty five years of age which agrees with the Law of France Langlei Semâ—str c. 10. and with that of Venice Contar. L. 3. c. 3. Whereas of old the Romans admitted no Senators till thirty five which Augustus retrenched till thirty Sweton c. 32. Vid. 93. Act Par. 6 Ja. 6. But that part of the Act appointing that none shall be admitted Lords but such as have a thousand Merks of Rent or twenty Chalders of Victual is not now strictly observ'd though this was an Act
to the sum specifi'd for an Earl or for a Feuar and it was found that Caution should be found for five hundred merks only according to the condition of the Defender Observ. 2. The quality of a Burges is not here specifi'd and if he hold Land Burgage he is de praxi considered as a Free holder else he is considered as an Un-landed Gentleman and if he holds feu of the Burgh he is considered as a Feuar Observ. 3. The Unlaw of such as compear not at the first Justice air is to be twenty pounds that is to say the Master who presents not his Tennents is to pay twenty pounds over and above all other punishments which is relative to the 6 Act 5 Par. Ja. 6. and is there Explain'd Vid. supra obs on Ja. 1 Par. 11 Act 129. Ja. 3 Par. 1 Act 5. Ja. 4 Par. 3 Act 27. THis Act annexing all annualrents payable to Prelacies to the Crown is abrogated in so far as concerns Bishops by the Act restoring Bishops in anno 1606. NOta That such Customers and Searchers as cheat the Customs are only punishable by Deprivation and escheat of their Moveables and therefore it seems that they are mistaken who think that such may be punished by Death this being an extraordinary Theft both as to the value the preparative and the ordinary punishment not excluded It may be likewise doubted whether such as enter in Compacts with Customers and Searchers to defraud the Customs may be punished by the same punishment because they are art and part REmissions are notwithstanding of this Act past without previous Letters of Slayns or consents from the parties but the party may get an assythment albeit the Remission be past all Remissions are at present Registrated in the Thesaurers Register conform to this Act and in the Secretaries Register also as all Papers are that pass His Majesties Hand THough this includes the Members of the Colledge of Justice in the priviledges granted to the Colledge of Justice with the Senators yet of late by the 8 Act 2 Sess. 2 Par. Ch. 2. Freedom from Impositions is renew'd to the Senators only vid. obs on that Act where it is Debated that though Advocats be not there mention'd yet they are not thereby excluded IT would seem by the Narrative of this Act that all Patronages Gifted after this Act should be discharged and yet the Act discharges only such as are granted without the consent of the Benefic'd persons nor can I see how these Patronages should have been declar'd null for want of the Benefic'd persons consent since the Benefiâ—'d person being once provided the Kings Disponing the Right of Patronage could not prejudge them who were already entered though the Act says That these Rights were granted to the great hazard of the persons provided for they being once entered no posterior Right could prejudge them and Declarators upon prior Rights might have prejudg'd them however but it seems that the reason why the consent of the living Incumbent is requisite is because it is presumable that he would and could inform truly to whom the Patronage belong'd and in all Church Benefices when Dispon'd either the Demission Resignation or consent of Church-men has been thought requisite The Statutory part of this Act was wrong Printed in Skeens Impression for whereas it sayes That all such Rights where the Beneficod person was alive and their consent had and obtained thereto shall be null It should have said Not had and obtained thereto but this is helped in the last Impression VId. Crim. Pract. Tit. Murder But it is fit to add that this Act ordaining such as strick or hurt a man within the Kings Palace to be punished with Death is consonant to praetor cum l. sequen ff de injuriis vide etiam l. 23. § 2. ad leg juliam de adulteriis and to the Law of Nations Fritz de palatiis principum cap. 12. Where he cites as the Law of Scotland cap. 6. Stat. Will. By which he who draws a Knife in the Kings Court is to be struck through the Hand and he that draws Blood is to lose the Hand and he that kills any man is to pay twenty nine Cows to the King and to assyth the party which certainly is meant of a Slaughter committed where the Killer should not die as in accidental Slaughters or Slaughter committed in self-defence for otherwise that Statute had been ridiculous as it is now obsolet and innovated by this Act of Parliament and yet I think that even by this Act of Parliament he who stricks any man in self-defence would not die and if the King be absent some think that Statuts punishing Offenders within the Palace extend not to such cases as Placa l. 1. â—pit delict cap. 8. Though Menochius does extend those Statutes even to that case but to prevent this Debate this Act 173 bears expresly The King's Palace where His Highness makes His Residence for the time and it expresses the Inner-gate to cut off the ordinary Debates de consiniis palatii Though this Crime may be pursu'd Criminally yet the Lords may take a Precognition of it to the end it may be known how far they will remit the same to be punished by the Criminal Judges in so far as concerns the stricking any man in their presence as in Sir John Hay's ease and Sibbalds VId. Crim Pract. Tit. Remissions Vid. supra observ on Act 74 Par. 14 Ja. 2. IT would seem by the Narrative that only such Writs as were not Written by Notars and common Clerks who are notourly known should have been declar'd null for want of the Writers Name and yet the Statutory part declares all Writs to be null without exception which want the Writers Name Observ. 1. This Act is not by the Lords found to annul Seasines and other Acts of Office Written by Common-clerks and Notars though the Writers Name be not design'd in them but only Writs amongst privat parties June 6. 1634. Observ. 2. That though the Writers Name be not condescended on yet the Lords will allow the User of the Writ to condescend who was the Writer and though this Act of Parliament appoints that before the inserting of the Witnesses yet if it be insert in any place it is sufficient and though the Act appoints that it shall condescend upon the VVriters Name particular remaining place and Diocy yet Diocies are now only condescended on in Instruments of Notars but still there must be some Designation beside the Name and Sir-name such as A. B. Servitor to such a man which is sufficient and if there be moe of one Sir-name who where Servitors at that time yet is not the User of the VVrit oblig'd to condescend which of the Servants it was but he who offers to improve the said VVrit must relevantly alleadge that of the Date of that Bond he whose Servant the VVriter is Design'd to be had no Servant at that time who
the Justice-General or the Lords of Privy Council Observ. 3. That wilful hearers are only punishable and the word wilful was added because many go to the Mass out of curiosity or may be present by accident and in all things that concern Religion special Heresie owning and continuing makes the Crime ubi haerent dogmatibus suis and therefore the Defender may purge himself by his Oath as to his intention which cannot be otherwayes proven and a fortiori I think this should hold with these that are present at Conventicles either in Fields or Houses since these are less Crimes for they being men of known good Principles may go to get intelligence or from curiosity but it is safer to intimat this previously to some of the Kings Servants Observ. 4. It is generally observ'd that all these Acts concerning the Mass were of Design ill conceiv'd by Chancellors Setons influence as is reported and that by them this Crime can never be prov'd since it can only be prov'd per socios criminis and these cannot be admitted Witnesses but this is a mistake for there may be many present out of curiosity or the apprehenders may be Witnesses and even such as were present upon design in criminibus occultis may be received since when Law allows any thing it must allow the means by which it can be prov'd and in Heresie less probation is sufficient than in other Crimes Clarus § Heresie num 20. BY this Act the Liferent-escheats of Papists being denunced are declar'd to belong to the King though ordinarly the Liferents fall to the respective Superiours this is again renew'd to the King Act 197 the same Parliament ALL Erections of annexed Property of the Temporalities of Benefices are here declared null except as to the Lands excepted in the Act of Annexation 1587. which it seems must be understood even though Dissolution proceeded for otherwayes there needed not an Act of Parliament since all Dispositions of annexed Property without Dissolution are ipso jure null but thereafter all such Erections are for quieting the minds of His Majesties good Subjects secured and confirm'd at the Restauration of Bishops Act 2 Par. 18 Ja. 6. COmmon Kirks are such as belong in Common to all the Dignities of a Chapter and whereof each of them had a part of the Stipend to which common Kirks the Chapter did not present as Patron but did nominat and collate upon the first suppression of Popery they were to be conferr'd to Ministers as ordinary Benefices and the King or such as had Right from him became Patron as coming in place of the Popish Clergy and by this Act they are ordain'd to be presented by the ordinary Patrons to Ministers who shall serve the Cure and the reason is because there was not then Chapters But by the 2 Act 22 Par. Ja. 6. the saids Chapters are likewise restor'd to whatsoever Teinds c. which pertain'd of old to the Chapters in common THis Act ordaining the Escheats and Liferents of Excommunicated persons to be null if granted to their near relations seems supersâ—uous because the same was formerly Statuted in general by the 145 Act 12 Par. Ja. 6. Nor find I any difference betwixt the two Acts save that the Escheats of other Rebels are by that Act declared null if purchas'd by their Friends or well-willers and this Act declares only the Escheats of Excommunicated persons null if granted to their Bairns or conjunct persons so that it seems the Escheat of an Excommunicated person could not be declared null though Gifted to a confident person since a confident person and a conjunct are different for Blood only makes conjunct persons but trust makes confident persons VId. observ on 83 Act 6 Par. Ja. 4. THough by this Act when Manses and Gleibs are design'd out of Church-Lands only the rest of the Heretors of Kirk-lands are to contribute for the relief of him out of whose Lands the Designation is made yet this was extended in anno 1644. by Act of Parliament for the relief of these out of whose Temporal Lands Designations were made who were therein to be reliev'd by the Heretors of other Temporal Lands I find that Lands mortifi'd to Colledges cease not thereby to be Kirk-lands and therefore were found lyable to relief as other kirk-Kirk-lands by this Act February 12. 1635. But Dury observes there as the reason of the Decision that these Kirk-lands were Feu'd by the Colledge for a small Feu-Duty and therefore it was more just that they should have been lyable to relief as other Kirk-lands and so it may be yet doubted it Kirk lands mortifi'd to Colledges and remaining with them would be lyable to this relief BY this Act no â—enesie'd person under a Prelat may set longer Tacks than for 3 years and a Bishop is allow'd to set Tacks of his Tiends for 19 years and an inferiour Prelat for his Life-time and 5 years thereafter Act 4 Par. 22 Ja. 6. But because some thought that that Act did abrogat this Act as if Prelats needed not the consent of the Patron to such Tacks for nineteen years or five years respective therefore it is expresly declar'd by 15 Act 23 Par. Ja. 6. and even these and all other Tacks shall be null if they be set for longer than three years without consent of the Patron and that the 4 Act Par. 22. did still presuppose the consent of the Patron though it was not there exprest which was most just for since it is the Patrons interest that the Cure be well administrat and that he may get an able man after the Incumbents Death it was just that nothing should have been done without his consent and for that reason Clericus nee resignare nec permutare nec pensione onerare potest invito patrono as is by the Canon Law for by that Law the administration belongs to the Patron nec ab ejus dispositione anferri possunt Can. rationis 16. q. 7. and by that Law he was to be alimented out of the Rents of the Benefice if he fell poor and the person presented was to give his Oath to the Patron for preservation of the Temporals This consent may be adhibite by the Patron either before or after the setting of the Tacks c. 20. de jur patron dubitatur whether a Patron may lawfully authorise a Tack set in his own favours since his accepting is equivalent to a consent and he cannot be author in rem suam Though Tacks set for longer space than three years be null by this Act yet if they be set for longer time they will be sustained if the Tacks-men restrict them to three years allanerly July 18. 1668. Johnstoun contrà Howdoun even as though a Bond wanting Witnesses be null if the same exceed an hundred pounds yet it will be valid if restricted to an hundred pounds and this seems to be received with us as a general principle in the interpretation of all Statutes
both as to time and sums and therefore though by the 36 Act Par. 3 Ja. 4. Tacks of the Rents of Burghs be declar'd null if set for longer space than three years yet by the same reason they should be sustained if restricted to three years THese Acts are Explain'd in the 36 Act 2 Par. Ja. 6. THe design of this Act has been as I conceive to secure such as had intrometted with the Kings annex'd Property summarly by vertue of the 41 Act 11 Par. Ja. 2. Because it is probable the Warrand granted by that Act was thought dubious and somewhat severe in the Analogy of Law vid. observ upon that Act. A Provost is in our Law no Prelat and therefore Tacks sett by him are null without consent of the Patron Hope Tit. Kirks THis Dissolution of the Kings annex'd Property has several specialities in it as that it shall not extend to the setting in Feu-ferm of Castles Forrests Coal-heughs and Offices c. But that these shall remain inseparably annex'd to the Crown and from this it may be observ'd that to this day all Castles Palaces Woods Parks Forrests Pastures Coal-heughs and Offices are to remain inseparably with the Crown and therefore except they be expresly dissolved they fall not under Dissolution This part of the Act is renewed by the 235 Act 15 Par. Ja. 6. This Dissolution is likewise only in favours of kindly Tennents and ancient Possessors and of such as should pay their Composition betwixt and the first of August 1595. THis Act is Explain'd Crim. Pract. Tit. Injuries num 6. BY this Act the Duty granted by the States to the King upon Wines is to be charg'd for by Letters of Horning and I find by Act of Council February 21. 1581. That a Commission is granted to the Kings Master-housholds to break up the Doors of such Merchants as refus'd to let the Kings Servants Taste their Wines to the end they might chuse the best for the Kings own use but this certainly presupposed that the King would pay for the Wines FRom this and many other Acts it is observable that the Parliament may and does by a general Law annul Rights granted to privat persons without calling them and without the hazard of the Act salvo though any one privat mans Right cannot be declar'd null by the Parliament without citing him BY this excellent Act a Horning or Escheat following thereupon cannot be taken away and declar'd null upon acquittances and Discharges which were alleadg'd to be prior to the Horning so that the Escheat could not fall the Debt being pay'd except the producer of the Discharge make Faith that it is of a true Date because such Discharges with ante Dates use to be granted by the Creditor when himself is paid It has been doubted whether Assigneys be bound to swear in this case but since this is factum alienum which they are not oblig'd to know and if this be necessary the Cedent by refusing to swear may destroy the Assigney but yet the Act of Parliament obliges indefinitly the producer of the Discharge to swear and so it seems whether he be Cedent or Assigney he is still bound since his Oath is solemnly requir'd by Act of Parliament Quaeritur whether it can be remitted to Quakers Anabaptists c. who think swearing unlawful THis Act giving many priviledges to the Kings Forrests seems not communicable to all Forrests though it be pretended that all Forrests are the Kings Forrests it having been very ordinary to erect Forrests in privat mens Lands in imitation of the Kings Forrests but because these Erections of Forrests were very prejudicial to Neighbours since they might fine their Neighbours and poind their Beasts therefore the Lords of the Session did in July 1680. give their opinion to the Lords of Exchequer that all such new Erections should be stopt and it appears to me very clearly that all Forrests are not the Kings Forrests by comparing cap. 17. leges forrestarum which Treats of Crimes committed in the Kings Forrest with cap. 21. which Treats of the Delicts committed in the Forrests of Barons and wherein they are Infeft cum libera forresta Observ. 2. That that part of the Act which ordains all that Hunt within six miles to His Majesties Castles VVoods Parks or Palaces to be fin'd in an hundred pounds is in Desuetude and it seems then only to be observ'd when the King Himself Dwells in his Castles and uses actually to Hunt in His VVoods or Forrests this Act bearing To be made for His own Royal Pastime or at least this priviledge should not be continued to Castles or Forrests which the King has Dispon'd to privat Subjects VId. observ on the 13 Act Par. 3 Ch. 2. THough this Act say That the Lords of Session were not oblig'd to sit down till nine a Clock yet it appears clearly that they were oblig'd to sit down at eight by the 49 Act 5 Par. Ja. 5. IT is observable from this excellent Act that where Evidents are not thought necessary to be kept there is no reason to grant Certification against them after many years and therefore the Lords refuse oft times to grant Certification against the Grounds and VVarrands of Appryzings such as Executions though they cannot be produc'd after twenty or thirty years ex paritate rationis though the Act secures only against the not producing of Procuratories and Instruments of Resignation and Precepts of Seasâ—nes and July 1680. Strowan contra Earl of Athol This Act was extended to secure against the production of the Decreet of Compryzing and Decreet whereupon it was led albeit this extension seems dangerous since thereby great Estates may be carryed away by null Compryzings and small Debts which might be satisfi'd by less than a years intromission whereas none or small prejudice can be infer'd from not producing Instruments of Resignations c. It is observable that this priviledge 〈◊〉 â—ot being oblig'd to produce such Papers is only allow'd to such as are and were in Possession for fourty years There is likewise in this Act a presumptio juris founded that these from whom Lands are Appryz'd will industriously abstract their Evidents and therefore the Lords use to be very favourable in granting Certification against Compryzers THe Act salvo jure is still subjoyn'd to Parliaments except here where it is insert in the midst of the Acts of this Parliament BY this Act Lords of the Session Advocats Clerks Writers and their Servants nor no other Member of the Colledge of Justice nor no Judges Clerks c. of inferiour Courts may take Assignations to Pleys which is conform to the Civil Law lib. 2. cod tit 14. ne liceat potentioribus patrocinium litigantibus praestare vel actiones in se transferre Nota The Right taken by them is not declar'd null but themselves only punishable and the reason seems to be because when they are depriv'd from being
