Selected quad for the lemma: religion_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
religion_n	king_n	law_n	subject_n	4,732	5	6.6515	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A50697	Observations on the acts of Parliament, made by King James the First, King James the Second, King James the Third, King James the Fourth, King James the Fifth, Queen Mary, King James the Sixth, King Charles the First, King Charles the Second wherein 1. It is observ'd if they be in desuetude, abrogated, limited, or enlarged, 2. The decisions relating to these acts are mention'd, 3. Some new doubts not yet decided are hinted at, 4. Parallel citations from the civil, canon, feudal and municipal laws, and the laws of other nations are adduc'd for clearing these statutes / by Sir George Mackenzie ...	Mackenzie, George, Sir, 1636-1691.	1686 (1686)	Wing M184; ESTC R32044	446,867	482

unsecure during a whole Minority yet the said Legal in Adjudications will not run against Minors for Adjudications having come in place of Apprisings are to be regulated by the same Rules except where it is otherwise provided by express Law and therefore Adjudications cannot be led upon Bonds bearing Requisition except Requisition be first used this being formerly necessary in Comprising● February 11. 1680. Gordon contra Hunter albeit it was there alleadg'd that an Adjudication was a more solemn Action requiring previous Citation of Parties than a Comprising and so there needed no Requisition in Adjudications as in Apprisings Observ. 3. That where Land is Decern'd proportionally to the sum with a fifth part more the Creditor is to possess the Land in satisfaction of his annualrent during the not Redemption without being lyable to Restitution or Compt and Reckoning and therefore when the Act does thereafter say that he shall be pay'd of his principal sum and annualrent that must be understood in the Terms foresaid viz. that the Rent of the Land shall be allowed for his annualrent without Restriction Observ. 4. If the Creditor acquire once Possession he cannot thereafter use personal Execution which I think should be understood only where the Debitor compears both because this Clause is adjected to that part of the Act which presupposeth Compearance and before the Clause punishing his absence and because it were unjust that a Debitor should have advantage when he will not consent It may be also doubted whether though the Debitor compear he may be free of Personal Execution when the Land adjudged is not able to pay the sum according to the Terms of the Act for the reason of the Law ceaseth viz. That a man should not use Execution when he has attain'd payment and thus albeit of old in Comprisings the Compriser could not use personal Execution where he was in possession except he Renunced the same July 23. 1633. yet where he had not attained the possession albeit the Comprising was expir'd he might have us'd personal Execution by Horning and Caption though not by arrestment and poinding December 7. 1631. Observ. 5. That since this Act Declares that neither the Superiour nor Adjudger shall be prejudged by this Act it clearly follows that the Superiour may in this case as in Comprisings Redeem the Adjudger by payment of the sum it being unjust that a stranger Vassal should be forced upon him when he is content to pay what is due Quaritur Whether albeit by this Act no Comprisings can be led of Lands not already Comprised if yet Adjudications may not be led even where Lands are formerly Comprised for this is not expresly discharg'd and this seems to have been introduc'd in favours of the Creditors who may make their own Election and I think they may Whereas it is Declar'd That the Superiour and Adjudger shall be in the same case after Citation in the Process of Adjudication as if Apprising were led and a Charge given It may be doubted how a simple Summons can be equivalent to an Apprising and Charge for if that were sustained he who had rais'd the first Summons would be preferr'd to him who having rais'd a posterior Summons had got the first Decreet because the first Summons would be equivalent to an apprising and consequently to a Decreet of Adjudication But the Lords have very justly found that the meaning of this Clause is That the first step in an Adjudication shall be preferable to the second step in a Comprising and so forth But not that the first step in an Adjudication shall be equivalent to a compleat Comprising and yet it still remains that a Summons in an Adjudication is equal to a Denunciation in an Apprising for tho a Denunciation be the more solemn Act yet a Summons publickly call'd in the House does likewise make the Diligence very notour King CHARLES 2. Parliament 2. Sess. 4. THE King having Designed to improve Salt made in Scotland whereby poor people were maintained and the Money kept in the Countrey did buy the Salt made in Scotland and ordain it to be sold out at reasonable Rates which was called the pre-emption of Salt but the Servants and Officers imployed in venting the Salt having taken exorbitant prices as was alleadg'd and remote places such as Galloway and the Highlands being ill furnisht since it was difficult to keep Store-houses every where and many fearing that this might be a preparative for the pre-emption of Coal Corn c. His Majesty was therefore pleased for removing all such jealousies and prejudices to condescend by this Act to discharge the said pre-emption and all pre-emption of Salt in time coming but to give some advantage to our own Salt above forraign Salt our own Salt is declared