Nâ—ta Reset in some cases and in this is more severly punished than the Malefactors The pain is augmented to a 100. lib. Act. 210. Parl. 14 Ja. 6. And at last shooting them with Guns is declared punishable by death Act. 9. Parl 4. and Act. 51. Parl. 6. Q. M. BY this Act These who wilfully Reset Maintain or do favours to open and manifest Rebells are punishable by Forfalture For understanding whereof it is fit to know that there are some manifest Rebells de jure and some de facto Such as are denunced and registrated are manifest Rebells de jure for though the Leidges know them not yet they ought to know them and it would seem that this requires a Denunciation within the Shire where the Resetter lives Act â—2 Parâ— 6 Ja. 6 And though that Act bear that the Denunciation at the head Burgh of the Shire be sufficient yet it seems that the Denunciation being only a transient Act is not sufficient to put the Leidges in mala fide except the Rebel be Registrated as Registration of other Letters is necessary to put buyers in mala fide Such likewise as are by positive Act of Parliament declared to have been Forfaulted as these exprest in the Act. 11. Paâ—l 2 d. Ch. 2 d Sess. 1. are likewise manifest Rebels de jure since all are oblig'd to know what is in Acts of Parliament but it has been doubted whether the resetting even of these after they have been allow'd for many years to appear publâ—ckly in Kirk and Mercat to the knowledge of the Kings Servants should infer paenam ordinariam or whether the said paena ordinaria can be inferr'd by resetting such as are mention'd in a Proclamation These are manifest Rebels de facto whom the Pannel knew to be Rebels or Traitors though they weâ—e not Denunced and thus Hamilton of Munkland was Forfaulted for resetting his own man whom he had seen in the Rebellion and if a man did see one kill the King or should assist Rebels in Armes before they were defeated it were ridiculous to alleadge that this were not punishable as reset because the Rebels were not denunced Rebels since they could not be denunced before Citation and the danger in resetting actual open Rebels is greater than in resetting poor lurking Vagabonds but this kind of accession must be inferr'd only from clear qualifications of knowledge such as these whereupon Lawrie of Blackwood was Forfaulted Winter Session 1682. In which Process it was likewise found that Letters of Intercommoning were not necessary to infer nottor Rebellion because Denunciations for Treason includs Intercommoning ex sua natura it being hard to leave so dangerous certifications to be arbitrarly inferr'd from conjectures and the Acts of Parliament require very wisely that the Rebellion be wilfull These who are here call'd Manifest and open Rebels are by the 4 th Act. Parl. 1 Ja. 1. call'd Notâ—or Rebels and notorium by the comâ—on Law is that which is committed Palam inspectante populo non egeâ— probatione Mattheus de prebat cap. 15. Clar. § Fin. Quest. 9. which is to be understood of that which is in se notorium but there may be notorium respectu noscentis without this as in Munklands case By the 97. Act. Parl. 7. Ja. 5. Such as reset any Rebels are punishable by Death and Confiscation of Moveables but it seems strange that resetting Rebels for a Civil Debt should infer Death or that resetting Traitors should infer no more and therefore the 144 Act. Parl. 12. Ja. 6. is more just ordaining the resetters of Rebels to be punished with the same pain that the Rebels ought to have been punished with By this Act also all men are bound to search take and apprehend them or to certifie the Kâ—ng and Council of their lurking in their bounds sub paena talionis By the 29 statut David 2 d. The Resetter is not to be punished till the principal Malefactor be convict but this was Repell'd in Blackwoods case because he had reset persons that were de facto nottor Rebels and certainly if a man should reset a company of nottor Rebels who could not be Convict because they could not be personally and distinctly known yet the Resetter might be Convict IS in Desâ—etude THough this Act appoints Deacons to be yet all Deacons are discharg'd Act 86 Par. 6 Jac 1. and Wardens â—re appointed in their place Act 103 Par 7 Jac 1. and thereafter Visitors are brought in Act 52 Par. 6 Q Mary But now Deacons are restored to all Incorporat Trades But Maltmen are discharged to have Deacons by Act 29 Parâ— 2 Jac 6. And yet if a Trade be not in Possession of a Deaconâ—ie they cannot begin to choose Deacons without first obtaining liberty from the Council for that effect by Petition so far still is the puâ—lict Peace of the Nation thought concern'd in all Deaconries and in a Process at the instance of the Trads-men of Brunt-Island against their Magistrates concluding that they ought to have Deacons because their Charter gave them as great Priviledges as Edinburgh had The Lords found that this Charter gave the Trades a Liberty to have Deacons but did not oblige them to have them and therefore they having liv'd so long without Deacons and the Trads men being so few they were not oblig'd to have Deacons In Spain and France such Colledges are discharg'd vide Perez ad tit 16 lib 11 num 19 Habere tamen possunt Decanum suum ibid vide infra Act 86. p 6 Jac 4. IS much innovated by the Book of Rates IS in Desuetude BEggars or Thigsters who are gentle Beggars should have a Token from the Sheriff or Magistrates of Burghs else they are to be burnt in the Cheek this Act Ratifies only the 25 th Act Par 1 Jac 1. and adds to it that the Chamberlain shall inquire in his Air concerning this but all this is Regulated by the 18 th Act Par. 2 d Sess 3 Ch. 2. THis Act is extended to Hearers of such Leasing-making Act 134. Par. 8. Jac. 6. by this Act Leasing makers lose Life and Goods and this Act is made to determine the uncertainty of the cap 21. stat Rob. 1. whereby the inventers of Rumours betwixt King and People were put in the Kings will I find an Act in England against â—he same Crime vid 3 Hen 8 câ—p 10 annot 1637. NOta That though the Legislative Power belongs properly to the King in the Parliament yet the Judicative Power belongs properly to other Courts and therefore by this Act private Causes are appointed to be discus't before inferiour Courts and the Parliament should not be Judges in the first instance But de facto many privat cases are intended before them THough by this Act it be ordained that honest men be appointed to modifie Assythments yet this modification now belongs to the Exchequer who modifie the Assythment when the Signature for the Re-in-mission
Perduellion allanerly What we now call Protections were called there Supercederes but not Protections By the Civil Law publica tutelae assertio principis solius eratl capital § ad statuas ff de pan nunc salvagardiae dicuntur vid. argentrate pag 190. King IAMES the first Parliament 13. IT was lately doubted whether Theft-boot which is the Transacting with Thieves by a Judge for freeing them from punishment be in Desuetude and it was found a Crime yet punishable There are two kinds of Theft-boot declared by this Act to be punishable the one is to sell a Thief which is to take a Ransom for liberating him 〈◊〉 other to Fine with a Thief that is to take a share of what he has stoln and so dismiss him both which are exprest Act 2 Par. 1 Ja. 5. by concording with the Thief and putting him from the Law The punishment by this Act seems to be the loss of the Right of Regaâ—â—â—y as to Lords of Regaliâ—y but to be death in Sheriffs Justices c. And if so it seems strange that the Lords of Regality shall be 〈◊〉 punished than others But I think the punishment as to both 〈◊〉 of Life and Office and the words of the Act are only ill plac'd And by the Civil Law whoever commits either of these are punish'd as the Thief himself l. 1. ff de Receptator where the two species of Theft boot exprest 〈◊〉 in this Act are also there exprest quia cum apprehendere latrones possint pecunia accepta vel subreptorum parte demiserunt and this Act punishes only Theft-boot in Judges but yet if a private person take a part of the stoln Goods he may be punished as a Resetter albeit the meer letting of a Thief go is not a Crime in him since he is not oblig'd to take him This Act was necessary because formerly Transacting with Thieves was discharg'd but no punishment exprest Quon Attach c. 42. 77. stat 1 Rob. 1. c. 3 stat Will. c. 15 By which last who Redeems a Thief est legem aquae subiturus which is now in Desuetude THis Oath is not now put to Assizers except the Party require that they be purg'd of Partiality for the ordinary Oath now us'd is That they shall Truth say and no Truth conceal in so far as they are to pass upon this Assize CRowners do not now arrest Male-factors for all arrestments are by Messengers or the Macers of the Criminal Court but yet some Heretable Crowners do assist at Justice-Airs to this Day and keep the Bar and secure Malefactors as they go and come from and to it THere is a double interest in all Crimes the Fisk or King has an interest because his Peace and Laws are broke and his Subjects wrong'd and this is call'd by the Civil Law vindicta publica The person wrong'd has another interest which is call'd vindicta privata That the King may pursue without the concourse of the person injur'd is clear by this Act but because this Act allow'd only Sheriffs to pursue without consent of the party therefore this is extended to all cases in â—â—vours of the King Act 76. Par. 11. Ja. 6. THis Act is abrogated by the Union of both Nations but argumento hujus legis the taking Protections from or assurance with any Enemie of the State is Treason and it may be alleadg'd that assuring Merchant Goods or Ships by Hollanders when we had War with them vvas Treason by this Act and by the Common Law for this is a corresponding vvith Enemies A Thief novv by the Regulations must be pursu'd upon 15. days only as all Malefactors VIde Act 50. Parl. 7. Ja. 3. Act 107. Parl. 7. Ja. 6. and such as failÈie to bring in Bullion are punished Act 51. Parl. 7. Ja. 3. Act 65. Parl. 8. And all is novv innovated by the Act 37. Parl. 1. Ch. 2 d. THe Bell rung in Edinbrugh at 9. at night conform to this Act till it was ordain'd to ring at 10. as it does which being altered at the desire of the Earl of Arrans Lady when he was Chancellour it is therefore call'd