Members the advantage they had over others is taken away and which advantage was the reason inductive of this Act nor should the punishment be extended beyond the Cause which is also conform to the opinion of the Civilians vid. vin select Quest. jur cap. 1. But it may be doubted if he who takes such Assignations should not be lyable to resound the damnages which are occasion'd by taking such an Assignation since it is a principle that Damnage is still due where the injury is done to any man against a positive Law though that Law ordain not Damnage and Interest to be repay'd and in this case the taking such Assignations is declar'd unlawful and so an injury is done against a positive Law 2. Without this the party injur'd is not repair'd for though the publick Interest vel vindicta publica be repair'd by the Deprivation yet the interest of the person les'd which is chiefly to be considered is not 3. Deprivation is oft-times no punishment and seldom a Commensurable Punishment for many Members of the Colledge of Justice lose nothing by Deprivation and a Plea may be worth a great sum and their Imployment worth nothing whereas Damnage as it is a natural so it is a most Commensurable Punishment Because this Act Discharges only Members of the Colledge of Justice to buy Plea's Therefore it is still lawful for them to take Assignations to Plea's gratis as a Donation July 30. 1678. for as this falls not under the express prohibition of the Act so it is noâ— presumable that they will be as keen in pursuing such Processes as these for which they have pay'd out Money nor were it just to make the Members of the Colledge of Justice incapable of their Friends and Relations Liberality By this Act Advocats Servants do pretend they are Members of the Colledge of Justice because this Act says their Servants and other Members Though this Act and the Rubrick Discharges only the buying Debateable Lands Teinds or Possessions and speaks nothing of Moveables nor even Heretable Bonds mobilia being ordinarly accounted vilioris naturae yet the Lords do now ob paritatem rationis extend this Act to such as take Assignations to Moveable Debts or any other debateable Rights This Act uses to be so Interpreted as to be extended only to the Members of the respective Courts who take Assignation to Plead before the Court where they serve and thus if an Advocat should take an assignation to a Plea depending before an Inferiour Court it may be urg'd that this Act should not reach them because he has not influence before that Court but if he should go and Plead before that Court as an Advocat may before any Court then the Act would reach him also Item Though this Act does not speak of Procurators before Inferiour Courts yet the word Advocats seems to comprehend them BY this Act Caution is to be found in actions of Ejections for the violent profits and though cautio juratoria be ordinarly sustain'd where persons cannot find other Cautioners yet it is not sustain'd in this case July 17. 1630. Because this Act says that by the proponing of these Defences against Ejections delays are granted therefore the Defender either in Removings or Ejections is not oblig'd to find Caution where the Defence can be instantly verifi'd and although it has been doubted whether this Caution is to be found at the proponing of the Defence or at the first Term assign'd by the Act yet it is clear that the Caution should be found at the first Term assigned by the Act both because this Act says that the Caution shall be found at the first Dyet of â—itis contestation and because there must be some time given to find Caution Nota That in the Brieves of Dissasine which was the same thing of old that Ejection is now Caution was to be found as here by the Defender Quon Attach cap. 53. num 2. For clearing some mistake in the Printing of my Criminals pag. 294. my meaning was that there may be Perjury in cautione juratoria as for instance if a person should Depone that he could not find Caution for the violent Profits and yet it could be prov'd that such a person who was very responsal offer'd to be Caution this I think would infer Perjury BY this Act it is appointed that twenty dayes after the Parliament is proclaim'd and before it meet four of every Estate should meet to receive Articles to be presented to the Parliament but this is now in Desuetude for no State can now meet except the Burrows and yet sometimes the King writs down to call whom He pleases to name to meet and consult previously what Laws are fit to be made in the future Parliament By this Act also it seems that nothing can be presented in plain Parliament by any of the Members of Parliament but that every thing must be first presented in the Articles for eviting confusion and this Act was made use of to that purpose in the Parliament 1674. against a proposal made then for having a Commitee of grivances To which it was then answered that the Articles being but a Committee of Parliament they could not restrict their own Constituents and this Act was rather directive than restrictive THis Act is fully Explain'd crim pract tit Jurisdiction of the Lords num 7. THis Act is explain'd crim pract tit Paricide THis Act is formerly Explain'd 15 Act 4 Par. Ja. 5. where Liferenters are to find Caution By this Act also a power is granted to the Magistrats of Burghs to cause repair Burnt and Waste Lands but yet ordinarly the Magistrats of Burrows use to give in Petitions to the Council craving liberty to force the Heretors of such Burnt Lands to repair their Burnt Lands themselves or else to sell their part and when there are many small Heretors concern'd the Council grants Warrand to the Magistrats to regulat their Venditions though I know it hath been alleadg'd that the Council could not do this because it was an Inversion of Property and that this was only competent to the Parliament and yet the Council have still been in use to do so for the common good of the people nor is any man a loser since he may repair by himself and if he will not he gets his just price This was granted to the Magistrats of Edinburgh in anno 1678. publice enim interest ne civitatis aspectus deformetur ideo constitutum est l. 4. C. de jur reipub aream collapsam posse a fisco distrahi si proprietarius monitus eam reficere non curaverit vid. l. 46. ff de dam. insect I have seen a Decreet in anno 1636. at the Town of Edinburghs instance against several Heretors before the Lords of Session for ordaining the Heretors of these Houses upon which the Trone-Church now stands to denude themselves of their Right in favours of the Town ob utilitatem publicam and to
appoint four for them and four for the Town for valuing the Lands that the price may be pay'd accordingly But to prevent all such Debates it is appointed by the 6 Act 3 Sess. Par. 1 Ch. 2. That the Magistrats of Burghs Royal shall cause cite all such as pretend Right to any such Waste or Ruinous Lands as have not been inhabited for three years or shall be waste and not inhabited for other three years to Repair the saids Lands with Certification to them that if they do not the Magistrats will cause value the same by certain persons to be chosen for that effect and to sell the same which sale shall never thereafter be quarrelled So that it appears that after this Act the Privy Council can grant no Warrand to sell except in the Terms of this Act at the least they cannot grant any such warrand to build or sell upon any privat account or even for beautifying the Town but the Privy Council has since this Act granted a Warrand to force privat Heretors to sell and accept their price for making the Entry to the Parliament-House more large and convenient though it it was alleadg'd that this could not otherwise be done than after three years and in the way prescriv'd by the Act of Parliament which has made no exception of any such case as this and if the Council could do this they might as well have made the Act of Parliament it self for the power granted to Magistrats by Act of Parliament proceeds upon the same motive of publick Good It might likewise have been alleadged that whatever the Council might have done in cases of absolute necessity as if the Parliament-House had wanted an Entry altogether yet they could not invert Property meerly for the conveniency of enlarging the Entry beyond what formerly serv'd in our Predecessors time BY this Act Chiefs of Clans are not made lyable but all Land-lords and Bailies are oblig'd to make their Men-tennents and Servants answerable to Justice and to redress the party skaithed which Obligation is not alternative and therefore the Council in the case of Leith and Grant August 1680. did find that the Land-lord was lyable for the Skaith though he should present his men King JAMES the sixth Parliament 15. BY this Act Bishops are in effect restored to sit in Parliament though the Act is cautiously conceived in favours of Ministers who shall be provided to Bishopricks by the King but yet the Bishops themselves were not restored to their Jurisdictions in spiritualibus till the 2 Act 18 Par. Ja. 6. in anno 1606. This Act gave occasion of calling a General Assembly at Dundee to whom the King proposed several Overtures and it was condescended on that fifteen Ministers should sit in Parliament because so many Re-presented the Church in time of Popery but remitted to a Committee to consider what Revenue each Church-man should have for defraying that expence and who should be elected In this Act likewise it is declar'd That this Restitution shall be without prejudice to the General and Provincial Assemblies and Presbyteries and the Act of Parliament here related to Establishing these is the 114 Act 12 Par Ja. 6. IT is observable that Kirk-yeards have in many things in our Law the same priviledge as Kirks and therefore the killing or wounding of men within Kirks and Kirk-yeards are punishable in the same way 118 Act 12 Par. Ja. 6. and the Raisers of Frays in Kirks and Kirk-yards are punished in the same way 27 Act 11 Par. Ja. 6. and by the 83 Act 6 Par. Ja. 4. Fairs and Mercats are prohibited to be kept within Kirk-yards as well as within the Kirk as also by the 86 Act Quon Attach Courts Civil or Criminal within Kirks or Kirk-yards are forbidden all which is conform to the Canon Law cap. 5. de immunitate ecclesiarum cap. 2 h. t. in sexto decretal By this Act Letters of Horning are to be directed by the Lords of the Session for bigging of Kirk-yard-dykes and for making Stiles and Entries to Kirks and Kirk-yards By which last Clause it would seem also that Heretors would get Letters of Horning against any Heretor who lyes betwixt him and the Kirk to give him a sufficient way to the Kirk through his Land albeit the words bear only That there shall be sufficient Stiles and Entries in the saids Kirk-yard-dykes But when any thing is allowed in Law all is understood to be allowed without which that which is expresly allow'd cannot be useful Yet I find by a Decision June 27. 1623. betwixt Neilsâ—n of Carcassiâ— and the Sheriff of Gallâ—wâ—y that the Lords refus'd to grant a Servitude through a privat Mans Lands even for a way to the Church except the Pursuer could prove immemorial Possession and to reconcile this Difference it seems that every man must have some way to the Church but that he will not have Right to any special way if he seek the same upon the account of nearness except he can prove immemorial Possession Mornatius ad l. penult ss de just jur shews that this Law is observ'd in France Quaeritur to whom a Coal found in a Church-yard or Trees growing there will belong whether to the Heretor the Poor or the Patron or if the Trees will belong to the Minister THis Act declares all Alienations of the annexed Property to be null except where they are set with augmentation of the Rental and therefore to this day there is still some small augmentation made but it has been doubted whether if the Charter bear an augmentation but yet it can be proven by the Exchequer Rolls that the Lands pay'd more formerly than is exprest in the new Charter if in that case the alienation will be null and I conceive it should for though the Feuer may alleadge that he was in bona fide because of the former Charters yet seeing the hazard by this Act of Parliament he ought to have looked to the Exchequer Rolls I find the 233 and the following Acts till 240. of this 15 Parliament of King Ja. 6 were at first Statutes of Session inserted in the Books of Sederunt upon the 14 of March 1594. and here in 1597. they are turn'd in Acts of Parliament without mentioning that they had been Acts of Sederunt formerly as uses to be done when the Parliament Ratifies such Acts it seems that it was rather the Exchequers part than the Sessions to have Regulated the Kings Revenue and Property whereunto all the above cited Acts relate but about this time I find in the Sederunt Book several Acts ingrossed bearing to have been made by the Lords of Secret Council Session and Exchequer met together which is like the several Chambers whereof the Parliaments of France consist who conveen all together when any solemn arrest or Decision is to be pronunced in purpuris as they call it and these Acts being Declarations of what was Law in relation to the Kings
Property It was more proper for the Session to have made such Acts than for the Exchequer who raise the Kings Rents conform to Law but declare not what is so THis Act declares that all alienations of the annext Property are null if they be set otherwise than in Feu-ferm and therefore if any part of the annext Property be Dispon'd to be holden Blench or Ward the alienation is null and I conceive the true reason to be because originally the annext Property was allow'd to be Dispon'd for improving His Majesties Rent which cannot be except where there is a yearly Rent pay'd and albeit sometimes the King and Parliament may dissolve the annext Property in order to a Disposition to be made to a person who has deserv'd well of the King and Estates in which the improving His Majesties Revenue is not design'd yet the general nature of Annexations ought not to be altered upon such accidental accompts THis Act annulling all Rights of the Kings Castles Parks Coal-heughs c. being annext was formerly Statuted 204 Act 14 Par. Ja. 6. THis Act is fully Explain'd in the 41 Act 11 Parliament Ja. 2. THis Act declares that the Assize Herring is a part of the annext Property and so cannot be set in Tack nor Dispon'd Assize Herring is a certain measure of Herring due to the King out of every Boat and the meaning of this Act is that it cannot be set in Tack without a competent Duty for it is set in Tack for a just avail and could not be well otherways Collected but this being a Casuality it is jactus retis and so except the Duty be almost elusory it is hard to quarrel it ex hoc capite they were formerly annext by the 176 Act 13 Par. Ja. 6. THis Act Discharges all Offices of Heretable Chamberlainries and all free Gifts and Discharges of the Kings Property but to cheat this Act the Feuars suffer the bygones to ly unpay'd and then obtain Discharges or else they obtain Tacks of their own Feu-duties for payment of a small and simulat Tack-duty call'd by the Romans as Cassianus BEcause the annext Property could not be Dispon'd without Dissolution therefore some to cheat these excellent Laws obtain'd Dispositions of the Feu-ferms payable to the King for payment of a Feu-duty and therefore these feudisirmae feudisirmarum are here discharg'd and annull'd THese Acts are formerly Explain'd in the Act concerning the thirds of Benefices viz. Ja. 6 Par. 1 Act 10. which are now obsolet Ministers being otherways provided OBserv. That Acts of Parliament are to be observ'd by the Lords of the Session except they be particularly abrogated in express terms vid. Gen. obs THis Act is now useless Ministers being otherways provided ALL Vassals are oblig'd to Exhibit their Evidents to their Superiour not only by Improbations but in Exhibitions though in Law nemo tenetur edere instrumenta contra se and the reason of this Speciality is because the Superiour is dominus directus and so has a true interest in the Land and if the Vassal pretend any interest he is oblig'd docere de titulo to shew his interest and to instruct the Superiour in what is due to him and the King in our Law is presum'd to be Universal Superiour of all Lands and therefore may by a Proclamation or by way of Action or by a Statute as here ordain all Evidents to be produc'd betwixt and such a day but nothing save a Statute or Improbation can declare the Evidents to be null if not produc'd as here and since an Improbation could not be universal this Statute was necessary in these times when His Majesties Revenue was not established nor known FEus are declar'd null for not payment of the Feu-duty either by the Clause irritant contain'd in the Infestments declaring that if two Terms run the Feu shall be null or by this Statute declaring that if the Feu-duty be unpay'd for two years together the Feu shall be null But there is this difference betwixt Irritancies upon this Act and these contained in the Infestment that the Irritancy upon this Act may be purg'd at the Bar but Irritancies upon Clauses in Infestments cannot be purg'd at the Bar because they are incurr'd by paction betwixt parties which the Lords cannot alter for the Superiour having given out the Feu upon that express condition it is not just to alter what was expresly Treated amongst parties December 1. 1664. Laird of Pourie contra Hunter But yet I see no reason for this distinction since this Act appoints expresly that they shall be null in the same manner as if there were a Clause irritant contained in the Infestment nor do I see how the Lords can alter what is so expresly introduced by a clear Statute If offer was made of the Feu-duty but refus'd yet this will not be sustain'd when Reduction is pursu'd ex hoc capite except it be instantly offered of new at the Bar nor will a Term be allowed for purging as was found in the former case in which the Lords also inclin'd to think that compensation will not be sustain'd to take off this irritancy for though Compensation tollit debitum yet there is a reverence due by the Vassal and which is considered more than the value of the Feu-duty it self but yet if the Vassal come and offer humbly to his Superiour before the Term of payment Compensation of as much as is due to him in payment of the Feu-duty Quaeritur if this will not be sufficient it may be doubted whether a minor will be restored against the not payment of his Feu-duty since it is not just that the Superiour should be prejudged by the minority of his Vassal or that the nature of the Feu should be thereby inverted and it may be also doubted whether this irritancy will be incurr'd by him who was hindred vi majori from payment as by being taken and detained Prisoner or carryed to remote Countreys since by the Feudal Law in other cases this does excuse a mora and from all the inconâ—eniencies that follow upon it 4. It may be doubted if this legal irritancy will be incurr'd where the Charter bears another special penalty and Certification in case of the Vassals failÈie in payment of his Feu-duty without substituting the same in the room of the Legal one or expresly renuncing it 5. Quid juris Where there are more Heirs-portioners if the failÈie of one of them will prejudge the rest seing quoad the Superiority he is oblig'd to own none but the eldest Daughter 6. If an offer made of the Feu-duty not by the Vassal but by a third party will stop this caducity seing the Feudal Obligation on the Vassals part is a personal Recognizance and ought to be perform'd personally and on the other hand these irritancies are unfavourable and ought not to be extended 7. Quaeritur If the Vassals offering Feu-duties for years yet to
