Selected quad for the lemma: parliament_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
parliament_n	king_n	law_n	royal_a	5,437	5	7.9688	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
B01415	Answers in behalf of the vvellwishers to the prosperity of the nation, in matters of trade, vvhy the frivolous points of allerged private rights obtruded by the Town of Edinburgh should not hinder the passing of the Act for a Communication of Trade, to the inhabitants of Leith.		1700 (1700)	Wing A3468AB; ESTC R176295	6,319	4

universal Right of Trading to Royal Burrows only and the Law so inducing Restalrig to renounce Esto he and his Successors had remained Proprietars of Leith to this hour being taken away be the said Act of Parliament 1672 giving Burghs of Barronie Priviledges of Trade de novo No antecedent Renounciation of Trade with express relation to the saids old Laws can never Incapacitate Leith from bruiking the Benefit of Trade by the said superveening new Law 3. No Respect to King James the third's Charter discharging Strangers to House in Leith or Mercats to be used there because the said Charter was impetrate but periculo pet●ntis and neve●●ook effect For it is well known that Strangers did and do House there and that near an hundred Years after the said pretended Charter Leith as a Burgh of Barronie not only used Mercats but had Gifts of the Bailiarie of their Town granted them by Queen Mary ●pon Restalrig the Superior's Resignation for the Town of Leith's behoof No Respect to the old Acts of Parliament declaring the Priviledges of Trade to be Competent only to Royal Burrows and particularly the Acts in King James the fourth's time discharging Packing and Peiling in Leith For 〈◊〉 said ●ostior Act of Parliament anno 67● declares the saids old Laws to have been highly prejudicial to the Comm●n ●ure●●st and Good of the Kingdom in restricting the universall Priviledge of all kind of Trade to the Royal Burrows only And for Remeid thereof declared the Points of Trade competent to Burghs of Barronie and Regalitie as afo●●s●●● where by the saids old Laws being in tantum rescinded Edinburgh ought not to be heard to plead ●ny thing thereo● con●●ar to the said Act of Parliament anno 1672. Nor 5. Ought Queen Maries Charter to Edinburgh wadsetting to them the Superiority of Le●th with Edinburgh● acquiring the Reversion of the said Wadset and thereby becoming Superiors of ●●ith be regarded as a privat Right exclusive of Leith from all Trade Because 1. A Burgh of Barronies Powe● of Trading is very consistent with its having a Superior whose duty it is to Govern and Judge their Vassals the Inhabitants of the Burgh of Barronie but not to destroy their Trade which is the Inhabitants and Few●rs of the Burgh their Prediarie and Patrimonial Rights by Law 2. That the said Right of Superiority being resigned by Restalrig conform to a special Contract betwixt the Queen and the Town of Leith for most Onerous Causes in the year 1555 And the Queen having by her Letters of Bailia●ie to L●ith medio tempor● and ●ay and while t●● Terms of her Contract aforesaid should be fulfilled to them Hypothica● the Superiority of Leith Edinburg●s po●● 〈◊〉 ●●isirio● of the Superiority from the Queen was but Surreptitious and where●●ent Edinburgh was put in dol● pessimo before taking Seasiue on the said Wadset Right in so far as Leith at the Sight and in the Hands of multitudes of Notta●s and Witnesses Instrumented the very Provost of Edinburgh the time of taking Seasin as said is Protesting for the Safty of Le●th's Interest and for Cost Skaith and Damnage 6 No respect to Edinburghs Ratification in Parliament anno 16●1 of Restalrigs Concession and Renunciation aforesaid and Wodset of the Superiority including the Jurisdiction of Shirrif-Ship over Lieth Because Ratifications are but periculo petentis nihil juris tribuunt but fall with the Rights ratified so that Restalrigs Concessions being but when he was ●uperiour and so a non habente potestatem to dispose on the Inhabitants and Vassels properties besides that the said Concession mentions the Old severe and New Rescinded Laws as the Cause thereof is in the case of a sublata causa c. And the Right of Superiority per se can never preclude the Burgh of Barrony from its predial Right of Trading as aforesaid and quoad the Sherriff-ship Lieth non facit vim 7. No respect to Edinburghs Charto● from the King anno 1636 bearing a novo damus of Leith in favours of Edinburgh with an Annexation thereof to the Royality of Edinburgh But with express seclusion from Trade without licence from the Magistrates of Edinburgh Because 1. The said Charter with all the other pretended Private Rights aforesaid obtruded be Eir. are but the results of