the Lady's Bell. From her also the Steps leading to St. Giles Church are call'd the Ladies Steps BY this Act the Law is to be holden where the Trespass is done which is most just because by punishing Crymes upon the Place the Scandal there given is taken off by a proportional terror 2. The Friends of the Party injur'd are thereby better repaâ—ed 3. Probation is more easy got and Assysers upon the Place are readier to do Justice as knowing better the matter of Fact Vid. Stat Will. Reg. c. 18. And is conform to the Civil Law l. 3. ff in prin de Re milit tot tit C. ubi de crimine agi oportet and that this was the old Law of Nations is clear by Quint. Câ—rt THe carriers of Gold and Silver except in so far as is necessary for Spending infers also the escheat of the Carriers other Moveables Act 69. Parl. 9. Q. M. But the falling of their Escheat was but 5. lib. after that Act and is now in Desuetude so that the words under the pain of Escheat is to be interpreted of Escheating the Money so carry'd allanerly K. JAMES II. Parliament I. THIS is not an Act but a Declaration concerning the Fidelity Sworn by the Parliament to their young King and I find no such Declraation or acknowledgement in an other Parliament of any other King So this is rather set down as a Narration than as an Act of Parliament For it mentions not Bishops and it expresses the consent of alâ— the Free-holders THis is the first Revocation that I find made by any of our Kings and here Dispositions made by the King of Moveables is Revocked and though no mention be made of Moveables in latter Revocations Since a King who is Minor Disponing Moveables without an onerous Cause may Revock them 2 ly It is observable that the King is as his Subjects Minor till 21 years compleat and that the Parliament is in place of Tutors to Him 3 ly This Inventar is conform to the Civil Law whereby the Tutor was oblig'd to make an Inventar of his Minors Estate and which is made our Law by the Act 2. Sess. 3. Parl. 2. Ch. 2. and to make an Inventar unto Dupois is to make it according to weight Dupois being a French word signifying Weight 4 ly That in this Act rather the Parliament than the King Revocks for the King was then minor but regularly the King's Revocation passes under His Privy Seal first and then is Confirmed and past by an Act of Parliament Vid. Act 9 th Parl. 1 Ch. 1. But sometimes it passes first by Proclamation and then by Act of Parliament Act 51 Par. 4 th Ja. 4 th And sometimes by way of Instrument Act 70. Par. 6 th Ja. 5 th King JAMES the Second
formerly observ'd that they were in use to regulate the Mint also VId. observ on Act 13 Par. 18 Ja. 6. THough by this Act the Clangrigor were abolish'd and they ordain'd to alter their sirname because of their bangstry yet because of their good Services done to His Majesty during the late Rebellion they were restor'd in anno 1661. It has been always believ'd that no Clan or Family can change its sirname in Scotland without express Act of Parliament or Act of Council for that might occasion great confusion and might be a ground of cheating the people in their Evidents and securities But any privat man may as we see daily in Tailies and it does not follow that because the Parliament only can force men to change their sirname that therefore they cannot do it voluntarly themselves BY this Act it is expresly declar'd that because particular Acts of Parliament and Acts of Ratification are made without hearing of Parties that therefore the Lords of Session shall Judge in these cases without respect to those Acts according to the privat interests of parties The immediat occasion of making this Act was the case betwixt John Stuart of Coldinghame and the Earl of Hume which was this The Earl of Bothwel having been Forefaulted the Priory of Coldinghame was Dispon'd by the King to the Earl of Hume which Earl of Hume set in Tack a-part of the Teinds of the said Priory to the Laird of Wedderburn but thereafter the Earl of Hume having entred in a Transaction with John Stuart Son to the Earl of Bothwel he suffers by Collusion a Decreet of Parliament to pass in anno 1621. whereby John Stuart was not only re-habilitat as to his Blood but the Forefaulture Rescinded in so far as concerned his Right to the Priory of Coldinghame upon a pretext that he had a commendam of it settled in his person before his Father was Forefaulted whereupon Dowglass of Evelaw pursuing the Laird of Wedderburn for a Spuilzie of Teinds in anno 1627. he obtains a Decreet notwithstanding of very unanswerable grounds then alleadg'd because the Lords of the Session would not call in question the Act of Parliament 1621. Notwithstanding of the Act salvo subjoyn'd to the Acts of that Parliament for the Lords found that the Session as an inferiour Judicature could not canvass special Acts of Parliament but because the Subjects might be extreamly prejudg'd in their privat Rights by such Acts of Parliament therefore the foresaid Clausâ— was inserted in this Act and that it might extend to this Case though anterior it is expresly declar'd in this Act that this was the meaning of all former Acts Salvo and accordingly the Lords of the Session did in February 1679. Repone the Laird of Wedderburn to Debate upon his just Rights notwithstanding of the Act of Parliament 1621. By this Act several privat Rights and Ratifications are excepted from this Act salvo But since the Act salvo proceeds upon the principal of natural Reason and Justice it seems that even these Exceptions are questionable for else the Act salvo should signifie nothing For these who had the interest to obtain privat Acts of Parliament would likewise have the interest to get them excepted from the Act salvo and upon this Reason it was doubted and not Decided whether Exceptions from the Act salvo made in privat Rights though not repeated in the Act salvo were sufficient to secure these Rights against the Act salvo for though it might be alleadg'd that in these there is a speciality from this case since the Act salvo being posterior and simple Annuls and Derogats from the former Reservation yet even there it may be alleadg'd that it cannot derogat since in the former special Act the Parliament Declar'd their special Inclination that it should not Derogat Nota The Act salvo jure is never Voted in Parliament because it is but an Act in Course and for the same Reason Ratifications are not Voted now since no man can be concern'd in either albeit of old I find that Ratifications were past in Parliament in the form of decreets and so must have been voted but it seems strange why Acts for granting of Mercats and Imposing Customs for the maintaining of Bridges should not be Voted And in the Parliament 1681. The Reports of the Articles thereof as to these past the last Dâ—y without being Voted which was oppos'd by some as irregular because there the consent of some parts of the Nation was requisite But I conceive that this likewise proceeded from the numerousness of the things that were brought in and the general acquiescence of the Members and the time they were to sit being so short and it seems securer to settle these by a vote K. CHARLES II. Parliament I. Session first ALbeit KING CHARLES the Second did hold a Parliament at Saint-Iohnstoun in anno 1650. yet this Parliament being the first after His Majesties happy Restauration is by the Inscription Intituled The First Parliament of KING CHARLES the Second though that Parliament 1650. is not Rescinded by the general Act Rescissory which is the fifteenth Act of this Parliament Nor by any other special Act And so that Parliament stands still in force so that this Inscription seems unwarrantable THe Rebellious Parliaments in the former age did choose their own President though the Chancellour ought to have presided in all Courts as is insinuated by the 40 Act Par. 5 Ja. 5. but this they did to have the President of Parliament Depend upon Them and not upon the King and therefore by this Act it is Declar'd that the Chancellour is ratione officii to preside in all publick Judicatures where he is present Observ. 1. That this Act says That the Lord Chancellour and such as shall be nominated by His Majesty shall preside and therefore if the King please He may Nominat another President though the Chancellour be present And I find that His Majesty has Nominated others to preside where the Chancellour was present Obser. 2. That though when the Chancellour is absent His Majesty can only Nominat another President Yet this does not exclude His Majesties High Commissioner from the power of Nominating a President since he has mandatum cum libera and Middleton did Nominat the Earl of Crawfurd to preside in this Parliament when Glencairn then Chancellour went to London Observ. 3. That the Chancellour is to preside not only in the Parliament but in all other publick Judicatures and therefore though it was pretended by the Thesaurer that notwithstanding of this Act the Chancellour could not preside in Exchequer though he was named in the Commission Because the Exchequer was rather the Kings Chamberlains Court than a publick Judicature in which the Thesaurer was chiefly intrusted because he was chiefly to be answerable yet this pretence was groundless since the Exchequer is a Judicature which Hears and Discusses Causes relating to the Revenue and is Declar'd a Judicature by the