other Church-men had when they possessed the same is inconsistent with Law and with the Respect and Priviledges belonging to that Sacred Order 11. Whereas it is pretended that since His Majesties Restitution and the said Act of Parliament containing His Promise and Resolution not to raise any more Cess A Taxation hath been pay'd to the Lords of Session in the way of Cess that pretence is of no weight it being considered that the said Taxation is granted not to His Majesty but for an honorary allowance to the Lords of Session and by an Act of the same Parliament wherein His Majesty Declar'd that no more Cess should be rais'd so that the said Act being in the same Parliament and it being an exception from the said Act firmat regulam in non exceptis and shuts the Door as to the future upon that manner of Raising of Impositions 12. Whatever a Parliament may do as to the repelling of former Laws and Customes a Convention of Estates though a meetting most eminent has not that Legislative Power And albeit the Commissioners from Shires has power by their Commission to offer and condescend to a Taxation Yet they have not power to alter and take away the fundamental Laws and Customs of the Kingdom as to the manner of uplifting of Taxations being the Birth-right of the people and which cannot be taken away but by a Law made in Parliament King James the sixth Parliament 16. THe Earl of Gowrie having endeavoured Treasonably to Murder King James the sixth he was Forefaulted in the beginning of this Parliament and after his Death his Brother and Posterity were disabled to succeed and the Name of Ruthâ—â—n aâ—olished as is to be seen in the first three Un-printed Acts of this Parliament and a publick day of Thanksgiving is appointed by this Act which is yet constantly Celebrated upon the 5 of August which was the Day upon which the Murder was to be committed The malice of the Fanaticks in those times is most remarkable who pretend that he was unjustly Forefaulted albeit the Depositions of the Witnesses are yet extant whereby the Traiterous Dâ—sign of having contriv'd and accordingly attempted to kill that excellent King is prov'd by his own relations and many eminent Witnesses of intire Reputation It is also observable that Witnesses of old in Processes before the Parliament were only led before the Articles and repeated in Parliament Item That the Summons was still in Latin sub testimonio magni sigilli they were at the Instance of the Justices and of the Kings Advocat and the Summons in all such cases were still rais'd before the Parliament did sit for our Parliaments sat very short time and so they err who think that such Processes can only be rais'd by a Warrand from the Articles though that be ordinary now And now likewise the Summons is in Scots and under the Signet only THe Earl of Gowrie being Forefaulted his Lands are by this Act annex'd to the Crown and though by the former Acts of Annexation Lordships and Baronies were only in general annexed yet here all the particular Baronies of the Lordship and all Tenements of the Lordship are expressed with all the Pertinents thereto belonging which are here specially enumerated and amongst the Pertinents Patronages are enumerated which shews that Patronages in our Law are comprehended under the word Pertinents which is also clear by the Author of the Book call'd The Parsons Law See more of this in the Notes on Act 29 Par. 11 Ja. 6. The Regalities and Heretable Offices belonging to Gowrie are likewise supprest expresly and the saids Lands erected in a Stewartry for a Regality is properly the Erection of Lands holding of Subjects and a Stewartry is only in Lands which are the Kings Property THis Act is Explain'd in the 37 Act Par. 2 Ja. 6. and that is the Act related to in this Statute BY this Act Invading or pursuing any of His Highness Session Secret Council or Officers it being verifi'd that they were pursu'd or Invaded for doing His Highness Service is Declar'd punishable by Death and upon this Act Mr. James Mitchel was Hang'd for Invading the Bishop of Saint Andrews in which Process it was upon debate found that the Pursuing and Invading for doing His Highness Service was sufficiently proven by presumptions except the Pannel could have condescended upon another reason which provockt him to the attempt arising from private quarrel or grudge and that because it is impossible to imagine that the Design of the Invader can be otherwise prov'n that being an occult and latent Act of the mind By the Civil Law the Invading a Counsellor was Treason for sayes the Emperour sunt pars corporis nostri l. 5. C. ad l. Jul. Maj. It may be questioned from this Act 1 Who are to be call'd the Kings officers 2. If the Invading them when they are out of the Kingdom or Suspended or when they are only nam'd and not yet admitted to their place will infer the punishment of this Act. 3. If these words in the Narrative of this Statute that they are oft quarrelled without any just cause will excuse the Invader if he can show that he was truly wrong'd by that party either in Voting or deciding against him or otherwayes Scipio Gentilis in his Books de conjurationibus adversus principes explains the l. 5. cod ad l. jul Majest and shews how far the Invading of the Kings Counsellours is Treason Sir Francis Bacons observes that an Act of this Tenour was made at the suggestion of the Chancellor in the Reign of Henry 7. because of the danger the Chancellour was then in from the Courtiours drowning the envy of it in a general Law and I am sure that was also our case for our Chancellour was in ill Terms then with our Nobility but their Conspiring was made a Crime whereas with us Invading is necessary THis Act is Explained in the 80 Act Par. 10 Ja. 3. THis Act is formerly Explain'd in the 248 Act Par. 15 Ja. 6. THis Act Discharging Herring to be carried abroad before Michaelmas under the pain of Confiscation is now innovated by the Priviledges granted to the Fishing Company and that very justly for the sooner Herring be carryed abroad they give the better price And though there were not Herring enough taken to serve the Countrey the time of this Act which was the reason of the Prohibition yet now there are sufficiently for serving both the Countrey and Strangers THough the slaying Salmond in forbidden times be Theft by this Act yet none has ever been pursu'd capitally therefore but the same is only punish'd as a penal Statute by an arbitrary punishment The reason why the Rivers of Tweed and Annand are excepted from this Act is because the killing Fish upon them prejudges only the English Fishing but after the Union of the two Kingdoms this exception as to these two Rivers is also taken away by
this Act they should have been Restored but they are not Restored expresly to these but it is alleadged that they have Right to them by the 14 Act Par. 1 Ch. 1. But yet in that Act it is only said that what is Statute anent the Kings being Superior to Vassals of Erections shall be but prejudice to Bishops and their Chapters of their Rights to their Superiorities which is only a Reservation but is no express Restitution of them to these Superiorities THis Act anent the Dilapidation of Bishopricks is formerly Explained in the general nature of Dilapidations in the Act 101 Par. 7 Ja. 6. and Act 11 Par. 10 Ja. 6. and as to what concerns Chapters it shall be Explained in the Act 2 Parliament 22 Ja. 6. WHen a person is Forefaulted he may be in Law Restored two wayes viz. either by way of Justice when the Sentence of Forefaulture is found to be unjust or by way of Grace when the Sentence is just but the person Forefaulted or his posterity is restored which distinction we have from the Civil Law that allows a distinction inter restitutionem per modum justitiae per modum gratiae The difference betwixt these Restitutions by this Act of Parliament is that the person that is restored by way of Grace has not by his Restitution Right to any part of the Forefaulted Lands and others Disponed in favours of third parties but such as are Restored by way of Justice will thereby have Right to their own Lands though Dispon'd to third parties for onerous Causes as was found in the Disposition of the Lands of Mugdock formerly belonging to the Marquess of Montrose and Disponed by the Parliament for onerous Causes to Argile as also these who are restored by way of Justice will have Right even to repeat the sums of Money which formerly belonged to them though assigned to third parties for onerous Causes and albeit those sums were first ordained to be pay'd in to the Thesaurie and precepts only drawn upon the Thesaurie in favours of these third parties as was found in the Earl of Branfords case against the Earl of Callender and others though this Restitution of Money seems much harder than that of Lands since Money is res sungibilis and singular Successors are not oblig'd to know to whom the same belonged A Process having also been intented against the Earl of Argile in the Parliament 1681. for reducing his Heretable Offices as granted since the 44 Act Par. 11 Ja. 2. It was answered that these Heretable Offices were Dispon'd to the Family before that Act and it being Reply'd that the first Right was extinguished by the Forefaulture and the Restitution being only by way of Grace was to take effect only from the date nor was it more sufficient against the King than if the King had granted them originally at that time in which case they would have been quarrallable on that Act and yet de praxi the King restores to Titles of Honour as of the first date By the 2 Act Par. 9. Ja. 6. The King succeeding to Lands by Forefaulture has right to whatever the Forefaulted person was five years in possession of before the Forefaulture because it is presumed that the Forefaulted person will abstract the Evidents and therefore upon the same presumption it is likewise appointed by this Act that the production of Extracts out of the Register shall satisfie the production in Improbations against the King in Forefaulted Lands Whereas other singular Successors Rights will be improven if the Originals be not produced vide notata upon the said Act 2. The excellent Narrative of this Act is Copied out of l. 1. § 1. ff de justitia jure THis Act is Explained in the 11 Act Par. 16 Ja. 6. Which is that Act that is here Rescinded though it be not here cited BY this Act it is appointed that where there is no arrable Ground in the Paroch the Minister shall have sixteen Soums Grass in place of the four Aikers which are allow'd to him for his Gleib and by the 21 Act Par. 1 Sess. 3 Ch. 2. It is ordain'd That the Minister shall have Grass for one Horse and two Kine over and above his Gleib and therefore it was doubted if where the former Gleib did extend to more than would be Grass for two Kine and an Horse above the four Aikers the Ministers might seek that Grass and the Lords found they might albeit it seems that if this were just the Minister might also seek Grass for a Horse and two Kine even where he had sixteen soums Grass by this Act February 16. 1675. Parochioners of Banchry contra their Minister THis Act is but Temporary THis Act appointing Letters of Horning to pass upon Sheriff Stewart and Baillies Decreet without a Decreet conform before the Lords is Explain'd in the 177 Act. Par. 13 Ja. 6. and because these Acts gave only warrand for Raising Letters of Horning upon such Decreets Therefore warrand is likewise given for raising Letters of poynding upon all such Decreets by the 29 Act Par. 1 Ch. 2. which shews that express Acts are us'd even where there is paritas rationis and they are useful ob majorem evidentiam BY this Act all persons are Discharg'd from receiving any Colziars Salters or Coal-bearers without sufficient Testimonials from their Masters but though this Act appoints the CoalÈiars Coal-bearers and Salters to be punished as Thieves yet none ever Died upon this Act but the ordinary Action both against them and their Resetters is before the Privy Council and the Act only says They shall be repute as Thieves and punished in their bodies This Act is extended to Drawers of Water in Coal-heughs and the Fees of CoalÈiars are Discharged to exceed twenty Merks by the 56 Act 1 Sess. Par. 1 Ch. 2. though this Act only Discharges all persons within the Kingdom to hire other mens CoalÈiars c. yet it was justly thought that the prohibition of it extended to all such as had Right to Coal or Salt here by Tack or otherwise though themselves dwell not within the Kingdom and it seems that the Council might hinder Forraigners to carry away our CoalÈiars and Salters though they cannot punish them for so doing By this Act likewise a Power and Commission is given to all Masters and Owners of Coal-heughs and Panns to apprehend all Vagabonds and sturdie Beggars and put them to Labour and it has been resolved that Tacks-men of Coal-heughs and Pans has the same priviledge though they cannot properly be call'd Masters and Owners except the words be allow'd to be extended to Temporary Rights but since this priviledge is chiefly real and not personal in rem scriptum therefore it seemâ— reasonable that whoever have the power of the Coal-heughs should likewise have this priviledge which is granted upon their account The Council thought argumento hujus legis that Masters of one Manufactory could not have
a proportion of such fines though they were not required by their Magistrates because it is their duty to concur when they see such Tumults and Magistrats are oftimes unable to require concurrence THe Lands of Huntingtoun and Strabrand are dissolved to be set in Blench Farm in favours of the Earl of Montrose and it was necessary that there should be a particular Warrand for setting the Lands in Blench-farms because by the 234 Act Par. 15. Ja. 6. The annext property can only be dissolved for setting Lands in Feu-farm vid. observ on that Act. It is likewise observable by this Act that because this Dissolution was to be made in favours of the Earl of Montrose then Commissioner It is mentioned that there is a particular Warrand for dissolving the same King James the sixth Parliament 19. THis Act against Sayers and wilful Hearers of Mass is Explain'd crim pract tit Heresie Nota By this Act the Resetters of such are fineable as Non-communicants and the Act by which these are fined is not here cited but it is the 17 Act Par. 16 Ja. 6. THis Act against the users of false Weights and Measures whose whole Goods are to be Confiscated is Explain'd crim pract tit Falshood THis Act is Explain'd crim pract tit Theft THis Act empowers the Bishop of Saint-andrews to choose seven within his Diocie to be his constant Chapter which was formerly resolved upon by the 3 Act Par. 18 Ja. 6. Though the power of choosing them was not given to that Bishop expresly But thereafter by the 2 Act Par. 22 Ja. 6. The Benefices whose Incumbents are to make up that Chapter are particularly condescended on in that Act. King JAMES sixth Parliament 20. SUch as sent Pedagogues abroad with their Children without a Testificat from the Bishop of the Diocie where the Pedagogue lately made his Residence are fineable by this Act and though this Act is thought only to strick against Children of Popish Parents Yet it is general and stricks against all His Majesties Subjects of what Religion or Opinion soever and though they use to call these Governours and not Pedagogues yet that will not defend against this Act for Pedagogue was the only Term then in use THis Act stricks only against the Children of Popish Parents who are hereby ordain'd to find Caution to the Lords of Privy Council that they shall not intertain their Children abroad when they know them to be Popishly inclined and by vertue of this Act the Lord Semple and others were oblig'd in anno 1667. to recal their Children out of Doway and this Act was renewed by Proclamation of Council January 1679. BY this Act it is Ordain'd that such as are Excommunicated for not professing the true Religion shall neither directly nor indirectly possess their Estates and by vertue of this Act it was found upon the 16 of June 1629. That those Excommunicated persons are not so much as bona fide possessores but that by vertue of this Act they are oblig'd to refound all their own bygone Rents possessed by them before Citation or Sentence they only getting Defalcation of Seed Tâ—ends and Servants Fees Which are ordinarly defalked in the Computation of Multures and all other intromissions IN time of Popery every Bishop had his own Official or Commissar but in the year 1563. Queen Mary by a Signature Superscrived with her own Hand did institute this Court at Edinburgh appointing four Commissars to sit there and to judge in Divorces and to Reduce the Decreets of Inferiour Commissars which is Ratified in Parliament 1567. by which also they are appointed to Judge in all Actions concerning Benefices granted by the Queen They were at first nominated by the Queen and were called Judices Regâ—i but after Her Demission they were nominated by the Lords of Session as is clear by the Books of Sederunt and even in this Act the present Commissars were to continue they getting Testimonials of their sufficiency from the Lords of the Session and severals of them were at once Lords of the Session and Commissars as appears by the Books of Sederunt upon the Restitution of Bishops the Commissars who then were did submit and this Act seems to have proceeded upon a Submission betwixt the Bishops and Commissars the 23 of June the day before the Parliament sat down whereupon Decreet was pronounced the 29 of June containing the foresaid Reservation of the Commissars Offices and in the case of the new Provisions the Commissars are the only submitters and yet there are Annuities Decerned to the Clerk to the former of Testaments Quot-masters and others and there is a form prescrived anent the procedure in Divorcements betwixt the parties in other Commissariots who are not worth a certain sum which hath no foundation in the Act nor seems to be seconded by practice the Decreet is Registrated January 19. 