free of all Excise and imported Salt is to pay fourty shilling upon every Boll THis Act is Explain'd in the Observations upon the 7 Act 3 Sess. Par. 1 Ch. 2. Nota That before this Act the King had right to twenty shilling of Custom for every Tunn of imported Beer by the 179 Act Par. 13 Ja. 6. MAny Noblemen and Gentlemen having been ingaged for Debts contracted by our late Rebellious Parliaments and Committees and not being able to shun these Debts because they had given their privat Security for the same the Parliament 1661. and posterior Parliaments suspended Execution upon them but could not in Justice take away the Debt Therefore for payment of this Debt an Imposition was granted upon Tobacco to be imployed for payment thereof as being the most unnecessary Commodity that was imported and yet this being complained of as a Monopoly or at least a great Imposition upon a Commodity which though at first useless was now by Custom necessary His Majesty did therefore Discharge the said Imposition and allow the importing of Tobacco in all time coming free of all Custom and Imposition except the ordinary Custom King CHARLES 2. Parliament 3. AFter many Draughts of an Act to secure the Protestant Religion wherein His Royal Highness allow'd all Liberty and Encouragement many of them were found great snares to the Subjects and thereupon it was remembred that in anno 1633. King Charles who was a very zealous Protestant and dyed a Martyr for our Church resolv'd to make new Laws for its Defence but it was found that the Laws made by King James Sixth were so full that nothing could be added and that was very probable for that King being a most Learned and Zealous Protestant and the dangers arising to the Protestant Religion being then so Recent and urgent it cannot be thought that any thing would have been omitted and therefore as that Parliament satisfied themselves with a general Ratification of all former Acts so did this Parliament but to shew their earnestness this Act appoints the old Laws against Popery and for securing the Protestant Religion to be put to Execution according to the Tenor and proport of these Acts which

shall examine all this very fully in my Treatise of Tithes If the Bishop refuse to admit one presented by the Patron then recourse must be to the Arch-bishop and if he likewise give not redress then the Council will give Letters of Horning to Charge the Ordinary to receive the person presented and by that Act the Bishop may refuse to admit a person who hath not reserv'd to himself a sufficient Maintenance in setting Back-tacks of his personage to the Patron which paction is accounted Simoniacal and the Lords of Session declar'd only Judges competent thereto though by the Ch. 2 lib. 1. R. M. patronages are declar'd to belong to the Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction and the said paction is probable by the parties Oath albeit regulariter nemo tenetur jurare in suam tur●itudinem by the 1 Act Par. 21 Ja. 6. It is appointed that the Bishop shall not refuse to admit any qualifi'd Minister who hath been once admitted and receiv'd a Minister by which it is clear that the Bishop is not oblig'd to receive an Expectant who is ●ot an actual Minister and the reason is because non constat if he be yet qualified and the Bishop cannot be obliged to Enter him and consequently is not oblig'd to accept his Presentation By the Canon Law four Moneths were allow'd only to a Laick Patron and fix to an Ecclesiastick this was our Law before this Act as is clear by the 2 cap. R. Mai. lib. 1. and there was good reason it should have been so for the constitution concerning it c. 2. Ext. de suplend negl prael is written Episcop● St. Andreae in Scotiâ and this is cited as our Law by Le Roy de jure patron c. 28. and in case of the Patrons negligence a gradation was allow'd from Inferiors to Superiors till it ended in the Pope By that Law likewise a Laick Patron might vary in his presentation but an Ecclesiastick person could not and if an Ecclesiastick Patron presented a person that was unworthy he lost the right of his Presentation pro ea vice but a Laick patron did not and by our Law if the Patron present one that is unfit he may present another and a third providing all his presentations end within six Moneths for the presenting one within six Moneths interrupts not so as that he may thereafter present another within other six Moneths as some think except his not admitting be occasioned by the Bishop who cannot seek a jus devolutum by his own fault by the 7 Act Par. 1 Ja. 6. the gradations then allow'd were from the Ordinary to the Super-intendant and Provincial-assembly and from them to the General-assembly Where there are more Patrons they have right to present per vices and he who hath been in possession of presenting trina vice that is to say the three last times successivly without interruption hath the only right of presentation in possessorio in a Competition with the other Patrons pro ea vice without prejudice to the rest to declare their Right for the future as accords and by some it is alleadged that Presentations trina vice ex decessu incumbentis excludes all other Rights etiam in petitorio but this is not our Law Doctor Forbes in his Treaty of Simony exclaims extreamly against this Act of Parliament for allowing the Incumbent to set Tacks reserving to himself a sufficient Maintainance and he urges violently that this Act allows rather Simony than accuses it IT may be argu'd that this Act debars not such of the Royal Line as have right to succeed to the Crown for this relates only to a Coronation and the Coronation it self is not necessary Coronatio enim magis est ad ostentationem quam ad necessitatem nec ideo Rex est quia Coronatur sed Coronatur quia Rex est Oldrad Consil. 