18 Act Par. 1 Ch. 1. But by a Letter in anno 1663. The Chancellour is Discharg'd to preside in Exchequer and this shâ—ws his innate power to dispense with Acts of Parliament which relate only to Government and His own Service Observ. 4. That though by vertue of this Act it may be pretended that the Chancellour may preside in the Justice or Admiral Court if he pleases to be present Yet I conceive he cannot come to any of these Courts without a special Nomination and even this Act says That the Chancellour and such as shall be nominat by His Majesty shall preside This Act likewise sets down the Oath of Allegiance wherein the King is acknowledg'd to be Supream over all Persons and in all Causes which is founded upon the 2 Act Par. 18 Ja. 6. and is the foundation of the Act of Supremacy which is the first Act of the 2 Par. Ch. 2. THe Parliament 1641. had taken from the King the Nomination of the Officers of State Counsellours and Judges and therefore by this Act the power of Nominating these Is declar'd to be a part of the Kings Royal Prerogative which is conform to the Law of all Nations l. unica ff ad l. Jul. de ambitu haec Lex hodie in urbe cessat quia ad curam Principis Magistratuum creatio pertinet non ad populi favorem By this Act also It is Declar'd that our Kings hold their Royal Power over this Kingdom from God which was exprest here to condemn that fundamental Treason of the last age which Taught That the King was subject to His People because He Deriv'd His Power from Them And from that they infer'd their power of Reforming and at last of Deposing the King But lest it might have been obtruded that though by this Act it be Declar'd That the King holds His Power from God alone Yet the holding it from God did not exclude the Interest of the People for all Men hold of God whatever they hold of others Therefore by the 5 Act of this Parliament It is Declar'd that our Kings hold their Crowns from God Almighty alone and lest it might still have been said That though the King holds His Power of God yet he Derives His Power from His People Therefore the Convention of Estates in their Letter to the King 1678. and the Estates of Parliament in the 2 Act 3 Par. Ch. 2. anno 1681. Acknowledge That He Derives His Power from God alone And though Conventions of Estates cannot make Laws yet it may be said that they may Declare and Acknowledge their Obedience as fully as Parliaments may Observ. That these words To hold the Crown from God is ill exprest For by our Law He that Holds from Me Holds not of Me for a me de me are Diametrically opposit in matters of Holdings THe former Rebellious Parliaments especially the Convention of Estates 1643. Did Sit without a special Warrand from His Majesty and therefore by this Act The Power of Calling Holding Proroging and Dissolving of Parliaments is Declar'd to be Inherent only in His Majestie as a part of His Royal Prerogative and therefore the 6 Act of this Parliament annulling in special Terms the said Convention 1643. was unnecessary I conceive that the word Proroguing here is us'd for Adjournment only though the Word in its property signifies only to Adjourn so as to make all the Overtures past in that Session to be null which distinction is unknown to and unnecessary with us The Impungers or Contraveeners of this Act are Declar'd by this Act guilty of Treason BY this the former Acts against Convocations and Leagues or Bonds are Ratifi'd and Discharg'd under the pain of Sedition and the keeping of all Assemblies and Meetings upon pretence of preserving the Kings Majesty or for the publick good are declar'd unlawful notwithstanding of these Glosses except in the ordinary Judicatures The Design of which Act was occasioned by and levelled against such Meetings as the Green Tables in anno 1637. Whereat the Nobility and Gentry did formally meet in great numbers though their Papers did alwise begin We the Noblemen Gentlemen and others occasionally met at Edinburgh THe former Rebellious Parliaments having rais'd Armies Fortifi'd Garisons and Treated with the French King without the Authority of their own King It is therefore declar'd by this Act That the Power of making Peace and War Resides solly in His Majesty and that to Rise or Continue in Arms or to make any Treaties or Leagues with Forraign Princes or amongst themselves shall be Treason Observ. 1. That by this Act the King is Declar'd to have the only power of Raising Armies and making Garrisons the Subjects alwayes being free of the Provision and Maintainance of these Forts and Armies and therefore it was asserted that free Quarter except in the Case of actual Rebellion was unlawful and that even then it behov'd to be warranted by a Parliament or Convention though it seems that Rebellions may be so sudden or Parliaments and Conventions so dangerous that free Quarter may be warranted by the Kings own Authority in cases of necessity and if any part of Scotland should rise in Rebellion it is not imaginable that they will either give Quarter for Pay or deserve to be pay'd and so to refuse the King the Power of free Quartering without Parliament or Convention in that case were to deny Him the Power of raising an Army without which it cannot be maintain'd But free Quarter is expresly Discharg'd by the 3 Act Par. 3 Ch. 2. Observ. 2. Some likewise think by this Clause that though the King may force Towns and adjacent Countreys to carry Baggage and Ammunition of His Souldiers the publick Good so requiring yet He must pay them for it since by this Act the King is to pay for the Provisions as well as Maintainance of the Army and to take away Countrey-mens-horses without pay is as great a Tax upon them as Free-quarter But yet our Kings have still been in use by immemorial Possession to exact such Carriage without payment and so the only Doubt remains Whether this Act Innovats the former Custom And whether the Subjects not seeking payment being merae facultatis prescrives against them jus non petendi Observ. 3. It has been controverted Whether though by this Act the King may Dispose upon all Forts Strengths and Garisons if He can thereby make any privat Mans House a Garison that was not so Originally it being pretended that if this were allow'd no man can be sure of his Dwelling-house which is the chief part of his Property but it cannot be deny'd but that all Houses with Battlements or turres pinnatae as Craig observes are inter regalia and of old could not be Built without the Kings special Licence and as to these the King may Garrison them for since He has the absolute power of making Peace and War it were absurd to deny Him the power of Garisoning convenient
before the other Act allowed the Importation of them and the Parliament in the Narrative of this Act Declares That the King had done this upon good Considerations THis Act for preventing the fraudulent mixture of the Finer sort of Tinn with baser Mettle has ordained the Peutherers to put their Name with the Thiâ—â—le and the Deacons Mark upon their Work and that the same be as fine as the Peuther of England marked with the Rose It may be argu'd that this Act does not hinder all mixture of Lead and Tinn for one pound of Lead must necessarly be mixt with two pound of Tinn to make it work The Peutherers and Plumbers are with us under one Deacon we had no Plumbers till of late our Peutherers of old having been our only Plumbers but now it is pretended from this Act and upon other grounds that the Peutherers should not work in Lead THis Act Discharging Advocations from inferiour Courts for sums within 200 merks did not except the members of the Colledge of Justice and therefore by the 16 Article of the Act for Regulating the Session Causes belonging to the Members and sums due to Merchants Cooks Vintners and others in Burgh for Furniture taken off from them by such as dwell not within the Shire where the Furniture was taken off are expresly excepted from this Act and because this Act wanted a Sanction or Penalty therefore by that seventeenth article the Clerk of the Bills is ordained not to present pass or write on any such Bill at his peril because this Act of Parliament sayes That the Lords shall not pass any such Advocations for Causes which may competently be decided by inferiour Judges Therefore it is ordained by the 16 Article foresaid That when the Lords pass any such Advocations for sums within two hundred merks they shall write upon the back of the Bill that the Lords have found sufficient ground why the Cause should not be pursu'd in the first Instance before the Inferiour Judge and this was done to prevent any mistake and to cause this Act be carefully Observ'd THis Act is formerly Explain'd in the 6 Act of the 23 Par. Ja. 6. THe Exportation of Money being Discharg'd by many Acts as Ja 3 Par. 1 Act 8. Ja 1 Par. 6 Act 84. For making these Acts effectual By this Act every Skipper and Merchant is oblig'd upon Oath to Declare before the Thesaurer Thesaurer-depute or such as are appointed by them that they shall not carry abroad any more Money than is able to make their Expence to the next Port and to reveal either before or after the Voyage any who does and that a Book shall be keeped in Exchequer for that effect but this Act is not exactly observ'd BEcause by the 40 Act Par. 6 Q Mary The carrying of Victuals Tallow or Flesh out of the Countrey was then Discharg'd under the pain of Escheating the same Victuals having been then scarce Therefore by this Act it is Declared lawful to Export Corns when the Wheat is under twelve pounds the Bear and Barly under eight pounds Oats and Pease under eight merks the Boll and also to Export all sorts of barrell'd Flesh for nineteen years free from Custom and Bullion but the Custom and Bullion here impos'd upon Corns Exported is absolutely discharg'd by the 14 Act Par. 2 Ch. 2. It may be observ'd from the former Act of Q. Mary That Skippers are not regularly lyable for Transporting Merchandise forbidden by Acts of Parliament except the Sanction of the Act do expresly strick against them since that Act is appointed to be extended to Masters and Skippers as well as Owners of the Goods for beside that the Parliament thought fit to express them which they needed not have done if the Act had imported it these words this Act to be extended seem to imply that the Act naturally did not import it for to extend an Act or any thing else is to carry it beyond its natural import THis Act Imposing great Impositions upon English Commodities for the advantage of our own Manufactories is in force but not in observance and one of the great dis-advantages of Setting the Kings Customs in Tacks is that it is the Tacks-mens interest that all Prohibited Commodities be brought in for the advantage they get by their paying Custom and for conniving at the bringing them in BY this Act there is a great Custom Imposed upon Victual brought from Ireland But thereafter by the 3 Act 3 Sess. Par. 2 Ch. 2. Importing of Irish Victual is totally discharged THis Act is formerly Explain'd in the 63 Act Par. 11. Ja. 6. But it is further observable that by this Act it is Declared the Duty of all Sâ—eriffs Steuarts and Baillies of Regality to cause apprehend all Rebels and to count for their Escheats and to punish all the Contemners of His Majesties Authority and this is Declar'd to be both by Law and the