1610. Relative to the Decreet wherein the Arch-bishops and Bishops of Galloway and Orknay are subscrivers for themselves and taking burden for the remnant Bishops and their Successors there is a Contract the 15 of November 1609. and March 5. 1610. entered into amongst the Bishops for the relief of the Arch-bishops or either of them for payment of their respective proportions to the Arch-bishop who shall happen to be distressed for the Sallary the Arch-bishops by the Contract being bound conjunctly and severally to the Commissars the whole proportion of Relief due by Glasgow to Saint-andrews is the double of the Contribution to the Lords and Sallary due to the two youngest Commissars and the Relief due by Saint-Andrews to Glasgow is the double of his Contribution and the Sallary due by him to the two eldest Commissars By which it appears that before this Decreet the Commissars had Sallaries the obligement in favours of the Members of Court of the Commissariot of Edinburgh whereby the Bishops are obliged to compel the Members of their Court to pay certain Sums to the Members of the Court of Edinburgh during their lifetime is not renewed in the Contract In this Contract the obligements upon the part of the Commissars are general relative to their Duty to their Superiours and fidelity in administration of Justice according to the Practique and Injunctions the Observation of the Decreet Arbitral and Articles by which it is ruled subscriv'd by Arbiters and Overs-men which is not extant there is no penalty adjected neither are the Commissars subscriving The Commissars and many of the Bishops being dead who were alive the time of the Decreet Arbitral the Bishops especially the succeeding Bishops refused to pay the Sallary to the succeeding Commissars whereupon they pursued John then Arch-bishop of Saint Andrews who the time of the Decreet and Contract was Arch-bishop of Glasgow and James Arch-bishop of Glasgow who then was Bishop of Orknay as the only two alive who were burden-takers by the Submission for the rest and Decreet followed February 12. 1630. against the Arch-bishop of
be no Burgh Royal July 10. 1623. The reason of which Exception was founded upon the exactness of Town Clerks and the constant Custom thereof Booking how soon the Seasin is granted and so far are Seasins within Burgh exeem'd from such Solemnities that the Lords sustain'd a Seasin within Town being subscribed by the Town Clerk though there was no Vestige of it in the Towns Register nor the Notars Protocal and was Latent for many years June 30. 1668. and thus singular Successors were not sufficiently secur'd by this Statute within Burghs for though Town Clerks use to Registrat yet there being no necessity upon them to Registrat and the Seasin not being annulled for not Registration it follows clearly that there is no security and therefore by the 11 Act Par. 3 Ch. 2. This is alter'd and the necessity of Registration is thereby extended to Seasins within Burgh and to all other Writs which by this Act must be Registrated THe Form us'd in loosing Arrestments of old was by the Messengers giving a Testificat under his Hand that the Arrestment laid on by him was loos'd this being too great a Trust for a Messenger and they receiving oftimes irresponsal Cautioners By this Act it is ordain'd that Arrestments shall be loos'd only by Letters on Bills past by the Lords which is now observ'd and Caution is found to a particular Servant in the Bill-Chamber to whom the Trying that the Caution is sufficient is referr'd and the ordinary way to hinder an unsufficient Cautioner is by getting a Warrand in praesentia from the Lords of Session for that Effect after presenting whereof to that Servant if insufficient Caution be receiv'd The Lords will give Warrand to Arrest de novo but if the Caution be once found and the Letters exped The Lords will not allow upon a Bill Arrestment to be made de novo nor recal their Letters though the Caution be insufficient the Clerk of the Bills being answerable by his Office for the sufficiency of the Caution THis Act grants power to all who are Infeft in â—oâ—â—estâ—ies to Judge such as shoot and kill Vennison and Wild-fowl therein and that by an Inquest which seems to exclude all other wayes of Tryal for inclusio unius est exclusio aâ—â—â—rius and this Inquest was ordain'd to prevent the partiality and passion of the Heretor THis Act punishing Drunkards by sining is not well enough observ'd though it be renew'd Act 19 Par. 1 Ch. 2. It seems by this Act that the Kirk is regulariter founded in the judgeing and sining of Drunkards though it may be alleadg'd that this were to secularize too much Kirk Sessions which is properly an Ecclesiastick Judicature and by the Commission granted to the Justices of Peace The Justices seem to be made the only Judges as appears not only by the Instructions given to them but by the said 19 Act Sess. 1 Par. 1 Ch. 2. Though it be alleadg'd that Kirk-sessions have likewise a cumulative Jurisdiction for punishment of all Scandals for which the 22 Act 3 Sess. Par. 2 Ch 2. is alleadg'd and the constant practice of the whole Nation and it was found by the Council May 1681. The Kings Advocat contra the Justices of Peace of Dumfermling that the Kirk-sessions might uplift such fines as were voluntarly pay'd to them for such Scandals without being countable to the Justices of Peace for them THe difference betwixt a Caulp and HereÈeld is that a Caulp is is the best aught or Beast that a man has which is due to the Chief or Master after his Death for protecting his Bairns given by express paction whereas a HereÈeld is the best Beast due to the Master only by Law after his Tennents Death Caulps are here Discharg'd but HereÈelds were allow'd Quon Attach cap. 23. But it would seem that HereÈelds and all taking of the best Beast is discharg'd by this Act albeit indeed they are not THis Act is Explain'd in the 45 Act Par. 11 Ja. 6. To which is to be added that by this Act the Relicts and Bairns of Notars being oblig'd to bring in their Protocals to the Clerk-register within fifteen dayes after any Notars decease the Register uses to appoint a Deput call'd now the Clerk of the Notars who draws their Bill and receives Caution from them and is by his admission oblig'd to do Diligence to mark the Books of Notars and to receive Band for their returning their Books and therefore Sir William Primrose for not doing Diligence was Depos'd upon a Bill to the Lords February 19 1680. Though he alleadg'd that the Wives and Bairns only of the Notars were oblig'd to bring in their Protocals but not he and he was content for the future to follow what Instructions should be given him King IAMES the sixth Parl. 23 THere being a General-Assembly held at Pearth in August 1618. by Hadingtoun Southesk and Scoon as His Majesties Commissioners there were five Articles therein past in order to uniformity with England viz. Kneeling at the Sacrament Privat Communion Privat Baptism Confirmation of Children and the observing some Festival Dayes for conformity with the Church of England as far as was possible Which Articles are here Ratifi'd in Parliament nor is there any standing Law made since to abrogat them albeit for Peaces sake they have not been much observ'd VId. observ on Act 3 Par. 22 Ja. 6. Supra IN this Act it is warranted that such as Compris'd great Estates for small sums did notwithstanding possess the whole Rents for payment of their small Annualrent and therefore to Correct this it is ordain'd by this Act that the Comprizer shall impute in payment of his principal sum the superplus of the Rents of the Lands intrometted with by him and the true reason of the former Custom was because by the 37 Act Par. 5. Ja. 3. The Lands Comprized were to be adjusted by the Sheriff with the sums Comprized for and so the Rent was at first but answerable to the Annualrent though thereafter all being Comprised the Compriser appropriated all the Rents without imputing as said is Observ. 2. That this Act makes only the Compriser lyable for his actual intromission and it has been found that the Compriser is not bound to intromet But yet this is so severe to the poor Debitor and the other Comprisers all whom the first Compriser may debar and so suffer the Tennents to Bankrupt and the Lands to become waste that therefore if a Compriser once intromet he is bound to continue his intromission and where there are Tacks standing he is bound to do Diligence February 9. 1639. or where there are moe Comprisers the Lords may force the first Compriser to do Diligence or if he do not betwixt and such a time yearly they may allow access for the second to enter to the Possession February 11. 1636. July 1662. Or if the first Compriser exclude any Diligence that the second is using he will eo ipso
be lyable thereafter to do exact Diligence Observ. 3. By this Act it is Declar'd that upon payment of the principal Sum and Annualrent and the Expence bestow'd by the Compriser in passing and obtaining Infestment together with the Annualrent of the said sums and the necessary Expences bestow'd in leading the Comprising that then the Comprising shall expire ipso facto that is to say by way of exception without Declarator though ordinarly an order of Redemption be us'd and not only does payment or intromission with the Mails extinguish the Comprising and prove against singular Successors but even any acknowledgement of payment by the Leader of the Comprising will extinguish the Comprising against those singular Successors July 23 1662. Observ. 4. That the Comprizer is to get allowance of a years Duty as due to the Superiour by this Act and though he get himself entered for less by the Superiour than the years Duty yet he will get allowance of the full years Duty that was due to the Superiour whose gratuity will be of no advantage to the Debitor July 2. 1625. Observ. 5. That by this Act what is pay'd to the Superiour bears Annualrent as do the necessary Expences but it may be doubted if Annualrent be due for Sheriff-fees Observ. 6. That Comprisings are not to run against Minors but that it is lawful for the Minor at any time within the age of twenty five years to Redeem which priviledge was found not only to be due to Minors when the Comprising is led against themselves but even when a Minor has right to the legal Reversion he being himself a second Compriser for even in that case a Minor having led a Comprising may be prejudged as well as the Minor against whom the Comprising is led there being the same parity of reason in both and though this be not clear by the first words of the Exception Yet it is clear by these words And that notwithstanding of the preceeding Laws and Practiques of this Kingdom by the which the Legal Reversion of the Comprised Lands expired within seven years after the leading of the Comprising from the which His Majestie and Estates hath by this present Act and Statute excepted Minors in all time coming declaring the same no wayes to run against them Observ. 7. That because this Act appointed only the superplus of the Mails and Duties which exceeded the annualrent to be imputed in the payment of the principal sum during the seven years of the Legal but did not expresly extend this to the case of Minority Therefore it was found that Minors not Redeeming within the seven years the Compriser had from the expiring of the seven years the whole Rent of the Land for payment of his Annualrent without imputing the superplus in payment of the principal sum because the Act Corrected only that Custom quoad the Legal leges correctiâ—â—â— non extendi debent ultra verba directa expressa February 22 1639. and therefore by the 10 Act Par. 1 Sess. 3 Ch. 2. This Decision was Corrected and it was by that Act ordain'd that Comprisers should impute the superplus of the Rent beyond the Annualrent for payment of the Principal sum not only during the Legal but during the whole course of the Minority THis Act extends all the priviledges granted to Minors in Comprisings to Minors against whom Adjudications are led And from this it would seem to follow argumento hujus legis that whatsoever is competent in Adjudications is not Competent in Comprisings for else this Act had been needless and the Lords would not extend the priviledges of the one to the other in many other cases and so would not allow the Superiour to get a years Duty because the immediat preceeding Act did allow Comprisd Lands to be Redeemable upon the payment of the sums Compris'd for and a years Rent for their Entry But in this Act of Adjudication there is no mention of a years Duty and which therefore was thought to be of purpose omited and so needed a new Law notwithstanding of the parity of Reason whereupon a new Law was made viz. the Act 18 Par. 2 Ch. 2. Whereby not only the Superiour is ordain'd to have a years Duty but it s expresly Declar'd That in all Cases relating to Superiours Adjudications shall be in the same condition with Comprisings and consequentially to this last Act it was found that the Superiour might at his option either Enter the Adjudger or pay the Sums for which the Adjudication was led since the Act of Par. Ja. 3 Par. 5 and Act 37. Appoints this in Comprisings June 10. 1671. Scot of Thirlestoun contra the Lord Drumlanrig As also upon the same Reason the Lords found that the Superiour was bound to receive the Adjudger though he could not produce his Authors Rights Debitors abstracting their Writs because Comprisers are not bound to produce February 9. 1667. Ramsay contra Ker. Nota That Comprisers intrometting are lyable for their intromissions with the Victual according to the Sheriffs Fiars and not according to the Commissars not only because the Commissars Fiars are made only to Regulat Prices betwixt Tutors and Pupils and in other Consistorial Cases but because this Act sayes as the samine were commonly Sold between Yuil and Candlmas in the Sheriffdom where the Lands ly THough regularly Infeftments upon Comprisings and Adjudications ought to be perfected by appending the Great-Seal yet an Extract of the Debitors Infeftment under the Privy-seal is here Declar'd equivalent in so far as concerns the Debitors Heirs because it is presumable that the Debitor has destroy'd or Abstracted the Writs of the Lands Compris'd from him Quaritur Whether this Act should be extended to Adjudications since they are not mention'd here in the very next Act to the Act anent Adjudications THis Act allowing Bishops to Feu out their Ward-Lands is but Temporary for three years and so is expir'd because not renew'd and consequently Bishops have not leave to Feu out their Ward-lands now AS Ministers Gleibs were to be Tiend-free so ought the Soums Grass that is allow'd to Ministers in place of Gleibs be Tiend-free The Reason given by this Act is because the same is dedicated and appointed ad pios usus which is no adequat and sufficient Reason since Lands mortifi'd to Hospitals are destinat ad pios usus and yet are not Tiend-free that being a special priviledge only granted by the Pope to the Coelestines or Cistertians and some few other Orders but ordinarly Hospitals and others are free from Taxations as Act 1 and Act 15 Par. 1 Ch. 1. BY the 2 Act Par. 22 Ja. 6. Deans and Chapters were Restored but by this Act all the Offices and Dignities of the Chapter are likewise Restor'd and it is declar'd That all Deeds done since the date of that Act or to be done thereafter whereby any Member of a Cathedral Kirk being an Office or Dignitie hath or shall be supprest or any