90. num 7. Balbus lib. de Coronat pag. 40. Nor do we read that any Kings were Crowned except Joash in Scripture and Clovis King of France was the first that was Crowned nor are any Kings of Spain Crowned to this day neither is a Coronation Oath requisite Sisenandus being the first who in the 4 Tolletan Council gave such an Oath amongst the Christians as Trajan was the first among the Heathen Emperors Gregory was the first of our Kings who anno 879. gave the first Coronation Oath having embraced the Christian Faith in which he was very zealous swore to preserve it but this Oath was not made to the people for they were not present but to GOD nor could he as Blackwood observes Apol. pro Regib c. 26. bind his Successors quia par in parem non habet Imperium nor could he bind himself for them to the people quia Cliens jurat Domino non Dominus Clienti tit de formâ fidelitatis lib. 2. Feud Likeas it may be said that this Act being made in the King's Minority and being prejudicial to the right of Blood in his Successors it falls under his Revocation made Par. 11. cap. 31. whereby he expresly revocks every thing which might hurt the priviledge of the Crown which this Act 8 would do if Kings were thereby debarr'd from Succession for differing in Religion from their Subjects This is contrary to the Confession of Faith which tyes us to obedience to our King though an Heretick and since private Subjects are not debarr'd upon this account from their property the King ought not to be debarr'd from the exercise of his Government which is his Property and that Kings cannot be debarr'd by a Statute is clear by all the Doctors in Can. qui jura distinct 8 Aecurs in l. Princeps ff de Legibus l. 4. de natal restit l Jura Sanguinis ff de Reg. Jur. sed naturalia instit de Jure Naturali forma Juramenti quod praestant Reges in Coronatione per Gloss. 1. in cap. fin de Eccles. aedif est quod jurat se Regni sui jura illibata conservaturum vid. Ant Corset de potest Reg. pars 3. num 62. Some are also of opinion but injustly that Coronation is to a King the same thing that Investiture is to a Subject and therefore as Heirs may continue the possession of their Predecessors before the Infeftment but cannot sell excamb or do any other deads of property till he be Infeft so though a King before he be Crowned may do these things that are necessary for present administration yet he cannot hold Parliaments dispone upon annexed Property and do any other deeds which require the exercise of the Royal Power till he be actually Crowned And whereas this Act ordains that all future Kings shall take this Oath at their Coronation and the recept of their Princely Power which implyes that they should take this Oath before they can administrat It seems that this implyes a contradiction for they must administrat in appointing the Coronation and ordering all things thereto relating and our King did govern long ere he was Crowned but these words are

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 Cleri●●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 ●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-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

or Son in Law to him which is most just since these may have an equal influence upon him and sometimes greater then those formerly Discharged It may be doubted whether this Act should extend to Cases caryed on in the Names of Confidents and Trusties for the behove of the Persons Comprehended in this Act and it seems rational to extend it for a Cause cannot so much be said to be his in whose name it is pursued as the persons to whose behove it is pursued and if this were otherwise the design of this excellent Act might be altogether evacuated But yet I remember that the Earl of Rothes in Exchequer gave by his vote the gift of Non-entry of the Estate of Levin to Sir William Bruce though it was alleaged that it being to his own behove he could not jus sibi dicere To which it was answered that he did not Vote for himself but that he was necessitat to sit to make up a quorum because there behoved still to be such a number of Commissioners of the Thesaury present in Exchequer as sine quibus non AS Laws do ordinarly show the Genius of the Nation so do they likewise show the Genius of the Time wherein they are made and this Law was occasion'd by a dreadful Principle whereby the Fanaticks had declar'd That it was lawful to Kill all who Serv'd the King and though none were punish'd in Scotland for meer principles of Religion Yet it is very lawful to punish those who maintain Principles which tend necessarly and naturally to the raising of Rebellion or committing of Crimes Whereof this and the 2 Act 2 Sess. Par. 1 Ch. 2. are just Instances It may be doubted whether Judges may be declined where their Relation is equal to the Pursuer and Defender or in Cases of Affinity where the Affinity has ceased by the Dissolution of the Mariage Item It may be doubted if a Judge can be declined where he is related only to one who is a Member of a Society which is Pursuer or Defender as for instance if the Process be against a Colledge and the Judge be Brother to one of the Masters of the Colledge Observ. From these words The Exchequer and other Judicatures That the Exchequer is a Judicature in our Law BY this Act It is declared That the high Court of Admirality is a Soveraign