Edr. Usurpations by vertue of the old rescinded Laws the Annexing of Lieth to Edr. Royalty as the same is litteraly conceived resolves into no more but a societus leon●na reprob●t in Law In so far as by the pretended Anna●ation to Edinburghs Royalty Edinburgh there throw pleads a Right of Burdening Lieth with the Cess of Edinburgh qua par● of Edinburghs Royaltie But with the same breath denys Lieth the benefit of Trade which is the only consideration and ground in Law why our Royal Borrows bear any Burden of Cess and why the other Leidges that undertake any part of the Royal Borrows Cess are allowed to Trade bethe Act of Parliament 1672. So that the Clause uniting Lieth to Edinburghs Royalty as it stands is not Justifiable by any Law And therefore the Parl. may very justly regulate such an abuse by allowing L●eth the benefit of Trade n contemplation of its said Burden that more especially considering that 2. The said very Charter towards the close thereof erects Lieth de novo in a Burgh of Barronie without any restraint imaginable upon the freedom of its Trade as a Brugh of Barrony But upon the contrai● allows the same in the amplest Form which ipso facto cuts off all preceeding Restraints on the Freedom of Leiths Trade before the said Year 1636. Especially seing there is no mention made in the said Clause of Errection of any Reservation of by gone restraints so much as by way of Qualification c Nor 8. Does there any right of Debarring Lieth from Trade arise to Edinburgh by their alledged use and wont of Restraining Lieth by Sentences binding them to comply with Edinburghs Usurpations or by oblidgments granted by some Lieth Men for obeying the Sentences mentioned in the Decreet of Suspension anno 1615. Because 1. The severe old Laws that debarred Burghs of Barrony from Trade and which were the Foundations of the saids Sentences and Oblidgments against which Leith did always strugle being taken away by the said new Law anno 1672. Induing Burghs of Barronrie with a priviledge of Trading Edinburghs Right to restrain Lieth from Trade on pretence of these Sentences Bands and others fall in consequence And that more especially considering That 2. The Bonds and Ob●idgments then granted were but meerly Personal by private Men and so not binding on their singular Successors for less upon the Incorporation of the Town Besides That 3. None of these Sentences Bonds or others are so much as reserved in the subsequent Errection of Leith in a Burgh of Barrony anno 1636 in most ample Form ut supra 9 It is wrongously pretended for Edinburgh that the new Acts of Parliament Anno 1672. and 1690. Declaring

ANSWERS In behalf of the VVellwishers to the prosperity of the Nation in matters of Trade VVHY The frivolous Points of alledged Privat Right obtruded by the Town of Edinburgh should not hinder the passing of the Act for a Communication of Trade to the Inhabitants of Leith AS the several Points of great Advantage to Trade over all the Nation alswell as those parts next adjacent to Leith were sufficiently held furth in the Reasons offered with the Overture for ane Act of Communication of Trade to the Town and Brugh of Barronie of Leith So does the Acts of Parliament Anno 1672. and Anno 1693. Justifie the Legality of the said Overture beyond all Exception that can be founded on the former Old Laws before the 1672. Depriving Brughs of Barronie and Regality of all manner of Trade that the Royal Burrows hade then and before wrongously Monopolized For the Words of the said Act 1672. are That the former Laws anent the Priviledges of Royal Burrows were highly prejudicial to the common Interest and Good of the Kingdom as extending the Priviledges of Royal Borrows far beyond their ancient Rights and applying the Priviledges of Burrows in general such as Taping Retailing c. To Royal Burrows only to the Prejudice of Brughs of Regality and Barronie For remead whereof the said Act Anno 1672. Declares Burghs of Barronie c. to have Right not only to Tap and Retail But to Export all the Native Product of the Kingdom and Import the special Commodities mentioned in the Act. And so expresly corrects the Abuses committed by the Royal Burrows on pretext of the said Old Laws Likeas the Act of Parliament anno 1693. anent the Communication of Trade of whatsoever kind to all that are willing to bear a Proportionable part of the Cess of the Royal Burrows sufficiently Justifies the Communication proposed in behalf of the Town of Leith They being in Contemplation thereof alwayes ready to bear a Proportionable Burden The Representation does make a great mistery of Edinburghs private Rights As to which before making particular Answers thereunto It is to be Considered in the generall That all these