seq THis Act is fully Explain'd in Act 200. Parl. 14. Ja. 6. THis Act is fully Explain'd in the 114 Act Par. 11 Ja. 6. THis Act Discharging that a Peck should be taken to the Boll though with consent of Parties was made to prevent extortion upon the same Ground that Usury is Discharg'd but yet it not having been observ'd for a long time the Council stopt a Gift that was granted thereof as to bygones till His Majesty should be acquainted THis Act concerning Dispositions made by Bankrupts is fully Explained by me in a Treatise a-part already Printed upon this single Act. THis Act Regulating the Prices of all Writs and Seals is for the most part either in Desuetude or is innovated by the 16 Act Sess. 3 Par. 2 Ch. 2. Wherein new Regulations are set down and from this Act it is observable that the Secret Council may make prices in all such Cases for this Act Ratifies only their Act and though the Act Ratifi'd bear this Act to have been made by the Secret Council and Session yet the Act of Parliament which does Ratifie that Act Ratifies it only as an Act of Privy Council and so insinuats that the Privy Council hath power to Regulate both the price of Session and Exchequer These Regulations of Prices in our Law are like to the notitiâ—â— mentioned Cod. de ann cap. lib. 1. Tit. 52. quae singulis offiâ—iis delegabantur quibus continebatur quantum singuli pro dignitate â—fficio pro libellis mandatis codicillis accipiendis vel insinuandis pendere quantum pro annona capite accipere deberent FOr understanding this Act it is fit to know that Annualrents are only due by our Law either by Statute or Paction so that regularly they are not due otherwise They are due by Statute either by the Act of Sederunt 1613. appointing That where Cautioners are distressed and forced to pay they shall have Annualrent from the Term that they pay though the Bond wherein they are Cautioners bear none yet this is in effect ex pacto because it arises from the Clause of Relief this being a Damnage incur'd by them or by this Act of Parliament by which Annualrents are due after the Party is Denunc'd though the Bond whereupon he is Denunc'd bear no Annualrent upon the same ground that in the Civil Law usurae debentur ex mora in bonae fidei contractibus l. 32. § 2. ss de usuris So that as by the Civil Law they were due ex pacto vel ex mora they are due only with us ex pacto vel ex lege which is the same thing almost since lex in hoc casu apud nos sundatur in mora for though there may be mora sine usuris yet by this Act there are never usurae sine mora But this Denunciation must be at the Head Burgh of the Shire where the Debitor lives Denunciations at the Mercat Cross of Edinburgh being a Warrand only for Caption but not inferring Annualrent which may seem strange since Annualrents are by this Act infer'd after Denunciation because of the Debitors negligence but the reason of the Decision is that the Lords thought the Debitors did not know exactly when they were Denunc'd at Edinburgh but it has been found that the Debitor is lyable in Annualrent after he is Denunced at the Head Burgh of the Shire though the Horning be not Registrated since the Act only appointed Denunciation and yet there can be no Caption till the Horning and Executions be Registrated and thus it is clear that Caption and Payment of Annualrents are very different effects of a Horning since sometimes Caption will follow where Annualrent cannot and sometimes Annualrent will follow where Caption cannot February 11. 1673. Smith contra Wauch Annualrents are sometimes due without either express Law or Paction because of the tacite and presumable consent of the Party as if a Party pay Annualrent for one Term or if he promise to pay bygone Annualrents though he promise not for the future yet January 13. 1669. Hume contra Seaton The Lords found that he ought to pay constantly Annualrent for the future though the obligation did bear no Annualrent or from the Principles of Natural Equity as in the price of Lands which pay Annualrent though none be pactioned because the Buyer has the Rents of the Lands Or in Tochers because they are given ad sustinenda onera matrimonii and the Husband intertains the Wife Or where the sum is ordain'd to bear Annualrent after her Marriage to whom it is left quo casu before Marriage the Lords found that Annualrent was due since matrimonia debent esse libera but yet regulariter annualrent is not due in cases alimentary And a Father providing his Daughter to a Sum for her Portion without mentioning any thing of annualrent the Lords would not decern annualrent though annualrent was only said to be omitted there through the ignorance of the Notar but because of the presum'd will of the Father they modifi'd the aliment equal to the annualrent But so unfavourable are usurae usurarum call'd usurae judaicae by the Doctors of the Civil Law that an obligation to pay annualrent for annualrent if it were not pay'd at the Term was not sustain'd though it was alleadg'd that here pactum mora were joyn'd with Equity the Woman to whom they were due being a poor Widow who behov'd to borrow Money to live upon if her annualrent were not pay'd and to pay annualrent for that Money which she so borrow'd January 26. 1669. Lady Braid contra the Earl of Kinghorn It is fit to know that the Statute 2. Robert 3. appointing annualrents not to run against Minors is now in Desuetude though it would seem reasonable that their mora should not prejudge them but Minors Money do still bear annualrent by our Law The King uses to pay Annualrents for the ballance of his accounts de facto but is not oblig'd thereto by Law THis Act is Explain'd Crim. pract tit Falshood NOta That Usury is excepted from this Commission to uplift Money due by penal Statutes c. Ergo Acts against Usury seem penal Statutes It is observable that though by this Act it be Declar'd That Commissions for penal Statutes be not put to Execution till they be authoriz'd by the Lords of Secret Council yet this is too much in Desuetude but the Lords of Secret Council do use to Discharge them till they acquaint the King THe Laws of the twelve Tables contain'd several Sumptuary Laws though there was then little Luxury and particularly at Burials and Saint Chrisostom condemns feign'd Mourners whom we call Saulies because they pray for the Souls of the Dead Vid. 14 Act Par. 3 Ch. 2. THis Act appointing Houses in Edinburgh to be Sklated and Letters of Horning to be direct to that effect shews that the Parliament may Dispose upon privat Estates ob bonum
publicum vid. Act 6 Par. 1 Sess. 3 Ch. 2. It may be argu'd from this Act That if the Town of Edinburgh could have made such Acts by their own authority this Act had been needless THis Act is Explain'd in the 106 Act Par. 7 Ja. 5. THis Act is Explain'd crim pract tit Usury THis Act discharges any man to Hunt or Hauk at any time who hath not a Plough of Land in Heretage under the pain of an hundred pounds but it is now in Desuetude K. CHARLES I. Parliament I. KING CHARLES the First having come to Scotland to be Crown'd in anno 1633. The Parliament does by this Act grant Him not only a Subsidie upon the Land-rent bu◠likewise the sixteen penny of all Annualrents the Annualrent being then at ten in the hundred but because the Annualrent was thereafter brought down from ten to six Therefore by the 49 Act Par 1 Ch. 2. It is Declar'd that the said six of the hundred shall be free of all Retention and other publick Burdens whatsoever There is no Immunity allow'd by this Act to any from this Taxation save the ordinary Lords of the Session and Mortifications to Universities Colledges and Hospitals and this was the first time the Lords were separated from the Advocats and other Members of the Colledge of Justice and yet by the 23 Act of this Parliament all the Immunities and Priviledges that ever were granted to the Colledge of Justice are Ratifi'd and though it may seem that this Act being posterior derogats from the former yet specialia semper derogant a generalibus By this Act likewise the Lords of Erection are to be Taxed in the same way that they were before the Erection THis Act is but a continuation of the first Act and shews the way of uplifting the Taxation thereby given THe Parliament having granted by the 8 Act Par 20 Ja. 6. Power to the King to appoint Apparel for Judges and others because that Act was but Temporary they by this Act continue the same to Our Soveraign Lord and His Successors who now is which certainly is wrong Printed and Reads ill for the words should run Our Soveraign Lord that now is and His Successors Observ. 1. That Acts referring any thing to the Kings Majesty and not mentioning His Successors are but Temporary else this Act had been needless Obs. 2. That these erre who think the Parliament cannot delegat their Power for in the former Act and this it is clear that the Parliament did delegat this Power and it is Declar'd that the Kings Letter Regulating this affair shall be equivalent to an Act of Parliament and this same Parliament 1633. did grant a Commission to Revise the Laws and did Declare that what they did should have the force of Laws without Reporting to the Parliament and the Lords of Articles anno 1681. Did grant a Commission with a Parliamentary Power to some to Revise the Earl of Argiles Rights and the Commission of Teinds is of the same Nature THere having been great Debates in anno 1633. concerning the securing the Protestant Religion it was at last agreed that the old Acts made by King James were in themselves sufficient and the best that could be fallen on as being made when there were greatest fears of Popery and by the help of which the Protestant Religion grew to the consistency it is now at and therefore the Parliament acquiesced in this short Act Ratifying in general the former Acts made for securing the Religion Vid. Act 1 Par. 3 Ch. 2. THe former Parliaments which had determined Ministers Stipends forgot to provide School-masters and therefore the Privy Council did provide them by an Act of Council and though it may seem strange that the Privy Council could impose a burden though for a just Cause yet that their Act is here approv'd and the Secret Council are made Judges to all Processes concerning School-masters dues though now the Lords of the Session are the only Judges nor are there any such Processes intented before the Privy Council Since by this Act the Planting of Schools is refer'd to the Bishop with the consent of the Heretors and most part of the Paroch it would appear that they and not the Kirk-session where they live should have the placing of them and albeit it be alleadg'd that the School-master of the Paroch is by the 17 Act Par. 3 Sess. 5 Ch. 〈◊〉 To be Clerk to the Kirk-session and therefore they should have the chief interest Yet this consequence is not sufficient and the Act whereupon it is founded is likewise abrogated This is conform to the Reform'd Church of Saxonie wherein cura scolarum pastoribus ac superintendenti commissa est Carpz lib. 1. tit def 77. BY this Act all Mortifications by Gift Legacy or otherwise are declar'd not to be alterable to any other use than the special use to which they were Destinated by the Mortifier but yet if that use become unlawful ex post facto so that the persons in whose favours they were Mortifi'd be dissabled to Possess I think they should fall to the King as Caduciary if the Property has been once Transfer'd and the person upon whom it was Transfer'd became thereafter uncapable for quae sunt nullius sunt Domini Regis and thus the Mortifications made to Monastries fell not back to the first Proprietars or their Heirs but to the King But if the Property was never Transfer'd but before the first acquisition the person to whom the same was left was incapable to receive the Right Mortifi'd as if a Man should leave a Legacy to his Brother who were a Capushian whose Monastry and not himself are only capable of Legacies it seems that if the Mortifier knew that his Brother was uncapable and that it would fall to the Monastry that in that case also the Mortification should belong to the King and should not be retained by his Heirs as a due punishment of his Fault But if the Mortifier knew not the same it were more reasonable to determine that the Mortifiers Heirs should retain the Right Vid. Tit. Cod. de caduc tollend Thomas Mudie having left a sum to be employ'd on the building a Church in the Grass-Mercat of Edinburgh The Magistrats thereof were upon their Supplication allow'd to build a Steeple and buy a Pale of Bells with the Money because a Church was useless wanting a Stipend though this Act against inverting Pious Donations was objected for the Parliament thought that if a Mortification be left which cannot take place either because it is against Law or is useless the Parliament may allow the same to be fulfilled by an equipollency that being more suitable to the design of the Mortifier and better for the Common-wealth than if the Mortification should become extinct which is consonant to the Civil Law George Heriot having appointed by one of the Statutes of his Hospital that nothing should be altered though for the
expresly THis Act shall be Explain'd in my Observations on the 21 Act Par. 3 Ch. 2. BY this Act it is ordain'd that none shall have Right to any Benefiâ—es till they take the Oath of Allegeance and if the patron omits this not only is the presentation to be null but the Right of Patronage as to that Vacancy belongs to the King THis Act is formerly Explain'd in the 8 Act Par. 22 Ja. 6. BY this Act His Majesty and Parliament having Erected Fishing Companies Do declare that Salt Cordage Hemp c. imported for the Trade of Fishing shall be free of any Custom or Imposition But yet by the 12 Act of the 2 Par. Ch. 2. The Importers of Forraign Salt are to give Security for payment of the Excise whether the Salt be employ'd for salting of Fishes or not but there is allowance to be given to the Exporters for what shall be prov'd to have been imploy'd upon Fishing It is observable likewise from this Act that His Majesty by His Soveraign Authority and prerogative Royal without speaking any thing of the consent of Parliament in this Clause Dâ—clares that the Ships and Furniture imploy'd in Fishing shall not be arrestable by Creditors nor the persons pursu'd before any Judicature and it may be doubted how this is consistent with the property of the Subject Or whether this would Defend against Criminal Pursuits The word attatchments here exprest properly includes Criminal actions sed nulla excusatio prodest adversus pracepta ei qui cum leges invocat adversus eas committit l. auxilium ff de minor in â—in and though it may be answer'd to the other Doubt that the Parliament consented to this lessening of property Yet it is clear that the Prerogative and not their Consent is only mention'd except we construct their not opposing it to infer a consent and it may be rather urg'd that the Parliament has acknowledg'd that this is the Kings Prerogative But if this be the King may Discharge Judges to proceed in any civil action THis Act incouraging Manufactories by Discharging the Custom or Excise due upon the Materials to be therein employ'd is much lessened by an Act of Exchequer whereby it is Declar'd that these Materials are only to be free which the Masters of the Manufactory bring home upon their own Risk because this Act and the 48 Act in favours of Sope-work does say That shall be imported for the use of Manufactories and another Decision of Exchequer whereby it is Declar'd that these are only to be accounted priviledg'd Manufactories where the species of the thing Manufactored is altered and therefore it was pretended that the Suggar works were no Manufactory because they only Refine Suggar that is brought in It has been likewise Debated whether Materials Imported for Manufactories are by this Act free from paying Custom or Excise since the Act only says That Oyl Dying Stuffs Pottashes or any other Materials usual for Manufactories shall be free of Custom Excise and other publick Dues and that all Cloaths Stuffs Stockings and other Commodities to be Exported by them shall be free of Custom and Excise for nineteen years must be subjoyn'd both to the Export and Import both these being in one Sentence and not divided by a punctum but by a Semi colon By which we are to observe that not only the right Wording but the right Pointing of Acts of Parliament are to be observ'd But in my opinion the Materials are ever to be free and the Export is only to be free for nineteen years which is clear not only from the wording of this Act but likewise from the 48 Act of this same Parliament BY this Act any person inclosing his Ground at the sight of the Sheriffs Stewarts c. may cast about the High-way two hundred Ells and where Inclosurs fall to be upon the Borders of any persons Inheritance the next adjacent Heretor is to be at equal pains in Building Ditching and Planting that Dike which divideth their Inheritance which last Clause was found to be only conceiv'd in favours of those who had required the Neighbouring Heretor because he might have imploy'd his own Servants or Materials but yet the Lords in the case of Garletoun against George Seaton February 1679. found that if the Neighbouring Heretor was not required they would abate to him in the Modification what he might have saved by using his own Servants and Materials by the 17 Act Par. 2 Ch. 2. It is added That the Sheriffs and Justices of Peace may force the Neighbouring Heretor to sell as much of his Lands as may cause the Dike or Ditch to run upon even Ground or as may be capable of a Dike or Ditch where the Builders own Ground is incapable of either Dike or Ditch Bacons History Hen. 7. observes that that King restricted the frequency of Inclosures because much Grass could be mannag'd by a few Herds-men which occasion'd a great Decay of Infantry Towns Taxes Tiths vid. pag. 73. of that History BY this Act broken Copper and Brass are discharg'd to be Exported and the Reason truly is because it hinders the Manufactory of making things of Brass or Copper within the Kingdom but yet because there was so much allow'd to be taken for broken Brass and Copper Exported by the Book of Rates which seem'd to imply that Exporting was allow'd and that this Act had not been in observance therefore the Council Discharg'd the Confiscation quoad bygones preceeding 1684. But Discharg'd Exportation for the future And it must be notic'd that Custom is â—mpos'd by the Books of Rates upon many things that cannot be Exported THis Act Discharging Trades-men to Import made Work and declaring the one half to â—elong to His Majesty is not so well observ'd as in reason it ought to be since it makes them lazie in improving the Manufactorable Commodities of our own Nation But it may be doubted whether this Act does not also Discharge the importation of all such made Work by Merchants as well as Trades-men since this discourages Manufactories more than the other for it is less probable they who can make such Work will bring it home and why should ill Work be Confiscated when made by our own Trades-men whilst any ill Work may be brought from abroad and the words of the Act being the Parliament â—â—hibits and Discharges all Trades-men to Import made Work or any such Ware brought home by Merchants The prohibition may by the particle or be extended to made Work brought home by Merchants To which nothing can be answered but that the Rubrick bears Act Discharging Trades-men to import This selling was discharg'd formerly to Crafts-men only Ja. 2. Par. 14. Act 67. Ja. 3. Par. 2. Act 12. and Par. 14. Act 107. But it is alleadg'd that some VVork cannot be so well made and that our own Trades-men would extortion us if we were not in a capacity to over-awe them by bringing home