nature of their Office a Duty incumbent to them and therefore it is fit that Sheriffs and others advert to this THis Act Ratifies by mistake the 4 Act Par. 6 Ja. 6. But the Act that should have been cited is the 74 Act of that Parliament This Act Ratifies also the 168 Act of this 15 Parliament but it should have cited the 268. The Act it self provides for the maintainance of Beggars and Manufactures by putting the one in the other but the Act was never observ'd though in it self it be a very excellent Act. THese Acts are Explain'd in the 96 Act Par. 6 Ja. 4. But for further clearing of the Act 16 It is sit to know that though Coals were forbidden of old to be Exported by the 84 Act Par. 9 Q. Mary Yet when they grew more frequent they were allowed to be Transported and Custom and Bullion is put upon them viz. Two ounces of Bullion for every four Chalders Coals as is clear by the 37 Act Par. 1 Ch. 2. and by this Act the Culross Chalder is Declared to be the measure by which the Custom and Bullion is to be Exacted because as I conceive that was the least of all Chalders The Lothian Chalder of Coals being generally a third more but thereafter Bullion being only Impos'd upon Goods Imported Coals do now pay no Bullion for Exporters pay no Bullion and there are no Coals Imported to this Nation THe keeping Mercats upon Sunday was Discharged 122 Act Par. 12 Ja. 6. and by this Act they are Discharg'd to be kept upon Munday or Saturday lest people might be oblig'd to Travel to and from Mercats on the Sabbath But by that Act it was appointed that they should keep them upon any other Day not being the Mercat-Day of the next Burgh which provision in favours of the next Burghs was ill forgot here vide the Observations upon that Act. THis Act is formerly Explain'd in the Observations upon the Act 48 Par. 3 Ja. 6. and the 7 Act 3 Sess. 1
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-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
and that France and Flanders were then entring into Wars STaple Goods are by this Act to remain in Staple and not to go to Mercats for clearing of which Act it is fit to know that Kings and Common-wealthes allow some Goods only to be sold at particular places and these are call'd Staple Goods and the place is call'd the Staple Port Jus stapuli est potestas sistendi in suo foro restringendique merces speciali emporii beneficio certis civitatibus competens Loccen de Jur. Marit lib. 1. c. 10. num 3. Potest enim Rex ob bonum publicum in hoc casu dispensare l. ult C. de leg But this priviledge of Staple is not competent except it be specially granted and Strangers as well as Natives may be forc'd to observe that priviledge for they are here tanquam subditi temporarii Grot. de jur Bell. Part 2. num 11 and 5. But yet this Act discharging the carrying of Staple Goods by Sea from Simon and Jude's Day till Candlemas is in Desuetude for our best Trade is now in Winter but the reason why Winter Trade was then discharg'd was because our Vessels were small and our Sea-men ignorant so that many perished by Winter Voyages ARe Explain'd in the Acts 67 and 68 8 Par. Ja. 3. and by the 36 Act Par. 8. Ja. 2. as is also the last Act of this Parliament VId. Annot. on Act 59 Par. 3 Ja. 1. Supra King JAMES the third Parliament 4. THis Act is conform to Iter Camer cap. 30. And the last Act ordain'd to be put to Execution by this Act is Act 73 Par. 14 Ja. 2. THis Act is in Desuetude for it is now lawful to carry any kind of Cattel out of the Countrey without hazard of Confiscation It is clear from this Act that the Warden might then have granted Licences for Goods prohibited but this the Commissioners of the Borders cannot now do King IAMES the third Parliament 5. VId. Act 76 Par. 14 Ja. 2. But it is to be observ'd from these words in this Act It shall be lawful to the Kings Highness to take the Decision of any Cause that comes before Him at His empleasance Likeas it was wont to be of before That the King Himself may be Judge as he pleases but though the King did call an Action to be judg'd before himself that was depending before the Lords yet His Majesty was thereafter pleased upon a Representation of the Inconveniences that would arise to refer it back to them and some interpret this of the Kings power when he is sitting in his Judicatures though I think the Act will not bear that gloss â—ut certain it is that at first all Masters were Judges in their own Families and that Kings themselves Judg'd in their own Kingdoms as we see in the instance of Solomon and others vid. ch 16. Stat. David 2. Where there is a Decision of the Kings insert amongst his Statutes and the Doctors are of opinion that princeps habens causam cum suo subdito potest ipse judicare si vult Peregr de jure sisci tit 2. num 7. and this seems founded on l. hoc Tiberius 41. ff de haer instit l. proxime ff de his quâ— in test delent And though thereafter they did disburden themselves of that Charge by electing other Judges yet they did not debar themselves from that power and therefore we use to say that all Jurisdiction in Scotland is cumulative and not privative but if the King take the Cognition of any Cause He will try it according to the Forms of that Court where it should have been decided and therefore if He be to Try a Criminal the Pannel will be allow'd to hear the Witnesses Depone against him and the matter of Fact will be judg'd by an Assyze If it be alledg'd the meaning of this Act is only that the King may Try any Action He pleases in His Council that is to say His Session for of old the Session was call'd His Council and yet they are call'd His Council and Session To this it may be answered this Aâ—t appoints that Causes should be first Try'd by the Judge ordinary and if he either refuse to Judge or Judge wrong the Council is to Judge not the Cause but him and this induc'd some to urge that the absence from the Host could not be pursu'd before the Council though the punishment was restricted to an arbitrary punishment for which they brought these Reasons 1 o. That this would confound the nature and limits of all the Judicatures which are the great foundations of our Law and which is contrary to this Act. 2 o. It is the great security of the People that when they are Try'd for Crimes they should be judg'd not only by the learn'd Judges as to Relevancy but by their Peers whom they may judge again as to the Probation 3 o. Advocats are to be heard before the Criminal Court but not before the Council and the Debate is to be there in Writ which obliges a Judge to do justly and the Probation is to be led in presence of the Pannel 4 o. Before the Council the Crime may be refer'd to Oath which is not suitable to the Criminal Law even where the punishment is arbitrary except the Party be by Act of Parliament oblig'd to Depone as in the case of Conventicles 5 o. There are no Exculpations before the Council which are necessary in Crimes 6 o. Several Acts of Parliament appoint that cases may be pursu'd before the Criminal Court or Council when that is intended and which were unnecessary if all Causes might naturally be pursu'd before either It being likewise Debated from this Act that a Judge for giving an unjust Decreet might be pursu'd before the Council in the first instance for oppression the Council did in January 1682. find that a Sheriff or other inferiour Judge could not be â—ursu'd before the Council until his Decreet were first reduc'd before the Judge ordinary and that because the 105 Act Par. 14 Ja. 3. Appoints all Actions to be first pursu'd before the Judge ordinary and the Lords of the Session are Judges Ordinary to Reductions and are there appointed to cognosce the wrongs done by inferiour Judges and if this were Sustain'd the Privy Council should become the Session nor would any man be a Sheriff since he might every day be pursu'd before the Council And whereas it was pretended that the Council were Judges to Oppression and there might be great Oppression committed by inferiour Judges sub sigurâ judicij It was answered That when the Decreet was Reduc'd they might then be punishâ—d as oppressours if there was no colour of Justice for their Decision as the said 105 Act provided Sheriff of Bamff contra Arthur Forbes Vid. Obs. on the 16 Act 6 Par. Ja. 2. and 16 Act 3 Par. Ch. 2. WE see that the granting Reversions by the Wodsetters were but new
of authorizing Acts now is only by His Majesties touching them with the Scepter and if they be Voted in a former Session they may be touch'd without any new Vote or Act but if they were past in a former Parliament they must have a Vote else they cannot be call'd the Acts of the present Parliament THe King here Revock'd when he was in France and his Revocation is subscribed by a Notar which was at that time sufficient but his supplying the Solemnities by His Kingly power was unnecessary for the King cannot supply the want of Solemnities either in his own or other mens Acts or Deeds there is little in this Revocation different from what was in former Revocations save that 1 o. The King Revocks all Tacks and Assedations made for longer space than five years which Article is also repeated in the 31 Act Par. 11 Ja. 6. and the reason of it is because there is too great a restraint laid upon the King by these long Tacks hindering Him thereby to improve His Property or Casualty for which Reason likewise long Tacks set by Tutors are not allow'd and though this may seem only to extend to Tacks sett by Kings in their Minority Yet by the same Reason and upon the same Act a Tack of the Customs set by the King in His Majority to Fleming and Peebles was Reduced before the Exchequer November 17. 