Judicature in it self and imports summar Execution by which last words is meant only that execution of Horning may pass upon their Decreets immediatly without seeking a Decreet conform before the Lords as of old conform to the 15 Act Par. 20. Ja. 6. which is here wrong cited and call'd the 12 Par. But this summar execution is no mark of its being a Soveraign Court for Sheriff and Bailiff Courts have the same priviledge But that which makes this Court a Soveraign Court is that by this Act it is declar'd that they may not only review the Decreets of inferiour Admirals but their own and the reason why they are allow'd to review their own is because it is their custom to grant oft-times Decreets summarly for not finding Caution and it were hard not to allow the persons concern'd to be heard upon an offer to find Caution as also It is declar'd by this Act that no Advocations shall be granted from them to the Session but even this is not observ'd tho it was the great design of this Act for this Act restricting this Priviledge to maritim and Sea-affairs the Lords Advocat Causes from that Court as not maritim it not being determin'd what Cases are maritim and so can be comprehended under that Term. The Lords are still allow'd to Suspend the Decreets of the Admiral in praesentia or by three Lords in the Vacance which is hardly to be reconciled with its being a Soveraign Court And yet in some Cases the Lords Suspend the Decreets of the Justice-Court and of the Commission of the Kirk which are certainly Soveraign Courts The Admiral Court has got also power by this Act to apply the Fines and Amerciaments of their own Courts to their own use which formerly belong'd to the King and they have also the sole power to grant Passes and safe Conducts to Ships which by a special priviledge was granted immediatly before this Act very irregularly to Magistrats of Burghs Royal and in the time of the late Dutch War it was granted to a particular person named by His Majesty who was called Surveyer-general and was bound by his Instructions not to grant a Pass to any Ship till he was aboard and Surveyed all that was in it only he had power to make a Deput for A●erdeen and beyond it BY this Act because common things are neglected and Creditors are disappointed of all the Rents where the same are controverted amongst them therefore they are allow'd to roup the Lands of the common Creditors when become Bankrupts which is now done by Summons Narrating this Statute in which all the real Creditors are Cited and thereupon the Lords grant a Commission for trying the value of the Estate and then they determine what shall be the least price and they name a Lord before whom the Roup is to be made and Letters are raised Charging Creditors to appear on twenty one dayes at such an hour at the New-Session-House to offer before such a Lord at which Day he comes to the Outter-House and the Clerk Reads the Acts and Commission to that Lord and the Macer offers the Lands at the price put on them by the Lords three several times and if none offer more he who raised the Summons gets them at that price After all this the Creditors go on in their multiple poinding and being rank'd according to their due preference the price is distributed amongst them accordingly tho it may be Debated that this preference should be first determined since till then Creditors will not willingly offer It seems more reasonable that Roups should be in the Shires where the Lands to be sold do ly for there will be more buyers found there than at Edinburgh I could likewise wish that where any of the Lords of the Session are Pursuers they would name Commissioners in the Countrey to make the Roup for Societies should shun sibi jus dicere where the same can be supply'd by others I think also that it were fit that Roups were made three several dayes and not all at one time as is required by the Doctors for this would give all persons concerned time and opportunity to appear and consider what is fit to be offered for men may be surprised or be sick or busie at one hour or time I conceive also that the Lord who makes the Roup should stay all the two hours allow'd not only to the last moment but from the first as we see the Judges do in Roups abroad and before our Admirals where the Roups are therefore appointed to be made ad candelam or clepsidram and in Orders of Redemption we

are expresly annull'd by the 4 Act Sess. 1 Par. 1 Ch. 2. Observ. 2so That the punishment is not here exprest but in general under the pain of being holden as movers of Sedition and punished with all rigour nor is it more special in the foresaid 4 Act Ch. 2. which I admire but yet I think that such Bonds and Leagues are punishable by Death from the Words all rigour which may be very well extended to Death especially in subjecto capaci as Sedition is for certainly some Seditions may be punish'd with Death as we see in the first Act of this Parliament and by this same Act such Leagues are declar'd to be against all Law and Allegiance Likeas by the 7 Act Par. 1 Ch. 2. The Subjects are discharg'd to take or renew the Covenant which is a Bond or League upon their highest peril and I wish the Act had determined what was the highest peril for generally Lawyers do not extend such Statutes to Death I find that the Nobility and others having enter'd into Bonds amongst themselves whereupon His Majesty was surpriz'd at Ruthven there are several Acts of Council and particularly a Proclamation issu'd out in April 1582. discharging all such Bonds so enter'd into and that none enter into such Bonds for