THis Act Discharges the Custom of two and a half per cent and all raising of His Majesties Customs directly or indirectly without consent of Parliament and so though by the 27 Act of the 3 Sess. of this Parliament asserting His Majesties Royal Prerogative in the Ordering of Trade with Forraigners It seems that His Majesty may lay what Restraints and Impositions He pleases upon Forraign Imported Commodities and as He pleases yet it seems the Customs by this Act cannot be rais'd for though that Act be posteriour yet this is special and is not particularly abrogated albeit by that Act all Acts and Statutes contrary to that Act are abrogated By this Act likewise His Majesty Discharges the taking Masters Merchants and Mariners Oaths in the matters of Customs but since their Oaths are taken in the matters of Excise this priviledge signifies nothing Vide Observations on the Act 12 Par. 2. Ch. 2. THis Act is Explain'd in the Observations upon the 18 Act Par. 1. Ch. 1. THis Act allows any of His Majesties ordinary Officers to whose Charge the same belongs to Docquet signatures and by ordinary Officers I think are only mean'd Officers of State and this was formerly Established by the 20 Act Par. 10. Ja. 6. But by this Act is added That these who do Docquet shall send a double of the Docquet to the Secretary to be Registrated But yet the Deed is not annull'd though this be omitted and therefore the Deed I think would subsist but the Omitters would be punish'd The Reason why a double is to be Registrated is because by this His Majesty may know what is formerly granted which will prevent double Gifts of the same thing THis Act is formerly Explain'd in the former Commissions for Plantation of Kirks viz. Ja. 6 P. 22 Act 3 Ch. 1 P. 1 Acts 8 19. THis Act for the most part is but Temporary and was made to give some ease to the poor Debitor whose Lands had been so wasted and burdened in the late Rebellion that he could neither pay Annualrent nor Redeem Comprisings or Wodsets as formerly being founded upon the same Reason by which the novae tabula were Introduced in Rome by Julius Caesar after the Civil Wars betwixt Pompey and him But the chief things observable in it are first That the Legal Reversion of all Comprisings to be led or that were led since January 1652. whereof the Legals are Expired and all Comprisings whereof the Legals were not expired before that Moneth shall endure for ten years and though it might have been pretended that this Act does not prorogat the Reversion but only makes the Lands to be Redeemable and so the Rents of the last three years above the seven which was the ordinary Legal was not to be Restored but that the Compriser had Right to them as fructus bona fide percepti consumpti Yet the Lords found that the Compriser was countable for his Intromission even for these three years since in effect these three years are added to the Reversion and so the Compryser is lyable for these three years as he would have been for the other seven January 20. 1666. Clapperton contra Torsonce Albeit by our former Law the Compriser could have possess'd the whole â—ents of the Comprised Lands during the Legal Yet in respect the Rents do often exceed very far the Annualrents Therefore by this Law allowance is given to the Lords of Session to Restrict the Compriser to such part of the Land as will pay him the annualrent of his Sum and Expense The Debitor from whom the Lands were Comprised Ratifying the Apprysers Possession of the rest but it is still to be remembred that after the Legal is expired the Compryser has undoubted Right and cannot be limited Upon this Clause of the Act the Lords upon the 27 of June 1662. Restricted Wilson who had Comprised Sir William Murays Estate to medle with any part of the Estate Comprys'd that he pleas'd esseâ—ring to eight per cent he counting for the superplus above this annualrent and for the publick burdens but thereafter in February 1684. in a case betwixt Wilson and Sir Alexander Hume It was contended that this Clause was a part of the Temporary Regulation past in favours only of such Debitors as had taken the benefit of this Act by payment of their annualrents and was only ill plac'd here amongst the Clauses relating in general to Comprysings for it was against the whole current of our Laws that during the Legal the Creditor who was forc'd to want his Money should be forc'd during the long legal of ten years to accept of naked annualrent especially seing oft-times they got Land at last that they could not nor car'd not for the Possession of it Nor would this ever spur and excite Creditors to pay the sums Comprys'd for and this was a very universal prejudice most part of Rights being now founded on Comprysings and the Practique being single and not upon Debate was not to be respected To which it was answered That the Clause was oppon'd and it was dangerous to alleadge that Clauses were Transplac'd by mistake nor could any thing Gloss a Law better than a Decision past so Recently after the Act made at the making of which Decision many eminent persons were present who had been the very Penners of the Act and the Restriction was most reasonable for since great Estates were to be carry'd away by Comprisings for small sums it wast just that till the Comprising expir'd the poor Debitor should be favour'd Nor was the Creditor a loser since a Comprysing being a legal Pledge only for his Money he got the Annualrent duly pay'd him and a Ratification of his Possession even during the Legal and if his Money was not pay'd cum omni causa with annualrent for his very Expense he got the whole Land though the sum were never so small upon which Debate the Lordâ— adher'd to the former Decision though it seems very strange to the best Lawyers The Lords likewise found upon the 28 of July 1671. That this Power granted to them was only in favours of the Debitor from whom the Lands were Comprysed and could not be extended in favours of posteriour Comprysers who could not upon this Clause crave that the first Compryser should be restricted to his Annualrent for the priviledge is granted to the first Compryser in contemplation of his being oblig'd to Ratifie Nor are the second Comprysers prejudged by the first Comprysers Possession since it will extinguish his Comprysing pro tanto and make way for them By this Act also all Comprysings led since the first of January 1652. before the first effectual Compryser or after but within year and day of the same shall come in pari passu as if one Comprysing had been led for all the Sums Upon which Clause it is observable 1. That Comprysings led since 1652. come not in with Comprysings led before that year though
compleating Dispositions and Rights made by the Party where the Granter refuses to compleat the Right himself in that case such Adjudications come not in pari passu upon this Clause July 16 1675. Campbel of Riddoch contra Stuart December 2. 1676. Lady Frazer contra Creditors of the Lord Frazer BY this Act also it is Declared That if the appearand Heir or any person to his behove shall buy in any expyred Comprysings the said Comprysings shall be Redeemable by posterior Comprisers from the appearand Heir or his Confident for payment of the true sums pay'd out by them and that within ten years after the said Right was acquired Observ. 1. That though this be a correctory Law and so ought not to be extended Yet it is so favourable that the Lords extended the same to Rights bought in by Eldest Sons whilst their Father lives though the eldest Son cannot be properly call'd in that case an appearand Heir since an appearand Heir is only he who can succeed in haereditatem jacenâ—em but the Lords would not extend it to the Right of an Apprising bought by the Husband where his Wife was appearand Heir For though the Lords found this reasonable yet they found the Act to be stricti juris and so would not extend it to this Case except it could be alleadged that the sums were truly pay'd for the Wifes behove and the Lands provided to her Heirs and some doubt whether Comprisings bought in by the Tutors and Curators of appearand Heirs be Redeemable upon this Act and since their Pupils may oblige them to Dispone the saids Rights to them though the Comprisings were bought in in the Tutors and Curators own name if they had as much of the Pupils means in their hands It seems that by the same Reason the Pupils Creditors who Comprise omne jus that was standing in their person should have the same priviledge Observ. 2. Though this Clause runs only in favours of Apprysers from which it may seem that they are only allow'd to Redeem Yet the Lords Decided January 9. 1677. Hay contra Gregory That a Creditor having an Infeftment of Annualrent might Redeem from a Compryser who excluded him and it seems by that Decision that any Creditor may have this Benefit as well as Comprisers since they may Comprise Nor are the strict words of the Act to be considered for else Adjudgers could not Redeem since they are not nam'd in the Act. By this Act also not only the Apprising is Redeemable but even Bonds granted for the Sum thereafter Comprised for are null if the Apprising be satisfi'd as said is so that appearand Heirs cannot make use of the Bond or Inhibition upon it and though a Disposition was bought in by the appearand Heir before the Act of Parliament yet if the Infeftment was taken after the Act the Comprising was found Redeemable by the Act for it is the Infestment and not the Disposition which gives the Right because if a third party had been first Infest he had been preferr'd to the appearand Heir notwithstanding of this Disposition July 21. 1671. Maxwel contra Maxwel In which case it was also found that thogh the Act bears that expired Comprisings bought in by the appearand Heir should be redeemable Yet if the appearand Heir buy in a Comprising in cursu the same will be Redeemable if it expire whilst he had Right to it so that upon the whole matter it is observable that even Correctory Laws with us are to be extended in favourable cases so far as to make them answer the Design of the Legislator which is to help the ill that was to be Corrected Observ. 3. That this Priviledge is allowed to the second Compriser not only by way of Order of Redemption but even by raising an ordinary Action so that if he raise that Action within ten years the Lords will find the same sufficient providing he has rais'd a Declarator concluding Compt and Reckoning within the ten years which the Lords will sustain by way of Reply being propon'd upon incidenter in the ordinary action for payment June 26. 1677. Kincaid contra Laird Abergeldie Observ. 4. That these ten years run from the Infeftment taken by the appearand Heir or some other publick Deed as Decreets c. Done upon the Right so bought in else the appearand Heir might keep his Rights latent for ten years and consequently the Creditors could not Redeem because they could not know them It is fit to know that by our Law Wodsets are either proper or improper A proper Wodset is where Lands being impignorated for a sum the Rents of the Land are accepted in satisfaction of the Annualrents of the Money and that without any Restriction upon either side and as to these Wodsets it is by this Act ordain'd that the Wodsetter shall be oblig'd upon offer of sufficient surety by the Lender either to quite his Possession or Restrict himself in his Possession to his Annualrent counting for the superplus But this Act innovating the privat Paction of Parties was found only to oblige the Wodsetter to be countable from the Date of the Offer of Surety and not from the Date of the Act of Parliament February 21. 1666 Lord Borthwick contra his Wodsetters But in this Computation the Wodsetter is to get Defalcation of what he hath depursed upon Reparations or hath lost by Quarterings or any other manner of way Improper Wodsets are these whereby it is expresly Declar'd That the Wodsetter shall not be lyable to any hazard of the Fruits Tennents Wars or Troubles so that the Wodsetter is to have Re-payment of these by and attour the Rents of the Lands which are Declared to be Usurary in time coming and the Wodsetter in all such Wodsets taken since the year 1649. is obliged to count for the superplus more than pays his Annualrent and to impute the same pro tanto in payment of his principal Sum. NOta This Act of Adjournment is the first that I find in all the present Impression of the Acts of Parliament For Parliaments were of old Dissolv'd but now they are ordinarly Adjourned and the Act of Adjournment is neither touched with the Scepter because it is an Act of the Kings and He needs not touch His own Acts nor is it Read in Parliament because by the very Adjournment the Parliament is dissolv'd and it being no more a Judicature nothing can be Read in it But by the 12 Par. Ja. 1. By the black Acts I find that de mandato domini Regis Parliamentum suit continuatum usque ad sestum beati Joannis Babtistae sub praemonitione 15. dierum Whereas though our Adjournments bear now no dayes upon which Premonition is to be made yet when the King Adjourns Parliaments by Proclamations beyond the days to which it was Adjourned by Act of Parliament He uses to Adjourn them upon the Premonition of fourty dayes and fifteen was too short It was doubted whether if the Day to which the
England though the King can grant a Charter of Denization which lasts only for Life and though it enables a man to Transact his Heritage to his Children Yet His Majesty cannot there Naturalize without Act of Parliament and it may be urg'd that since third parties who would otherwise succeed are prejudg'd by the Naturalization that therefore this cannot be done without an Act of Parliament especially if there be once jus quaesitum to any party But by the Civil Law the Prince could Naturalize l. 1 ff de jur aur annul Of old Strangers acquired only usum toga and at last were received inter cives l. 31. 32. ff de jur Fisci And with us Craig observes that bona immobilia nemini ablata memini ex eo quod extraneus esset And I find it decided that Strangers may succeed with us January 13. 1675. And that Strangers doing Diligence for their Debts may enjoy and affect Lands in Scotland seems more favourable for else there could be no Commerce for without this none would trust our Merchants or Countrey-men The Design of proving Trade by Naturalizing Strangers has been very ordinary for as Plinius Remarks nunc factum est ut gens altera alterius suppleret inopiam ut quodam modo quod genitum esset uspiam apud omnes natum esse videretur in France Lewis the 11. Did upon the same Design Naturalize those who Traded in the Hanseatick Towns TO encourage the Exportation of Commmodities the Bullion which was formerly payable by the Exporters by the 37 Act 1 Par. Ch. 2. Is by this Act imposed upon the Importers BY this Act all Arrestments on Registrated Bonds or Contracts or Decreets not pursu'd and insisted on within five years after the Date and all Arrestments upon Dependences shall prescrive if not insisted on within five years after Sentence so that there is here a new visible difference betwixt Arrestments on Dependences and Arrestments upon Decreets but upon the matter that comes to be the same For all Arrestments upon Dependences are likewise by this Act to prescrive within five years from the Sentence that is to say from the Decreet so that utrobique the prescription begins from the Decreet By this Act likewise Ministers Stipends Multures Bargains concerning Moveables and Sums of Money that are probable by Witnesses are after this Act declared only probable by Writ or Oath of party after five years and all actions upon Warnings SpuilÈies Ejections Arrestments or Ministers Stipends are to prescrive within ten years except they be Wakened every five years but prejudice alwise of any of the saids actions which by former Acts of Parliament are appointed to prescrive in a shorter time Which Exception is here added because of the Acts 81 82 and 83. Par. 6 Ja. 6. By which SpuilÈies Ejections and Removings did prescrive within three years Yet if any action was intented upon them it did not prescrive otherwise than in fourty years Therefore by this Act these Actions are Ordained to prescrive in ten years except the action be Wakened that is to say a new Summonds raised and executed for the raising of a Summonds is not sufficient in any case to stop Prescription vide Observations upon these Acts. It was sound Hamilton contra Herreis March 20. 1683. That this Act was not to be extended to the Teind-duties due to Bishops or other Titulars being only a Correctory Law and in the Case pursued by Sir William Purves contra It was Debated that a part of what was due to the Minister could not prescrive because it was Mortified Money and Mortifications are not appointed to prescrive by this Act But the Lords found that if a Mortification became a part of a Stipend they did prescrive by this Act though of their own nature they do not prescrive Holograph missive Letters and Holograph Bonds and Subscriptions in Compt Books without Witnesses not pursu'd on within twenty years are only to be proven by the Oath of the Subscriver so that if the Subscriver die these Debts die with him I remember the Parliament expresly refused to limit Bills of Exchange to this time though these be Holograph Papers because these beng the Vehicles and Supports of Trade betwixt us and Forraigners â—hat were to limit them by too narrow Statutes These Prescriptions are ordain'd not to run against minors and from this and the next Act it may be argu'd that Prescriptions regularly run against Minors except they be secured by a positive Statute BEcause Citations do interrupt the current of a Prescription therefore this Act does appoint that only Executions by Messengers shall interrupt which was done to Exclude Sheriffs In that part Messengers being persons of publick Trust and who find Caution But though this Act mentions only Messengers and that it is correctorie of a former Custom and consequently ought to be strictly Interpreted Yet Citations by Heraulds or Pursevants will Interrupt nam majori inest minus It was alleadged that this Act should extend to all Interruptions so that if an Interruption had been made in anno 1660. It should be renew'd after this Act for the Act says That all Interrupions shall be Renewed evrey seven years But it was found February 5 1680. Colstoun contra Barefoot That only such Interruptions should be renewed as were made since the Act of Parliament for the first part of the Act bears That all Interruptions as to Rights of Lands shall in all time hereafter be Executed by Messengers and the last part of the Act must be Interpreted according to the first and agrees with the general Nature of Laws quae futuris tantum dant formam negotiis Since this Act is only to extend to Interruptions concerning the Rights of Lands some have doubted whether it should extend to Heretable Bonds and Servitudes BY our former Law Explain'd in my crim prac tit Treason It appears clearly that no man could be forefaulted in absence except before the Parliament But this being thought a great incouragement to Rebellion the Justices did upon an advice from the Lords of the Session alter the Conclusion of Criminal Libels for Treason making the Certification to be that probation should be led against them and they should be Forefaulted as if they were present and therefore by this Act these Decreets of the Justices are Ratified and for the future It is Ordained that such as rise in Arms in open and manifest Rebellion against the King may be Forefaulted before the Justice Court So that this method can only be taken against such as are guilty of Perduellion but not in Statutory or other Treasons such as the raising a fray in the Kings Host drawing Treasonable Papers c. For these can yet only be forefaulted before the Parliament though they may be declared Rebels before the Justices and it has been doubted whether the hounding out to open Rebellions or the Resetting those who were at them be punishable by the Justices in absence