1634. because the Tack was sett for seven years 2 o. The King here Revocks all Rights made by Him by evil or false Suggestion or by expreeming of a false Cause though ordinarly false Narratives do not Reduce Deeds betwixt Majors this Lawyers terms ex suppressione veri expressione falsi and this article of Revocation agrees with the Civil Law Vid. tit C. de precib offerend tit C. si contra jus vel utilit public His Majesty here Revocks all Tacks and Assedations made in his minority for longer space than five years which is likwise a Clause repeated in all the posterior Revocations and though it may seem that no Deed done by a Minor in his Minority is Revockable except Lesion could be alleadg'd yet Craig is of opinion that the very setting of a Tack is a Lesion though it be not set under the true value Minorem enim laedi puto quod rei suae liberâ administratione prohibentur lib. 2. dieg 10. THe three Head-Courts to be held by Sheriffs c. conform to this Act are as follows the first is upon the first Tuesday after the fourteenth of January which is the first Tuesday after the twelfth day of Yule The second Court is upon the first Tuesday after Law-sunday The third is upon the first Tuesday after the twenty ninth of September which is Michaelmas day but now they need not writ any excuse to the King or Council if they be not personally present This Act makes a difference betwixt such as owe sute and presence and these who owe sute only all such Barons and Free-holders as owe sute and presence ought to be present in these head Courts but this Act determines not who owe sute and presence and though the 2 cap. 2 Stat. Rob 1. Statutes that none owe sute and presence but these who are expresly lyable thereto by theâ—r Infeftments yet by our present practice Vassals of Ward Lands and consequently of taxt Ward Lands are also lyable to compear in the Superiours head Courts without any Citation though they be not Câ—ted and though this be not exprest in their Infeftment for hoc mest in the nature of their holding but Vassâ—ls who hold bleâ—sh or â—eu are not oblig'd to compear without Citation except they be thereto ty'd by their Infeftment March 12. 1630. Bishop of Aberdeen contra his Vassals And by this Act also the Infeftment is made the rule of compearance these who owe sute only are only oblig'd to send an able man to attend and serve upon Inquests and ordinarly Charters bear tres sectas curiae THis Act appointing Sheriff-deputs and all other Deputs to be sworn yearly is in Desuetude THis Act appointing all Executions even of Letters by warrand of inferiour Courts to be stamped was running in Desuetude till it was revived by a Decision in January 1681. where an Execution proceeding upon a warrand before an inferiour Court was found not sufficient because not stamped and Horning and other Executions before the Lords were always null by way of action if not stamped July 2. 1630. This Act appoints that all Mayors and Officers shall have a Signet bearing the first Letters of their Name or some other Mark that shall be universally known and therefore though the Executions bear that they were stamped yet if they do not appear to be stamped the Executions may be quarrell'd as null especially if they be recent even as Testaments were null by the Civil Law if they did not appear to have formam insculptamque signi imaginem l. 22. § 6. qui testament fac but on the contrary if the Executions bear not that they were stamped they will not be valid though they appear to be stamped because another than the Messenger might have affix'd that stamp Vid. observ on 33 Act Par. 5 Ja. 3. ALbeit this Act appoints all such as execute Sheriffs or Barons Precepts c. to leave Copies yet it has been found that the execution of a Barons verbal Precept needs no Writ but mâ—y be prov'd by Witnesses But this was betwixt a Baron and his Tennents where there needed no written Precepts whereas this Act requiring written Executions is only to be interpreted ' where there are written Precepts because it says they shall indorse their Executions and there can be no Indorsation where there is no written Precept It is requir'd by this Act that the Executor should show the Letters which are his Warrand and that he should offer a Copy to the Servants and yet both these are in Desuetude This Act requires six knocks and the affixing of a Copy upon the most patent Door of the Defenders Dwelling house which the Lords found was only in the case where there could be no entry but found that there was no necessity of knocking when the Door 〈◊〉 patent and Servants found therein December 11. 1679. Counte◠〈◊〉 Cassils contra the Earl of Roxburgh but it may be doubted still whether six knocks be necessary where the Door is patent but no Servants within and the Act says only that if they get no entress they shall knock though a man may be cited in an ordinary action by a Copy left at the Inn where he stayed fourty days yet a man cannot be Denunc'd upon a Copy left at his Inn which is so determined in odium of his Escheat November 20. 1672. It has been doubted whether a Messengers Execution bearing that he came to the Defenders House and was by force keeped out so that he could not give a personal Citation if in that case the Defender should be
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
be extreamly vex'd ordinarly the same day is appointed by the Judge for the proponer of the Falshood to consign and for the producer of the Writ to bide by the same like to these Consignations were the Sponsions mentioned in the Civil Law whereby Litigators sponsionem faciebant certae pecuniae quae ejus lucro cederet qui judicio vicisset l. paen ff de alcae toribus l. 17. § ult ff de praescript verb. Nota By this Act where Improbation is propon'd at the Kings instance the informer is to find Caution but if the Kings Advocat insist ad vindictam publicam I conceive he is oblig'd to find no Caution because he is never presum'd to pursue Calumniously WHen any thing is to be proven by Writ if the Writ be not produc'd this Act appoints that Protestation shall be given against the probation of that part of the exception but now the form is to call upon the Act and crave Circumduction of the Term which circumduction is here call'd Protestation but if the Writ be produc'd this Act appoints that the other party shall be heard against the same after Renunciation of probation and the form is that when any Writ is produc'd in modum probationis the other party protests to be heard against the same at the advising of the Cause and the producer puts up an Act renuncing further probation THis Act appoints the expences of Plea to be Tax'd and insert in Decreets which is conform to the Ch. 68 and 69. Quon Attach and though by the Civil Law expences of Plea ought not to exceed the principal sum pursu'd for Bart. in l. 8. Cod. de indiction Yet I have seen more expences allow'd than the sum pursu'd for extended to and it were very unjust that if a person of quality were pursu'd unjustly by a mean Rogue for a small matter that his expences should not be determined according to what he was really forc'd to expend for the necessity of expending is the only just rule in such cases Queen MARY Parliament 8. THis Act of Parliament doth enable French-men to bruik Lands and Estate in Scotland and Naturalizes them so as that they may enjoy all the priviledges here as any Scots-man may do but though quoad the point of Succession strangers have by many Nations been debarr'd and that by the Roman Law cum peregrinis Testamenti factio non erat l. 1. C. de hared instituend l. 1. § 2. ff de ◠yet Craig pag. 96. observes that strangers were not debarr'd from Succession in Scotland and I find it so decided 13 January 1575. in the case of one Richardson These priviledges granted by this Act are likewise confirmed to the Frenches by an Act of Sederunt the 11 of June 1595. From these first words in this Act appointing Letters of Naturality or Naturalization to be given to such of the French Subjects as shall happen to be in the Kingdom of Scotland It may be doubted that French-men cannot pretend to this right except they live here but this is expresly contrary to the French priviledges there granted to us It may be also urg'd that Dutch-men or others cannot pretend to it though they be Naturalized in France for to Naturalize them because they are Naturaliz'd in France were to allow the French King to Naturalize any he pleas'd in Scotland though enemies to us 2. Only French-men are Naturaliz'd which is to be interpreted only of such as are properly so 3. This were fictio fictionis which is reprobated by Law It seems also just that except this priviledge be continu'd to us in France French-men ought not to have it in Scotland Quaer If Merchants though not naturaliz'd will not have right to heretable Rights granted for security of their Money for without this there could be no Commerce THis Act contains the French priviledges to us communicated by the French whereby the Scots may succeed in France in the same way that the French-men themselves did and they are by this Act Naturaliz'd to that and all other effects and which was very necessary for us since by the Law of France the Fisk excludes the true Heirs of strangers except as to Goods brought in by them which priviledge is call'd by the French droict d' anbeine beside this right of Succession the Scots likewise are free to be preferr'd to all Ecclesiastical Dignities The Gentlemen are free from Taxes and the Scottish Ships free from Imposts albeit of late the French exact from us 50 Sols per Tun as from other Strangers As to which I drew this Memorial as Assessor to the Royal Burrows A Memorial concerning the Priviledges due to the Scots in France THe French Nation finding themselves oblig'd to have forraign Recruits for maintaining their Wars pitch'd upon Scotland as a Nation very sit to furnish them Levies and so old was their Alliance that a League offensive and defensive was enter'd into betwixt Charles the Great King of France and Achaius King of Scotland in Anno 787. at which time Charles the Great bestow'd upon the King of Scotland the Double Tressure garnish'd with Flower de Luces or as the French call it Fleurie Contre fleury born by them at this day as all the French Historians and Heraulds do acknowledge After this the French being ingaged in constant Wars with the English they imploy'd the Scots on all occasions in which their great succours and services are set down by Favin a learned French Author in his Theatre of Honour and to ingage that Nation the more as well as to reward their services the guarding of the King's Person was bestowed upon them by Charles the 5 th and they were holden as Naturalized French-men and were exempted from payment of all Customs and though many of these Contracts and Leagues be lost yet these following Papers are still extant A Treaty containing these priviledges betwixt Alexander the 2d and Lewis of France called St. Lewis Another betwixt King Robert le Bruce and King John An Act of Parliament 1558. relative to the like Act in France wherein Q. Mary who was then Married to Francis Dolphine of France doth with the consent of Parliament Naturalize all the French in Scotland and enable them to succeed to Estates moveable and immoveable here and free them from all Taxes payable by strangers In which Act of Parliament the Copy of the priviledges granted by the French to the Scots is verbatim ingrossed Item A Patent by Francis King of France dated May 1510. exeeming the Scots Nation from paying Custome in Normandie Item An Act of Exchequer approving thereof dated the said year Item An Act of the Thesaurers in France consenting to the same Item Letters Patent from the said King to his Great Council for expeding the former Patent dated the said year Item Act of the Great Council consenting thereto Item An Act of the Cour des aides at Paris approving the said Patent Item Charter by King Henry the