Rights signifie nothing Because 10 The Case is not of Rights or Decreets belwixt private parties Or where the publick Interest is not concerned But the Case is anent publick Rights betwixt two publick Societies where the publick Trade of the Nation is Intrested In which Case there are many Precedents of the Parliaments interposing without respect to particular Rights So the Parliament by several Old Acts did take away Cruves and Yares did forbid the taking of Black Fish and Smolts did prohibite huunting and haulking except in the time and manner prescribed c. Without respect to any Infeftments or other Rights or Possesions which would have carried the use of the things prior to the Acts restricting the samen And thus in part●cular Case of Trade The Brughs Royal had by their Charters and Possession an unquestionable Right of Trading exclusive of all others and yet by the Act 1672. That Right is taken from them and Conferred in great measure on the Brughs of Barronie and Regality And without multiplying instances it is known how there is presently presented an Act for Conjoyning Chyrurgery and Pharmacie tho they be separated by express Decreets of the Lords of Session and there are such abuses and oppressiens exerced against the Town of Leith by Edinburgh that upon that head tho there were no other Edinburgh deserves to be mulcted in ●eing deprived suppose it had it of a part of that exclusive power by which it does tyranize over Le●th by debarring them from Trading Hence 2 No Arguments drawn from Decreets betwixt privat Parties are any ways to the purpose in the present Case And no Condescendencies or Rights prior to the Acts 1672 1690. and 1693 can debar Leith from the Benefits of these Acts. Because in the first place Leith was a Burgh of Barrony Prior to these Restrictions and thereby their Jus quaesitum could not be taken away either by any Deed of the Superiour or Surreptitious Charters from the King And in the next place such Restrictions are to be strictly Interpreted of any small Trade which Leith could Claim by the Laws then standing but can never be undsrstood of Supervenient Rights to Trade which are granted by the new Laws Posterior to these Restrictions Especially considering that these Restrictions does not expresly exclude any benefite which might accrew by Supervenient Laws And whereas it is pretended for Edinburgh that the Priviledges which the new Acts grant to Brughs of Barrony are given to the Barron and he may Communicate the same to the Burgh or nor as he thinks fit It s Answered That nothing can be more abfurd For 10. It s expresly contrary to the Words of the Acts which give these Priviledges to the Burghs of Barrony and not personally to the Barrons only 2. It is plainly contrary to common sense For as the Barrons t●emselves by their Representatives in Parliament were Voters to these priviledges in Favours of their own Burghs So the reason thereof was the Advantage and Diffusion of Trade Which design could not be served any o●her ways than by Communication thereof to these Societies But 3. As a demonstration of the emptiness of this notion other Subjeets who shall be content to undergo a part of the Burrow s Taxt Roll have the Benefit of Trade so that ●he Inhabitants of Leith qua Subjects can Claim it But that the Parliament may see more particularly how the private Rights founded on by Edinburgh are taken off They aae earnestly intreated for so great a publick Good to consider the Special Answers following 1. Quoad King Robert's Charter anno 1333 It Entitles Edinuurgh to no more in Leith than the very Harbour and Shoar allanerly without so much as a foot of Ground farder So that Edinburgh wronguously lays claim to the Town of Leith as pertaining to them by that Charter 2. No Respect to Restalrig Superior of Leith his Concession in favours of Edinburgh whereby he renounced all Power of Leith's keeping Hostlaries or any kind of Retail For 1. Utcunque Restalrig so long as he was Proprietar of the whole Houses and District of Leith he for the fewing out of the same to the Inhabitants as his Vassals might have renounced all Priviledge of Trade Yet after he had so fewed out the Ground whereon the Town of Leith stands And for which in Contemplation of the Trade competent to these Fews and Inhabitants thereof he got greater Price then he would have go● For so much of any other Ground he the said Restalrig as Superior could not dispence with or renounce the Prediarie Right of Trading competent to his Vassals the Inhabitants without their own consent more than he could turn them out of the very Property of their Fews Beside that 2. Restalrig's said Renounciation of Trade relates expresly to the Law that then was as appropriating the