Clause is here added to this Act and is not in the 4 Act 1 Par. Ch. 1. THis Act is Explained in the Observation on the 8 Act 1 Par. Ja. 6. but more fully in my Jus Regium Cap. The Right of Succession Defended and it is remarkable that it was past without a contrary Vote or the least Objection only most thought it so just that it was unnecessary and really it had been so if some in England had not controverted it THis Act Discharges â—ree-quarter and Localities but because some pretended that by this Act they were free from all necessity of carying Corn or Strae or Grass whereas if this were true the Souldiers Horses had been made unfit for Service by such Carriages and the Troopers and Dragoons might have been easily Murther'd whilest they went out singly to bring it in therefore by Act of Council this is fully regulated THere having been a full Debate before His Majesty how far Masters were answerable for their Tennents the Parliament to prevent the like for the future made this Act being fully convinc'd that Masters in Scotland could command their Tennents and Servants suitable whereto there are many old Statutes Commanding Masters to present them and finding that without this the Peace could not be secured and upon the event it is found that this has secur'd the Peace for Tennents and Servants knowing that their Masters would find out their Crimes which Sheriffs and others could not know and that they could not get Service or Land any where If they were disorderly they have conformed and this hath Restor'd Masters to the just Influence which our Predecessors had over their Tennents and Servants and which they lost by their Fanaticism by which they came to depend only on their Ministers and minding more Conventicles than their Work and in which extravagancy they were so far advanc'd that they would not see themselves till they were secur'd that they should be allow'd to go to these nor is the Master ty'd by this Act to any hard thing since by presenting them to Justice or by putting them out of his Land or out of his service he is free from all danger and this is in his power as also to secure him yet further it is Declar'd that he may break their Tacks and that if any Master take them who are put away he shall be lyable unto three years Duty It having been also Debated before the King that there could be no Deputs nam'd for putting the Laws against Ecclesiastick Disorders to execution within the bounds of Heretable Judges therefore His Majesties Power is Declar'd as to this Point by the Clause of this Act but this is now unnecessary because by the 18 Act of this Parliament His Majesties cumulative Power is Declar'd as to all points IT is very observable that the longer the World lasts Probation by Witnesses-lessens alwise in esteem because men grow alwise more Wicked In our Saviours time out of the mouth of two or three Witnesses every word was to be established Thereafter by our Law and by the Laws of other Nations nothing above an hundred pounds could be proven by Witnesses And albeit of old the affixing of a Seal was probative without a Subscription or Witnesses but as by former Acts the Subscriptions of Parties is Declar'd requisit So though formerly the Designing the Witnesses was sufficient although they did not Subscrive Yet by this Act no Writ is Declar'd Probative except the Witnesses Subscrive and without their Subscriving the Writ is Declared null But the Act of Parliament does not condescend whether this nullity shall be receivable by way of exception Or if it must require a Reduction But I conceive it must be null by way of exception since the Law hath Declar'd such Papers null and the want of Witnesses appears by production of the Paper it self The second thing Established by this Act is that no Witnesse shall sign as a Witness to any Parties Subscription except he know the Party and saw him subscrive or saw or heard him give warrand to the Nottar or touch the Pen The occasion of which part of the Act was among other remarkable Cases that a Gentlewoman pretending that she could not Write before so many Company desir'd to sign the Paper in her own Chamber whereupon she got the Paper with her and at her return brought it back subscriv'd and she thereafter rais'd a Reduction of the same Paper as not truly sign'd by her and though this should hardly have been sustainable at her own instance because she was heard to own it by the subscriving witnesses and the whole company yet this exception of dole could not have secluded her Heirs or Executors from reducing it as said is If witnesses without seeing a party subscrive or giving warrand to subscrive shal subscrive as witnesses they are declared to be punishable as accessory to Forgery which quality some think was added to seclude the punishment of Death it being as may be pretended too severe to punish by Death that which is the effect of meer negligence and unto which very many fall through negligence yet our Law knows no difference betwixt accessories and principals further than ex gratia accessories may sometimes find a mitigation of the punishment I conceive also that a party signing as Witness without seeing the Paper subscriv'd should be lyable to a third party who got assignation to that Paper in Damnage and Interest if it be Reduced ex eo capite since he was a loser by his negligence But quid juris 1. If the party himself to whom the Paper was granted were pursuing such an action for Damnage and Interest since he should have considered his own security and the Witnesses might have trusted to his exactness 2. Quid juris if the Witness heard Command given to one of the Nottars since the Act says That unless they heard him give Warrand to a Notar or Notars and touch the Notars Pen and yet even in that case the Paper may be null because there was not a Command given to both the Notars and a third party may thereby lose his Right 3. It may be doubted if upon a Notars asking if the party will warrand him to subscrive the party do give a Nod whether that Nod will be equivalent to a Warrand and free the Witness who thereupon subscrived as Witness And it seems it should for the Act says except he saw or heard him give Command and a man cannot see a Warrand otherways than by a Nod and nutus was sufficient by the Civil Law to infer a Mandat The third point in the Act is that albeit in all Forraign Nations the Subscription of a Notar proves in all Obligations for there the Notar keeps the Paper sign'd by the Party and gives only a Duplicat sign'd by him and albeit in our Law a Notars Subscription did prove in all Instruments such as Seasins Intimations c. If the Witnesses were
might scruple to pursue a Reduction of a Writ that they themselves had granted upon Oath and albeit this Act Declares only such Contracts to be null yet it will certainly extend to Bands Dispositions and other Writs for as the Reason is the same so both the Narrative and the last words of the Act has the word Writs which comprehends all these and I conceive the Remedy of this Act will extend likewise to promises though these be not comprehended under the word Writs for if it were otherwise the Act might be eluded by taking of Promises upon Oath from Minors As also albeit the Narrative Relates only to Writs of Importance by which are only mean'd in our Law such wherein the sum exceeds an hundred pounds Scots yet since the Statutory part is general and that an hundred pounds may ruine poor people nor should men of Substance Lasâ—le an Oath by interposing it to mean matters therefore I think that this Remedy should be extended to all cases whatsoever BY this Act for facilitating the course of Trade Bills of Exchange are ordain'd to be Registrated within six moneths after they are due and tho the Bill bear no consent to the Registration as Bands do yet they are registrated by vertue of this Act which is Narrated in the beginning of the Paper that is Registrated but this is of no great use and therefore Merchants choose rather to pursue summarly before the Dean of Gilds Court who is with us le consul des Merchans and even these Pursuits are disappointed by Advocations nor have they so much as the priviledge of being Discust summarly without attending the course of the Roll as was crav'd by the draught of the Act that was first under consideration It was also crav'd that Compensation should not be receiv'd against Bills of Exchange as is Customary abroad and a Bill is in effect in the construction of Law a bagg of Money trusted by the Drawer and to be redelivered in another place and Compensation is not even by the Common Law received against Depositations The reason why this Act was only extended to Bills drawn from abroad or in favours of persons abroad and not to Bills drawn from one place within the Kingdom to another was because if that had been allow'd all Debts had still been constituted by Bills and not by Bands and so had been priviledged by too summar execution BEfore Parliaments can proceed to publick Affairs all the controverted Elections must first be cleared and determined which being the occasion of great delayes in the dispatch of business gave the rise to this Act whereby it is ordain'd that none shall have vote in the Elections of Commissioners for Shires or Stewartries except those who are publickly Infeft in Property or Superiority Life-rent or proper Wodset and in possession of a 40 shilling Land of old Extent holden of the King or Prince or in Lands of 400 Pounds Valuation whether Kirk-lands or other Blench Few or Ward-lands and that appearand Heirs being in possession by vertue of their Predecessors Rights and Husbands for the free-holds of their Wives or as Life-renters by the courtesie of Scotland of the Extent and Valuation foresaid have right to Vote The Shire of Berwick having made cross Elections of Commissioners to the late Parliament the Committee for controverted Elections decided these points for clearing this Act which report was approven in Parliament 1. That a Charter confirmed by the King of a 40 shilling Land does not give a party right to vote except his Seasin thereupon be produced and that the Confirmation be of the Seasin since the Confirmation of a Charter imports no more but the Confirmation of a personal obligment 2. Vassals of kirk-Kirk-lands of the Extent and Valuation foresaid have no vote unless they hold their Lands of the King as their immediat Superiour for since it is optional to them either to hold of the King or Lord of Erection by the 53 Act 1 Parl. Ch. 2. it is presumed they still hold of the Lord of Erection unless they instruct that they hold of His Majesty 3. Where Vassals produce Rights to a part of a Barony that will give them no right to vote except they can instruct that their Lands are Retour'd to such a proportion as put them in the terms of the Act of Parliament 4. Life-rents not constitute by Infeftments but by personal obligments give not the Life-renters right to vote 5. Persons Interdicted seem to be debarr'd from voting since they who were not fit for managing their own affairs ought not to be trusted to vote for Commissioners to Parliaments but this I think should only hold in Interdictions causa cognita very judicious men consenting to voluntar Interdictions 6. If the King be only Superiour supplendo vices of the immediat Superior by his not entering to the Superiority this will not give the Vassal a vote since the immediat Superior retains all the casualities and consequently remains still Superiour albeit pro hac vice the King supplies the defect of the Immediat Superiours lying out by infefting the Vassal 7. Appearand Heirs albeit in the terms of this Act have no right to vote if they have renounced or if their Predecessors were denuded albeit they were in possession the famine being only by a tollerance from the Party in whose favours the Predecessor was denuded 8. Appearand Heirs by the Mothers side gives not a Title to vote except they be actually entered Heirs since it is presumed there are Heirs Male except the contrair be proven by a Service 9. Vassals who have expired Apprisings or Adjudications have liberty to vote albeit by an Act of the Lords of Session the Lands are declared to be redeemable for the Sums truly due since by this Act Apprisings Adjudications and proper Wodsetts are not to be questioned upon pretence of any order of redemption payment or satisfaction unless a Decreet of Declarator voluntar Redemption Resignation or Renunciation be produced 10. It was found in the Election of the Commissioners of East Lothian that no votes are sustained but these who voted and signed before the Meeting was dissolved and the votes of those who came immediatly after were not sustain'd tho the Preses return'd with some of the number But in the Elections for the Mers it was found that a person was capable to vote albeit he was detained Prisoner by a mis-information from one of the Competitors he having given an account of the way and manner of his Imprisonment to the Meeting and declared his vote to them and after his enlargement did immediatly take the Test and sign the Commission FINIS Several Additions and Supplements to the Observations on the Acts of Parliament BY this Act the Wardens are discharged to judge which is here called very odly to intromet with any thing that pertains to the Dittay of the Justice-Air saving the points that are needful for conservation of the Trews or Truce that is to say
the Jurisdiction of the Wardens by this Act is prorogated to the cognition of all Crimes which were necessary to be judged by them for preservation of the peace betwixt the Kingdoms and so the first part of the Act specifying Treason was unnecessary for it was comprehended under the general but now the Commissioners of the Borders who are come in place of the Wardens have power directly and so not only incidenter to judge Thefts and many other points of Dittay TO add after these words The King may make any man a Lord of Parliament yet by the constant course of posterior Acts of Parliament concerning elections and representatives of Shires in Parliament and by the constant custome acknowledg'd both by King and Parliament none can represent Shires in Parliament but such as are actually chosen by the Shires whom they represent AFter these words That a Registrat Extract will not stop a Certification when a Horning and its Executions are called for but the Principal must be produced It is fit to add That though this hold against the User of the Horning yet the Kings Donator is not oblig'd to produce the Principal Horning for else by collusion betwixt the Debitor and the Creditor the Kings Donator might be easily prejudg'd WHereas it is said that decimae inclusae are to be burdened with no part of the Ministers Stipend for clearing whereof it may be added that this was so decided before the Commission in January 26. 1675. Heretors of Tulliallan contra Colvill but afterwards in March 1684. the same Case being heard in Praesentia before the Lords by a reference from the High Commission it was found that conform to this Clause in the Act of Annexation reserving the tenth penny to the Ecclesiastick person that therefore the Heretor having right to his Lands cum decimis inclusis should be lyable to the Minister for the tenth part of his Feu-duty with relief to him against the Titular pro tanto AFter these words The Earl Marshal contra Brae add this Decreet was in foro And Stairs asserts that competent and omitted before Baron-Courts is not considered THe answer to this doubt is that the Act of the Convention Anno 1665. doth not make either Stipendiary Ministers or Ministers having modified Stipends lyable to Impositions but only ordains Beneficed Persons to be Taxt And the Convention 1667. having ordained the Impositions then laid on to be Levied according to the Valuation led in Anno 1660. and not according to the retoured Duty which was the old way did ordain that Benefices should be valued and pay in so far as these Benefices exceeded the modified Stipend and so they are burdened in both these Acts as Beneficed persons and not as Stipendiary Ministers of whom this Act only speaks IN the second Observation upon the said Act it is said that the Lords will allow the user of a Writ to condescend who was the Writer albeit his name be not insert nor condescended on in the Writ But now by the 5 th Act Parl. 3. Ch. 2. all Writs not condescending upon the Writers in the Body are absolutely null and not suppliable by a condescendence ex post facto THis Observation should be thus worded The Act here related to is the 34. Act Par. 6. Q. Mary and the Acts dispensed with both in this and the said 34. Act is the 77. Act Par. 6. Ja. 5. WE have this custome of Morning-gift from the Germans which is called in their Language Morgengab and is learnedly treated by Milerus in his Gamologia personarum illustrium cap. 6. Where he defines Morgennatica to be donum matutinale quod olim apud Germanos Francos una cum doâ—e proprium patrimonium erat uxoris vid. pag. 160. WHereas it is said there that a Band wanting Witnesses is null if the same exceed an hundred pounds and is valid if restricted to 100 pounds It is fit to add that this seems to be somewhat dubious in respect of the 175 Act Par. 13. K. Ja. 6. and 5. Act Par. 3. Ch. 2. which declare all Writts without exception null that are not subscribed before Witnesses IT being asserted in the Observations upon this Act that the reservation of the Act extends as well to the Patronage of Mensal Kirks as those that are of the Bishops representation this Caution should be subjoyned that notwithstanding of the Decision there mentioned March 25. 1631. It may be contended that Mensal Kirks are not contained in the said exception and that because that exception mentions only Patronage of Kirks pertaining to Bishopricks whereas a Mensal Kirk is not Patronate being a part of the Benefice and the disponing a Mensal Kirk is a formal Dilapidation of the Benefice and so contrary to other Acts of Parliament NOtwithstanding of the decision I have there cited it seeâ—s that this Act of Parliament is designed to make all Retours even at the instance of the nearest of Kin irreduceable after 20 years and that even where competition is betwixt Heirs of the same kind as if a second Brother had served himself Heir to his Father during the life of the elder Brother or his Descendents in lineà recta and it seems this has been the opinion of the Lords in the case Younger contra Johnstoun 22. Novemb. 1665. Likeas the Act of Parliament makes no distinction but on the contrary having extended the Prescription of Retours from 3. yearâ— to 20. and that only in favours of the righteous Heir and nearest of Kin it declares generally that after the said 20 years no party shall be heard but yet it seems very hard that if a second Brother himself who knew he had an elder Brother or yet more if he were keeping daily correspondence with him whilst he wâ—re abroad should serve himself Heir to their Father that thereafter this Service might not be reduced notwithstanding of this Prescription of 20 years but it would likewise seem that there might be a speciality in this case because the Dole or it may be the knowledge of the second Brother without any Dole in some cases might hinder Prescription which requires in Law bona fides as one of its essential requisits and yet if a third party bought or comprised that Estate the Prescription might be valid because the impediment being personal could not prejudge him and it is fit to observe that what I said in general in my Observations upon that Act concerning singular Successors was only meanâ— of singular Successors acquiring Rights before that Act for they having bought bona fide before that Act a supervenient Law could not prejudge them FOr clearing the 4. Observation upon the said Act it is fit to take notice that albeit it be there insinuated that Lords of Erection pay only a Blench Duty for the Lands Feued out to them the time of the Erection yet it appears both by the Surrender and Decreet Arbitral following therâ—on