the future and that gave occasion to this Act which says that these Bonds have given occasion to a great part of the Troubles that have occurr'd since The Certification in that Proclamation is under the pain of being repute favourers and partakers with the Conspirators against His Highness Majesty The Act here related to is the 43 Act 6 Par. Queen Mary but that Act properly extends only to Bonds of Man-rent but not to Bonds of Combination as this does so that this Act should rather have been founded on the 30 Act 2 Par. Ja. 1. There is in that Proclamation and this Act exception made of Bonds enter'd into with the Kings consent which was added because the Nobility and Estates at the Kings desire entered in a League and Bond for preservation of Religion which is Registrat in the Council Book June 8 1585. But this Bond is subscribed by very few of every Estate BY this Act Charges super inquirendis are discharged but it is a mistake to think that by that Act the King or other Judges cannot examine men without a formal Process for the design of that Act is only to discharge the denuncing men Rebels upon such Charges without previous tryal and yet if the Chief Officers of State or at least four of them concur it would seem that by that Act even such Charges are yet lawful and where the King or Magistrat has previous informations of Crimes latent it were against the interest of the Common-wealth that they should not be allowed to clear these by particular Interrogators It was urg'd from this part of the Act that no man could legally be Imprisoned even by a warrand under the Kings own hand and that this was very just in it self since as Liberty is very precious and the best part of Property it was sit to secure it so as that none could take it away but these who will be answerable and the King could not in Law be made answerable and therefore it was justly by this Act appointed that no man could be imprisoned by any Letter even under the Kings own hand except it were subscrived by the Officers of State who should be answerable to which it was answered by His Majesties Advocat that this Act did not debar the King from granting such privat warrands under his own hand for there might be some cases which he could impart to none of his Officers of State as for instance if all his Officers were upon a plot against him or if the Crime were the being upon a Plot with a forraign State which the King were not yet in a condition to resent though he might justly apprehend his Subjects who were in accession to it but the design of this part of the Act was only to discharge the passing ordinary Letters in common course under the Signet except in this Method and it might be much rather retorted that since only Letters under the Signet are discharged to be past except in this method therefore privat warrands from the King himself are not discharged for if the King and Parliament had designed any such thing they would have expresly discharged all warrands under the Kings hand which is not done in this Act and it is clear by the 184 Act 13 Par. Ja. 6. That the King may give Warrands out of his own mouth to apprehend Rebels or others whom Magistrats are obliged to apprehend I find also that this Act was past formerly in the Privy Council the 23 of June this year 1585. and there the Act bears To have been made to prevent the obtaining of unformal Letters at the importunity and malice of privat persons which clearly evinces that it was not design'd to preclude the King from securing such persons who he had reason to believe were obnoxious to the Government It is observed in the Acts of Sederunt that the King 8 June 1581. by his Letter ordain'd several Advocats to be imprison'd indicta causa By the second part of this Act Writers to the Signet are ordain'd to keep the old Style unalter'd for Arguments brought from Style are a great part of our Fundamental Law and in all our Decisions Argumentum a Stylo is still very strong as from the wills of Inhibitions Interdictions from the Forms of the Chancery c. and yet in some cases this Argument is not concluding and thus Gifts of single Escheat bear all Moveables present and to come and ye● they give only right to what Moveables the Rebels have or shall possess within a year after rebellion and though by the Style of Gifts of Wards the relief is discharged yet that discharge will not be valid As also the Style of Inhibitions and Interdictions bears a prohibition to alienat either Heretage or Moveables and yet it extendeth only to Heretage Stilus Curiae is by Justinian call'd forma observantia whence comes our word Form of Process Stilus consuetudo fori vel judicii pro lege observari d●bet l. 1. § in honorar de var. extraord cog vid. V●et de Stat. Sect. 3. c. 3. Observ. That though by this Act every Writer should write his name upon the back of the Signature which he writes which doubtless was introduced to the end that every Writer might be answerable for his errors in Style or otherwise yet if at the passing of the Signature in Exchequer the Writer subscribes his name the Signature will be sustain'd which was found necessary though it was alledg'd that this Act was in Desuetude as to this point for it was found not to be in Desuetude THis Act explains the 141 Act 8 Par. Ja. 6. and dispenses with a part of it and that is the Act to which this

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 Dumfermi●●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-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

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