in foro In all which the Parliaments Authority may be alleadg'd not to be controverted but the question seems to reach only to the controverting its fundamental powers and if such Cases as these were Treasonable the people might be discouraged to enquire even into what were otherways lawful and whatever may be said against such Debaits when they are meerly factious and officiously mov'd and prosecuted by such as have no interest yet such Debates in Parliament may be alleadged not Treasonable by the 40 Act 11 Par. Ja. 6. and the votes of Parliament are likewise by this Act declar'd to be free Votes As to all which I shall only say that these and such cases are to be detertermin'd by the respective Circumstances and therefore it is still safer not to approach too near those Rocks on which we may splite THis Act declares the Convocating all Councils Conventions or Assemblies Civil or Ecclesiastick to be punishable by the pains enacted against such as Convocat the Kings Lieges and it was occasioned by the unlawful Church-assemblies holden at that time in opposition to Episcopacy and by the 4 Act Par. 1 Ch. 2. This Act is Ratified and all such Convocations declared punishable though it be pretended by such as hold them that they design nothing but the good of King and Kingdom which Declaration was there made to condemn the false pretences of our late Rebellion IT is observable from this Act that the being once or twice drunk is not a sufficient reason for deprivation of a Minister for the Act requires common Drunkenness and deprives ebriosum sed non ebrium Observ. 2 o. That though this Act say That none residence for the space of four Sabbaths without the allowance of the Ordinary shall be cause of Deprivation Yet though there be no express allowance the None-residence will be no reason of Deprivation if the reason was sufficient and the Ordinary could not be had as the Common Law decides in this case None-residence is a Cause of Deprivation by the Canon Law Decret Greg. de Praeb cap. 17. and Franciscus Forrensis has writ a Learn'd Treatise proving the necessity of Residence to be juris divini The Civil Law had formerly required Residence from Church-men Nov. 6. cap. 2. 123. cap. 9. except where they had liberty from the Emperour and thus with us the King only may dispense with None-residence Observ. 3 o. That plurality of Benefices having Cure is a sufficient Reason of Deprivation which is consonant to cap. adhaec 13. de Praebend But exception is made where one is not able to entertain the Incumbent vid. Alphons Hoieda de compatibilitate beneficiorum The Pope might dispense so now may the King Observ. 4 o. That by this Act Commissioners to be appointed by the King are to have power of depriving Ministers which is abrogated by the first Act 12 Par. Ja. 6. THough this Act declares that Ministers who exerce or officiat as Notars shall be depriv'd yet it does not expresly annul the Writ and therefore a Contract of Marriage Subscrived by a Minister in place of a Notar was the 12 of July 1631. Hassington con Bartilme Sustained though it was found that the Ministers was thereby deprivable This Act discharging Ministers to be Judges was made to exclude Mr. Pont who was then Lord of the Session for after the Reformation Ministers came in place of the Ecclesiastick Lords and though they pretend now that Bishops should not sit in Civil Judicatures yet they desir'd to be there BY this Act the uttering of slanderous and un-true Speeches to the contempt of His Majesty His Councils Proceedings and Progenitors is declar'd punishable as Leasing-making and Leasing-making is punished with tinsel of Life and Goods by the 43 Act Par. 2 Ja. 1. Vid. Act 83 Par. 6 Ja. 5. Vid. etiam tit Cod. si quis imperatori maledixerit For such slanderous Speeches the party is sometimes only Banish'd or Scourg'd as Tweedie was March 13. 1612. But one Fleeming was hang'd for saying that he wish'd the King would shoot to dead May 15. 1615. Spoâ—eswood Relates that this Act was occasioned by Pamphlets and Preachings after Gourie's Execution Observ. 2 o. That all the Subjects are Discharg'd to medle in His Highnesses Affairs or in the Affairs of His Estate that is to say to make inquiry curiously into what His Majesty or His Council does for that is presum'd to be done malo animo And in all ages such curiosity has been punish'd Thus Augustus kill'd Panarus velâ—ti curiosum Sueton. cap. 27. and Plut. l. de curios Observes that the Locrenses fin'd such curious persons Vid. Langl l. 8 Semestr c. 11. who Treats on these Crimes Learnedly BY this Act no Sentence of Forfalture for Treason committed against the King and his Estate can be quarrelled upon Nullity of Process till the Crime for which the Forefalture was led be pardoned Observ. 1. That since this Act speaks only of Crimes committed against the King and His Estate it has been doubted whether this Act can be extended to Treason meerly committed against the Kings Person for by the Kings Estate is ordinarly mean'd His Prerogative and Majesty Observ. 2. That that part of the Act which Discharges Advocats to plead or consult for any person who stands forefalted is abrogated Act 38 and Act 39 Par. 11 Ja. 6. But yet none use to plead for forefalted persons till they get a Licence from the Judge before whom the Tryal is to be There was a Commission granted to consider what nullities could be objected against Swintons Forfalture and it was alleadg'd that the Decreet was null by intrinsick nullities in substantial points and so the Commissioners might proceed since this Act was only to be interpreted of Formalities and alleadg'd nullities which could not be instantly prov'd or did not appear by the Decreet it self yet they would not proceed because the forefalture was not nor could be purg'd and the Crime was notour THis Act declaring all Remissions for Slaughter Fire raising and other odious Crimes to be null is suitable to Stat. Dav. 2. cap. 50. and Act 7. Par. 3. Ja. 5. But this Act is thought Temporary as is likewise Act 63 Par. 6 Ja. 4. and notwithstanding of these Acts His Majesties Remissions for such Crimes has been oft sustain'd vid. crim pract Tit. Remissions THis Act is in Desuetude for His Majesties Guards are paid out of the Excise and I find this Act formerly establish'd by an Act of Council THis Act is fully Explained crim tit Murder BY this Act Decreets of the Lords of Session are discharged to be Suspended without Consignation but this being in Desuetude it is by the Regulations Article 19. appointed that Decreets in foro shall not be Suspended without Consignation or by the whole Lords in time of Session or by three Lords in time of Vacance It may be doubted what this Act means in appointing Letters of
but to the end each distinct Estate might have a special Habit and yet Barons nor Burgesses have as yet no distinct Habit for Parliament FOr understanding this Act appointing the number of the Lords of Articles in every State to be equal and that the most shall not exceed ten nor the least be fewer nor six it is fit to know that by the 1 Act 3 Sess. Par. 1. Ch. 2. The Lords of the Articles are ordained to be elected and constitute in manner following viz. the Clergy choose 8 of the Nobility the Nobility 8 of the Clergy and these sixteen so elected or such of them as are present do choose 8 Barons and 8 Burgesses to whom are added the Officers of Estate and the Chancellor Presides And the Articles being so constitute do prepare Laws Acts and Overtures and orders all things remitted to them by the Parliament BY the 135 Act Par. 7. Ja. 6. no Advocat could plead in Reductions of Forfaulters without a licence which is abrogated by this Act but because this Act gave leave only to persons accused before the Parliament to have Advocats without licence therefore by the 90 Act of this Parliament Advocats are ordained to plead in all Criminal Cases and they do so upon Supplications This craving a Licence was founded upon 98 Act 14 Par. Ja. 3· vid. crim observ tit Advocats THis Act is fully cleared crim observ Tit. Jurisdiction of the Parliament IN this Act the King promises to do nothing that may prejudge the liberty of Voting and reasoning but yet if any person should offer to argue what is down-right Treason this Act would not defend him for by voting and reasoning jointly may be inferred that that reasoning is only allowed which relates to a stated case and to be put to the Vote and nothing that is treasonable will be allowed to be stated in order to a Vote THis Act discharging all contention for priority of place relates only to Parliament and the disturbance thereof but by a Decreet of Ranking in anno 1606. his Majesty having ranked the Nobility has commanded them to observe the Precedency there assigned in all places and that under the pain of being punishable as contemners of his Authority THough by this Act all actions of molestations are ordained to be pursued before inferiour Judges as being naturally but actions for cognoscing of Marches where the controversie being facti can best be understood upon the place yet now such actions are ordinarlie pursued before the Lords because there is a Declarator joyned with the molestation for the Pursuer Libels that though such Lands be his Property yet he is molested in the possession thereof and the reason of this Invasion is because Declarators of Property as all other