that they still pay a Feu-duty for the Lands Feued out to them since the Erection Nota After a solemn debate before the Exchequer upon the 22. of January 1686. It was decided in a Case betwixt Bellhaven and the Cash-keeper that the King has right to the Feu-duties which anciently were due to Abbots or Church-men before the Annexation or to K. Ja. 6. before the Erection and that these Feu-duties need not be redeemed as the Feu-duties of the Superiorities which were holden of the Lords and Titulars of Erection and whereof they had not acquired the Property before the Surrender and that notwithstanding that for 5â— years together there was a Blench-duty payed for the saids Lands and Aeques made â—n Exchequer conform THe diligence mentioned in the said Act of Parliament must be a compleat not an Inchoat diligence for else it would run not for three years as it is designed but for fourty ALbeit by the 10. Act Par. 1. Ch. 1. It was declared that all Rights and Deeds made prior to that Act which might prejudge his Majesty as to the Superiorities and Feu-farms of kirk-Kirk-lands should be null yet to elude that Act there were Commissions procured from the King to serve the Kings Vassals in kirk-Kirk-lands Heirs and to receive Resignations c. with right to apply the Compositions and Casualities to their own behove as also they procured long Tacks both of the Feu-duties and Casualities of the Superiorities for payment of inconsiderable Tack-duties to furnish a pretext that the King was still kept in possession that they might not seem to contraveen the Act as also others than the proper Vassals of kirk-Kirk-lands procur'd from the King Rights of the Feu-duties after the King had redeem'd the same from the Titulars of Erection or procur'd a Right from his Majesty to redeem them and so did in effect interpose themselves betwixt the King and his Vassals of Kirk-lands therefore by this Act all these indirect courses are discharg'd and the Earl of Dumfermling having procur'd a long Tack of the casualities of the Vassals of the Abbacie of Dumfermling containing a Commission to enter the Vassals ut supra the Exchequer would not allow the same albeit he had procured a Ratification of that Right in Parliament and a Letter from King Charles the 2 d. declaring that it fell not under his Revocation ACT. 1. ACT. 2. ACT 3. ACT 4. ACT 5. ACT 6. ACT 7. ACT 9· ACT. 10. ACT. 11. ACT. 12. ACT. 23. ACT 26. ACT 27. ACT 28. ACT 29. ACT 30. ACT. 31. ACT. 32. ACT. 33. ACT 34. ACT 35. ACT 36. ACT 37. ACT 38. ACT 39. ACT 40. ACT 41. ACT 42. ACT 43. ACT 45. ACT 46. ACT 47. ACT 48. ACT 49. ACT 50. ACT 51. ACT 52. ACT 54. ACT 57 and 58. ACT 59. ACT 65. ACT 67. ACTS 68 69. ACT 75. ACT 77. ACT 80. ACT 85. ACT 86. ACT 87. ACT 88. ACT 89. ACT 90. ACT 91. ACT 92. ACT 93. ACT 94. ACT 98. ACT 101. ACT 102. ACT 108. ACT 110. ACT 112. ACT 112. ACT 113. ACT 114. ACT 115. ACT 116. ACT 117. ACT 118. ACT 124. ACT 125. ACT 126 and 127. ACT 128. ACT 129. ACT 130. ACT. 131. ACT 132. ACT 133. ACT 134. ACT 137. ACT 138. ACT 139. ACT 140. ACT 141. ACT 142. ACT 143. ACT 144. ACT 145. ACT 146. ACT 1. ACT 2. ACT 3. ACT 4. ACT 5. ACT 6. ACT 7. ACT 8. ACT 9. ACT 10. ACT 11. ACT 12. ACT 13. ACT 14. ACT 15. ACT 16. ACT 17. ACT 18. ACT 19. ACT 21. ACT 22. ACT 23. ACT 24. ACT 25. ACT 27. ACT 28. ACT 29. ACT 30. ACT 31. ACT 36. ACT 37 38. ACT 39. ACT 41. ACT 42. ACT 43. ACT 44. ACT 45. ACT 46. ACT 47. ACT 48. ACT 49. ACTS 50 51 52 53 ACT. 53. ACT 54. ACT 56. ACT 57. ACT 59. ACT 60. ACT 61. ACT 62. ACT 66. ACT 67. ACT 69. ACT 70. ACT 71. ACT 72. ACT 73. ACT 74. ACT 75. ACT 76. ACT 78. ACT 2. ACT 3. ACT 5. ACT 6. ACT 7. ACT 8. ACT 11. ACT 12. ACT 13. ACT 14. ACT 16. ACT 17. ACTS 18 19 ACT 20. ACT 23. ACT 25. ACT 27. ACT 28. ACT 29· ACT 30. ACT 31. ACT 32. ACT 33. ACT 34. ACT 35. ACT 36. ACT 37. ACT 39. ACT 40. ACT 41. ACT 42. ACT 43. ACT 44. ACT 47. ACT 48. ACT 49. ACT 50. ACT 52. ACT 54. ACT 55. ACT 56. ACT 57· ACT 58. ACT 60. ACT 61. ACT 62. ACT 63. ACT 64. ACT 65. ACT 66. ACT 67. ACT 68 69 ACT 70. ACT 71. ACT 73. ACT 74. ACT 75. ACT 76. ACT 77. ACT 78. ACT 80. ACT 82. ACT 83. ACT 84. ACT 85. ACT 86. ACT 87. ACT 88. ACT 89. ACT 90. ACTS 91 92. ACT 93. ACT 94. ACT 95. ACT 96. ACT 98. ACT 99. ACT 100. ACT 101. ACT 102. ACT 103. ACT 104. ACT 105. ACT 106. ACT 107. ACT 108. ACT 111. ACT 112. ACT 113. ACT 114. ACT 115. ACT 1. ACT 3. ACT 4. ACT 7. ACT 9. ACT 10. ACT 11 ACT 12. ACT 13. ACT 15. ACT 16. ACTS 18 19 ACT 20. ACT 21. ACT 23. ACT 24. ACT 25. ACT 26. ACT 27. ACT 28. ACT 29. ACTS 30 31 32. ACT 34. ACT 35. ACT 36. ACT 37. ACT 38. ACT 39. ACT 41. ACT 42. ACT 43. ACT 44. ACT 47. ACT 48 ACT 50. ACT 51. ACT 54. ACT 57. ACT 58. ACTS 59 60. ACT 61. ACT 62. ACT 63. ACT 64. ACT 65. ACT 66. ACT 74. ACT 76. ACT 77. ACT 78. ACT 79. ACT 80. ACT 81. ACT 82. ACT 83. ACT 85. ACT 86. ACT 87. ACT 89. ACTS 90 91. ACT 93. ACT 94. ACT 95. ACT 96. ACT 97. ACT 98. ACT 99. ACT 100. ACT 101. ACT 102. ACT 2. ACTS 3 4. ACT 5. ACT 6. ACT 7. ACT 8. ACT 9. ACT 10. ACT 12. ACT 13. ACT 14. ACT 15. ACT 21. ACT 22. ACT 26. ACT 27. ACT 29. ACT 32. ACT 33. ACT 34. ACT 36. ACT 37. ACT 39. ACT 40. ACT 41. ACT 43. ACT 44. ACT 45. ACT 49. ACT 51 ACT 52. ACT 53. ACT 57. ACT 59. ACT 61. ACT 64. ACT 66. ACT 67. ACT 68. ACT 69. ACT 70. ACT 71. ACT 73. ACT 74. ACT 75· ACT 76. ACT 77. ACT 79. ACT 80. ACT 81. ACT 8â— ACT â—â— ACT 93. ACT 96. ACT 104. ACT 105. ACT 106. ACT 111. ACT 116. ACT 117. ACT 118. ACT 122. ACT 127. ACT 4. ACT 5. ACT 6. ACT 7. ACT 8. ACT 9. ACT 10. ACT 11. ACT 16. ACT 17. ACT 19. ACT 20. ACT 22. ACT 24. ACT 25. ACT 27. ACT 28. ACT 29. ACT 31. ACT 32. ACT 33. ACT 34. ACT 35. ACT 36. ACT 37. ACT 38 ACT 39. ACT 40. ACT 41. ACT 42. ACT 43. ACT 47. ACT 48. ACT 52. ACT 53. ACT 56. ACT 57. ACT 58. ACT 60. ACT 61. ACT 62. ACT 63. ACT 64. ACT 65. ACT 66. ACT 67. ACT 68. ACT 69. ACT 70. ACT 72. ACT 73. ACT 74. ACT 75. ACT 76. ACT 77. ACT 78. ACT 79. ACT 80. ACT 81. ACT 82. ACT 83. ACT
absens reipublicae causa in general is not sustainable as Minority is since these who are absent may leave Procuratories to pursue their Rights It may be likewise debated that such as are vi majore hindred from coming to pursue as being taken by Robbers or Pirats should have the priviledge of non valentes agere though no exception be made of them here for though the chief design of the Act be to establish Heretable Rights in the persons of singular Successors who cannot know such accidents and are secure if they find a fourty years progress Yet prescription was at first introduced for punishing the slouth of the Proprietars amongst other Reasons and therefore non valens agere was allow'd by the Civil Law and ours It may be also doubted whether prescription should run against a furious or mad Man since they are minors in the construction of Law and so are to have Curators and are less judicious oftimes than Minors are but yet since they are not exprest here when the Law secur'd priviledg'd Minors it is presum'd they were designedly omitted and it were hard to know who are Furious and Furiosity might continue eighty or ninety years or a man might feign himself mad c. Observ. 3. That this Act makes a difference betwixt such as are singular Successors who must produce for the Title of their Prescription not only a Seasine but a Charter and Heirs who need produce no Chaâ—ter but Seasines one or moe proceeding upon Retoures or Precepts of clare constat But because the Act sayes That they shall produce Seasines one or moe continued or standing together for the space of fourty years therefore the Lords found that Seasines must be produc'd by the Heir by vertue whâ—reof he and his Predecessours have bruiked for fourty years during their being Infest and so where the Father was Infest and lived thirty nine years yet the Son not having been Infest though he and his Grand-child possessed for above 100. years This Seasine was not found a sufficient Title for prescription February 15 1671. Earl of Argile contra Menauchtan and the reason is because a Seasine is but assertio notarii and therefore it was too lax a foundation for an Heretable Right and one Seasine may be easilier forg'd than moe Seasines can and one Seasine being forg'd may be laid up in the Charter-Chist so that the true Proprietar could not before the Registration of Seasines know how to improve the same and since this Act requir'd no Charter from Heirs it was just that it should require more Seasines to secure against Falshood But since the Act appointing Seasines to be Registrated the argument of easie Forging is much taken off Because the Act of Parliament sayes That it is necessary to produce a Charter granted to them by their Superiours and Authors It may be doubted whether the Superiour is oblig'd to receive a Vassal though fourty years in Possession except he or his Predecessors can shew a Charter from him and that because not only does the Act of Parliament say Copulative Superiours and Authors but without this there is no Title against the Superiour and some rather think the Superiour would bâ— excluded by this fourty years Possession from his Right of Supeâ—iority Observ. 4. Though the Act require Charter and Seasins yet a Disposiâ—ion or Precept of Seasin would be sufficient for many compleat Rights have no Charter Observ. 5. These fourty years run de momento in momentum and therefore the Prescription wanting a day was not sustain'd July 6. 1671. Though it was alleadg'd that de minimis non â—â—rat prâ—tor and it would be severe to take away the old Heretage of a Family for want of one day or hour These fourty years are tempus continuum and not utile and therefore the Law subduces not from the Compt those years in which Judicatures were not patent or in which War and Pestilence hindered the Proprietar to pursue the 30 of June 1671. but it may be here doubted quid juris if Judicatures were not open through War or Pestilence for the greatest part of the whole fourty years Observ. 6. This Prescription runs against His Majesty as well as Subjects for the Act sayes expresly that these who have possessed fourty years shall not be troubled by His Majesty or any other which was exprest least 〈◊〉 it might have been alleadg'd that the negligence of His Majesties Officers should not prejudge him in not pursuing c. Which are the express words of the 14 Act 16 Par. Ja. 6. Observ. 7. That by this Act the Prescription was drawn back in favours of these who had possessed fourty years prior to the Act for drawing back whereof nothing can be answered but that this Remedy was previously allow'd by the Civil Law but least the Subjects might have been hereby prejudg'd thirteen years are allow'd to run from the date of this Act so that though they had possessed fourty years before the Act they could not prescrive except they had likewise possessed 13 years after this Act and though in this Clause the priviledge of Minority be not repeated and that it seems that the Parliament design'd not to deduce minority out of so short a time as 13. years since having had it under consideration in the Act they excepted it not in this Clause yet it was found that Minority was to be discounted even in this case July 5 1666. Observ. 8. That by this Act it is declar'd that except the Summons be Call'd and Continu'd it shall not interrupt Prescription and it is declar'd That the Raisers of Summons shall not be oblig'd to insist except where the Summons is called and continued and the Defenders of new Summoned thereby and yet the 3 of July 1647. Elleâ—s contra Scot. It was found that upon a single Summons one may be forc'd to insist which I cannot reconcile with this Clause except by restricâ—ing this Clause meerly to the Course of thirteen years here specifi'd and generally a first Summons Executed interrupts Prescription January 26. 1622. And of old the Execution of a first Summons did interrupt though they bare no express relation to the Summons upon which the Interruption was founded but because there were several Summons at the same parties instance so that the Execution of one Summons might be obtruded for the Execution of another It is appointed that the Execution of Summons shall bear express relation to the Names of the Pursuers and Defenders and it shall not be sufficient that the Execution does generally relate to the Summons by the 6 Act Sess. 3 Par. 2 Ch. 2. and it had been fit that the Act had added that the Execution should bear the nature of the Action deduced in the Summons for else where the Pursuers and Defenders are the same one Execution may be still obtruded for another Observ. 9. Albeit this Act appoints all Rights to prescrive yet it was found that Heretors cannot prescrive a Right of their Tâ—â—nds
against Titulars except the Lands were Feued cum decimis inclusis but that they might prescrive Liberation for bygones preceeding fourty years as in Customs and Feu-duties which prescrive not quoad the Right though neglected fourty years February 7. 1666. Earl Panmuire contra the Parochioners of Inverness Vid. Observations upon Act 57 Par. 5 Ja. 4. Observ. 10. That Falshood never prescrives by our Law but whether this be in our Law peculiar to that Crime I have Debated crim pract tit Prescription Observe also from the Narrative of this Act that the Registration of a Paper in the publick Register is a great Adminicle of Approbation for the Paper must be left there Though Falshood prescrives not when the Paper is produced and the Pursuer offers to improve the same yet it may be doubted whether when Papers are only call'd for in an Improbation in order to a Certification and for trying of the Defenders Rights Prescription may not be receiv'd against that presumptive Falshood wherein the Writs are only Declar'd to be false fictione juris and the true intent of such Improbations is in effect but to try the Rights civily and so it resolves properly but in a Reduction though that dangerous Certification of presumptive Falshood is adjected ob terrorem BY the 57 Act Par. 5 Ja. 4. Summons of Error prescrive within three years in so far as concerns the punishment against these who have committed the Error who cannot be punished after three years But yet by this Act the Retour it self may be Reduced at any time within twenty years which Prescription of twenty years militats only in cases of Competition betwixt the several kinds of Heirs amongst themselves as whether the Heir of Line should be prefer'd to the Heir of TailÈie But it does not exclude the clear interest of Blood for jura sanguinis nullo jure civili dirimi pâ—ssunt l. 8. ss de Reg. Jur. and therefore an â—lder Brother was found to have good interest to Reduce a second Brothers Retour January 11. 1673. By this Act though such Retâ—ures may be Reduced in prejudice of persons so served yet if the person so served have Dispon'd their Right to singular Successors having bona fide acquired Rights as said is they cannot be prejudg'd And in our Law this is still introduced for the good of Commerce in favours of singular Successors for how should they know that the Retour was Reduceable Vid Act 18 Par. 23 Ja. 6. Where the like priviledge is granted to singular Successors of Bankrupts BY this Act we find that Executors Nominat had formerly by vertue of their Office the whole Dâ—functs part of the Executry that is to say the whole Executry if there was no Wife or Bairns the half where there was only a Wife and no Bairns Or only Bairns and no Wife and the third where there was a Wife and Bairns But by this just Act they are only ordain'd to have a third of the Defuncts part and there was good reason for abrogating the former Custom whereby the Executor was in effect universal Legatar where there was no other Legatars Albeit in reason the Executor should only have had some small acknowledgement for Executing the Defuncts Will. Observ. 1. That albeit the Narrative of this Act mention only the case of strangers who are Executors nominat yet where a Wife is nominat she has the same Interest viz. a third of Deâ—ds part to which she will have Right beside her own half or third of the Moveables as Relict so that all are understood to be strangers in this Act except the nearest of Kin who would fall to be Executors by Law But if one of moe nearest of Kin were nominat it might be doubted what share of the Moveables such an Executor would have whether he might claim a third of Deads part as Executors nominat and a separat Interest as one of the nearest of Kin It seems probable that if there were only two nearest of Kin whereby the Benefite as nearest of Kin would be greater than as Executors he would only have the half and nothing as Executor because by this Act if the Executors have a third of Deads part by any other Title he is not allow'd another third by vertue of the Act and albeit a Wife have both a half or third as Relict and a separat third as Executor yet the Relicts part is not by Succession but is her own proper Interest arising upon the Dissolution of the Marriage Whereas the question is here only as to Deads part But if there were moe in the same Degree to the Defunct than three Persons whereby the Executors Interest as nearest of Kin would be less than a third In that case he might claim the benefit of this Act Because though the main and ordinary Case considered is of Executor Strangers Yet the Statutory part of the Act is general and it were against Reason that the nearest of Kin should be in a worse condition than a Stranger Observ. 2. That this Act relates only to Executors nominat and therefore Executors Dative have no more for Executing the Office than their Expences which is very reasonable for otherwayes Sâ—â—angers would frequently ingire themselves to the prejudice of the nearest of Kin November 28. 1676. â— Ker contra Ker. Observ. 3. That notwithstanding of this Act where there is an universal Legatar the Executor gets no part of the Defuncts part January 15. 1674. Patoun contra Leishman November 29 1626. Forsyth contra Forsyth Observ. 4. That by the Confirmation of the Defuncts Testament the interest of the nearest of Kin is ipso jure Established so that albeit the nearest of Kin should immediatly Decease before Executing of the Testament the interest that was competent to him is Traâ—smitted to his Children or nearest of Kin as was found February 12. 1662. Bells contra Wilkie Where the three Sisters of Patrick â—ell being Confirm'd as Executors whereof one Deceasing before Executing the Testament her Son did 〈◊〉 in his Mothers Testament the third part that belonged to his Deceased Mother for which the two surviving Executors were found countable to him but where the nearest of Kin Died before the Testament of the Defunct was Confirm'd It was found that the Interest which would have been competent to that nearest of Kin Confirming was not Transmitted to his Executor but that there was place for the nearest of Kin of the first Defunct February 17. 1663. Forsyths contra Paton Where it was also found that a Child having survived his Mother did not Transmit her third to his Father as a legittim But that the Father was lyable for the third of his Moveables to his Wifes Brother who was her Executor and nearest of Kin. THere are two cases provided for in this Act First That Liferent Tacks of Lands and Tiends shall not fall under single Escheat but under the Liferent Escheat and yet if the Superiour to whom that Life-rent-escheat falls