actions concerning double Rights can only be pursued before the Lords of Session The form prescribed to molestations by this Act is that the Lords shall direct Letters to the inferiour Judges upon 15 dayes warning who shall continue their Courts from 8 dayes to 8 dayes and these inferiour Judges having discust the points of Law they shall choose an Assize the most part whereof shall have 4 Ploughs of Land or 300 Merks of yearly Rent in the same or Neighbouring Parochs if there be mutual pursuits the Judge shall discuss both together and choose an Assize out of the Assizes cited by either party equally and the Odd-man to be choos'd by Cavil if the Judge ordinar be suspect the Lords shall grant Commission by their own Act or by a Commission under the testimony of the Great Seal to unsuspect Judges This form is still almost in observance only the Lords in dubious cases grant Advocations to themselves where the Judge is suspect and after the Cause is debated the Lords ordain the Ground to be visited by some of their own number or grant Commissions to others if the Lands ly very remote but these Commissions under the testimony of the Great Seal are absolutely in Desuetude If the most part of the Inquest be not clear the Lords find that in that case the Cause should be Advocat to them as the Supream Court and they will judge according to the probation already taken or will grant warrand to cite new Witnesses as they did 21 July 1675. Walstoun contra Cheislie Though this Act appoints the Inquest to be chosen of Landed-men having 4 Ploughs or 300 Merks and that in or near the Paroch where the contraverted Land lies yet the verdict will be sustained though they have not so much and though they dwell not in that Paroch albeit there be such in the Paroch This was formerly appointed §· 14. c. 74. lib. 2. R. M. where such cognitions are appointed to be per fideles homines de viceneto And Skeen there observes that Perambulations differ from Molestations in that Perambulations are petitory Judgements and concern Property but Molestations are only possessory Judgements though both tend to the tryal of Marches Nota That by the last Clause of this Act the Members of the Colledge of Justice are exeemed from Tryal before Inferiour Courts which was formerly granted in Removings p. 6. c. 39. Queen M. and is here extended to all Causes according to old accustomed use and though it was alleadg'd that thir last words were restrictive and so the Members of the Colledge of Justice could not Advocat their Causes from Inferiour Courts except in such Cases only as they could prove old use and wont yet these words are found Exegetick and to be equivalent as if the Act had said because of old accustomed use granting them that priviledge and this was very reasonable for since they are oblig'd to attend the Lords and their Clients the Citing them before Inferiour Courts had been inconsistent with both The Action of Molestation is the same with us that finium regundorum was by the Civil Law and what can stop Perambulations in our Law are set down Statut. David 2. cap. 20. where amongst other things it is observ'd that a Minor is not oblig'd to Defend in Perambulations and this is the only place in our written Law where that old Maxime is to be found minor non tenetur placitare de hareditate paternâ and yet it seems that a Molestation being declar'd by this Act to be judicium possessorium a Minor should be oblig'd to Defend in this as he is in all other possessory Judgements but the reason of this Exception in Molestations seems to be because ordinarly Molestations resolve in Declarators of property or are joyn'd with them BY this Act the Defender is indefinitly to pay the Expence of the Obtainer of the Decreet at the modification of the Judge vid. Act 110 Par. 7. Ja. 5. But though this Act be general yet statutum quod disponit simpliciter ut victus victori in expensas sit condemnandus hunc sensum admittit si non habuerit justam litigandi causam hic quippe sensus juri communi est
suffering the Rebel to possess three years has been found to be presumptio juris for inferring Simulation June 1666. Oliphant contra Oliphant There is a Title in the Civil Law de collusione detegenda which though it run there only against Collusion inter dominos servos yet the whole matter of Collusion is there Treated by the Doctors and it is defin'd to be sub specie litis lusus Vide Barthol Caâ—oll de simulationibus where this Subject is fully Treated By the last Clause in this Act it is provided that the Thesaurer or his Deputs may cause secure the Houses of the Committers of the Crimes upon the expences of the readiest of the Escheat Goods that is like that annotatio bonorum allow'd by the Civil Law in Criminals against absents and though the Act of Parliament specifies only that this may be done in Crimes yet I conceive that all Rebellion is comprehended under the word Crimes for in all cases even for civil Rebellion not only may the Thesaurer Seal till Caution be found but even the Lords of Session will upon a Bill allow the Sealing of the Rebels Goods at the Donatars instance till Caution be found WIlful setting of Fire in Coal-heâ—ghs is Treason vid. crim pract Tit. Fire-raising THis Act is Explain'd crim pract Tit. Beggars and Vagabonds THis Act against Forestalling is fully Explain'd crim pract tit Forestallers TAis Act punishing the Carriers of Wool Nolt and Sheep into England by Escheating the Transgressors Moveables is not abrogated by the Union of the Crowns the Nations being still distinct THis Act against Deforcers is Explain'd crim pract tit Deforcement THis Act is Explain'd crim pract tit Art and Part num 2. THis Act declaring that none but actual Burgesses shall Traffick is fully Explain'd 5 Act 3 Sess. 2 Par. Ch. 2. BY this Act all manner of persons Inhabitants of Burghs exercing any manner of Traffick or having Change therin shall bear Stent Which Act was found not to extend to Indwellers though they have the benefit of the Mercats and had never any other Residence but within Burgh and have the benefit of Seats in the Kirks and so should at least pay Contribution for the Ministers Stipend January 11. 1678. Town of Alerdene contra Lesk And by the 275 Act 15 Par. Ja. 6. All such as have an hundred pounds of yearly Rent may be Stented but by 276 Act of that Parliament they are only to be Stented according to the value of what Rent they have within that Burgh and not according to what they are worth else-where but it may seem that by the 275 Act all who have an hundred pound to spend ought to be Stented that therefore Indwellers are to be Stented though they have not an hundred pound of Rent in House-mail or Trade for the Act sayes if they may spend and not if they have and therefore that the persons who come in accidentally to live in Town should not pay yet if they have no other constant Dwelling save in Burgh that in that case they ought to pay because it is just all Subjects should bear some burden and they bear none else-where to which nothing can be answered but that the Act ordains only such to be Stented as have Rents and Livings copulative Observ. That by this Act one of every Craft is to be exeemed as His Majesties Servant from all Taxation Watching and Warding such as the Kings TailÈour His Smith c. And yet this Act does not exeem them actually but only allows His Majesty to exeem if He pleases so that except these be actually exeemed by their Gift this Act will not exeem them This priviledge is renew'd Act 275 Par. 15 Ja. 6. And His Majesty by His Gifts to His Work-men declares them to be exeem'd conform to these Acts whereupon the Council in anno 1680. did find they should not be stented and all these priviledges are again Ratifi'd in the Parliament 1681. But there being a Declarator rais'd of these priviledges before the Lords of Session in anno 1684. It was objected first That because these Acts being made in favours of the Kings Servants whilst our Kings liv'd in Scotland and they actually ty'd to Service the saids Acts should not now take place but should cease with the Service whereupon they are sounded 2. Though Wrights Masons c. Who are actually at present ty'd to serve may plead this priviledge yet the same cannot be crav'd by the Kings Barbers Shoe-makers c. who never serve 3. The said Exemption could extend no further than to the value of the imployment they had from the King but if the Kings Smith c. have from the people the imployment that other poor Smiths should have it were not just that he should be exeem'd which were to make them pay the value of the Impositions that should be put upon him 4. That these Laws could not exeem from paying for their other Trades So that if the Kings Mason be likewise a Vintner he should pay for his gain in that Trade 5. These Acts of Parliament could only free from Watching and Warding which are inconsistent with personal attendence but should not be extended to Stents and Impositions which were not usual before these Acts since the general words of Laws are ordinarly restricted to what ordinarly happens in the time 6. Though these Exemptions could secure against Impositions laid on by the Town yet they cannot secure against Impositions laid on in Parliament by voluntar offers made by the Subjects themselves in which those Trads-men must be considered as voluntary Offerers as well as others since they are re-presented in Parliament as well as others And in which Act Colledges and Hospitals are only exeem'd and not they this Debate is as yet come to no Decision BY this Act the Crafts-men living in Suburbs of Free and Royal burrows are discharg'd to work and their work declared conâ—â—â—â—able but this Act is not extended to Suburbs that are erected in a Burgh of Barony for these are priviledged by their erection and are not meer Suburbs but distinct Jurisdictions July 21. 1629. and there is a Decreet arbitral betwixt Edinburgh and the Suburbs wherein there is a Liberty allow'd to these who live in their Suburbs to work to Strangers but not to Towns-men This Act of Parliament has likewise been extended not only to Suburbs but to all who were within the Liberties and Priviledges of Burrows Royal though the saids places be not properly Suburbs and that the Act of Parliament discharges only the exercise of such Crafts in Suburbs adjacent to the saids Burrows July 7. 1671. Town of Stirling contra Polmais whose Tennents and Trads-men in Saint Ninians lived a mile from the Town of Stirling vid. etiam Durie March 21. 1628. and the reason of this Decision was because such Un-free men as live within the Priviledges do as well abstract the Trade of the Inhabitants as
those who live within the Suburbs It may be doubted whether since this Act of Parliament allows only the Provost and Bailies or the Officers to intromet with and Escheat the materials so wrought if therefore the Crafts-men within Towns may intromet they being neither named in this allowance and because they are too interested to have had this power committed to them It may be also doubted whether though they may Escheat the Goods when they are actually taken if they may by vertue of this Act pursue the Un-free-men for though there be no such warrand in this Act yet it seems that without they have this allowance the Priviledge granted by the Act would be useless since it would put them to keep more Servants to catch the Inbringers then the Priviledge deserves VId. Nota's on Act 74 Par. 14. Ja. 2. crim pract Tit. Remissions THis Act discharging the Transporting of Skins forth of the Realm under pain of Confiscation is still in force and was introduc'd to encourage our own Manufactors these Skins when carry'd out being wrought by strangers into several useful Commodities and sold back to our selves at great rates though this Act discharges only the carrying out of Calf-Skins Hudrons and Kid-Skins yet by the 178 Act 13 Par. Ja. 6. This is extended to all other Skins and though by this Act the Confiscation is to be for His Majesties use yet by that Act the half belongs to the Apprehender Observ. 2. Not only the Transporting but even the packing and pielling is found to be a sufficient ground of Confiscation for packing and pielling is presumptione juris concluded to be in order to Transportation but it is not presumptio juris de jure since to elide the Confiscation it is sufficient to alleadge that the Skins were packed and pielled in order only to an inward Transportation from one place of the Kingdom to another Observ. 3. That by the 45 Act Par. 1 Ch. 2. The Exportation of all wild Beasts Skins and Shorlings are expresly discharg'd and by Shorlings are meant Skins which have the Wool pluckt off and comes from the word Shearing but by that Act power is given to the Exchequer to give Licences for Exporting of Skins as they shall find cause and though the power to grant such Licences may seem to cast loose all these Acts it being very presumable that they would be purchast for Money yet that was thought necessary because if our Trades-men knew that no Skins could be Exported they would lessen the price as they pleas'd and sometimes the Trads-men cannot make use of all the Skins in the Nation and Skins are a considerable part of some mens Rent nor should the Exchequer give Licences in any other case THis Act renews the 54 Act 6 Par. Queen Mary Discharging all persons to stop the way to Free-burrows or Sea ports under the pain of being pursu'd as Oppressors and allows the Lords of Session to pursue the Contraveeners summarly without any Assize which Act was necessary because all actions of Molestations such as this was formerly ordain'd to be try'd by Assizes and before inferiour Judges 11 Act Par. 42 Ja. 6. From which Act these Tryals are excepted because of their great importance and that they require present expedition for which cause the Civil Law allow'd several Interdicts against stopers of High-ways Vid. tit 10. l. 3. ff 6. By the 38 Act 1 Par. Ch. 2. All High-wayes to Mercat Towns are ordain'd to be twenty Foot of Measure and the Justices of Peace are ordered to see the High-wayes made to have that Latitude at least and by the Civil Law via privata debet esse octo pedum in porrectum 16. pedum in ansractum l. viae latitudo ff de servit prae rusticorum via autem publica seu consularis tam lata esse debet ut currus obvii sibi invicem cedere possint Coepol de servit rusticis cap. 3. I find this Law for securing the High-wayes to â—oyal Burrows was very old in France Argentorat pag. 201. where he very well observes that Ita fit ut itinera quae ab agris paroeciiâ— aut pagis inâ—hoantur lâ—â—et in mercatum ducant publica dici non debeaâ—â— cum a mercatu ad merâ—atum non ducant ut hoc textu sed eâ—si ab urâ—ibus inciâ—iunt nec tamen in urbes aut alios mercatus ducant publica hac quidem lege non sunt I find always that Ways leading to Burghs had a particular priviledge by the Civil Law THis Act allows the Admiral no more Jurisdiction than he exercised before the death of King Ja. 5. Notwithstanding of any Specialities contained in their Infeftments and it may be doubted whether the Admiral is to prove when he is challenged that that for which he is challenged was exercised by his Predecessors in the time of King Ja. 5. Or if such as Challenge the Admiral are to prove what was the custom then But the Admirals Jurisdiction is now fully clear'd by the 16 Act Par. 3. Ch. 2. THis Act is Explain'd Act concerning Provestries Ch. 2 Par. 1 Sess. 1 Act 54. King James the sixth Parliament 13. THis Act discharging Mercats and Fairs on the Sabbath-day was made at the desire of the General Assembly as our History observes Vid. Spotswoods History of the Reformation THis Act appointing such as contemn the Decreets of the Kirk to be Denunced Rebels is still in force though it relates only to the Decreets of Presbyteries and Presbyterian Judicatures and though these be now abrogated THis Act is formerly Explain'd in the Act 48 Par. 3 Ja. 6. IT may be doubted whether this priviledge granted to Ministers freeing their Stipends of all Impositions can be taken from them by Conventions of States since Conventions cannot derogat from Acts of Parliament and they can only offer their own Money but cannot make Laws and yet the Convention 1666. did burden Ministers Stipends with the Imposition then laid on IT is observable from this Act that some Crimes which are not Capital of their own Nature become Capital by reiteration though many Civilians doubt of this point and yet crescente malitia crescere debet paena l. 4. C. de servis fugit plus punitur qui saepius deliquit l. 8. § 2. C. ad l. Jul. de vi pub BY this Act the pains of such as find Caution to answer in Criminal Dyets and report Criminal Letters for Law borrows are hightned every Earl or Lord two thousand Pounds every great Baron a thousand pounds every Free-holder a thousand merks every Feuar five hundred merks and these are called in our present stile the pains of the new Act of Parliament Observ. 1. That it has been debated from this Act whether this Caution should be found according to the quality of the Pursuer or the Defender as for instance if an Earl were pursuing a Feuar should he find Caution according
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
this Act is in Desuetude but I believe neither for where the Council names jure dâ—voluto because Magistrates accept not they come only in place of the old Magistrates and Council and therefore they can only do what these could have done ex regula surrogatorum and this Act having been made in favours of the King and Monarchy it cannot run in Desuetude without their consent and it is thought that by vertue of it none who are Lords of the Session can be Provosts these being incompatible Employments and inconsistent with the design of this Act which bears to be made to hinder the dissipation of their Common Good and perverting of their Priviledges which is much more easie for Lords of the Session and persons in publck Employment than for others beside that publick Traffique and Merchandising is inconsistent with that exact distribution of Justice which is necessary in His Majesties Judges vide Lampridium in vita Severi as to the distinction of Habits amongst Magistrates THis Act is Explain'd crim pract tit Injuries To which I shall only now add that not only what is destructive to the Government but what may tend to the prejudice of the Government is here punished and this I have thought fit to observe because tending has been oftimes Debated not to be Relevant It may be also doubted whether speaking against the House of Commons or their Resolutions is punishable by this Act since it punishes all reproachful Speeches of the People or Countrey of England and they are the Representatives of the People and since these are punishable who speak against a Councellour of England much more ought they to be punish'd who speak against the House of Commons But in my opinion this Act reaches only such as speak reproachfully of their Nation Countrey and Counsellours but the whole Act ought to be abrogated by our Parliament as being past by us in expectation that England would make such an Act in their Parliament which they never did and upon which account it was never in observance with us It is likewise observable that though in our Law Concealing and not Revealing is only punishable in Treason yet by this Statute the hearing any thing spoke against the people of England or any Privy Counsellour in that Nation and the not Revealing is declared to be equally punishable with inventing such Calumnies THis Act is Temporary as to many things but it is observable from it that the using false Testimonials is punishable by death as Falshood And the power given to the Commissioners of the Borders to apprehend Fugitives and to send them or their marks and tokens to the Kings Commissioner is founded on l 4. ff de Fugitivis Where Limenarcha which is our Commissioners of the Borders debent inquirere in fugitivos and to send them with their notae which is our Tokens to the next Magistrats THe Customs being annex'd to the Crown by the 8 Act Par. 1 Ja. 1. They are by this Act dissolved from the Crown in so far as concerns 10000 pounds yearly to be pay'd to the Lords of Session in place of Quots of Testaments and therefore the Lords of the Session do conform to this Act Decern summarly the Tacks-men and Collectors to pay this 10000. pounds and ordains them to be Charged with Horning BY the 4 Act Par. 18 Ja. 6. It is Declar'd That Restitutions by way of Grace shall not prejudge those who acquired the Forefaulted persons Lands either by a Lucrative or an onerous Cause but because both by an inference from that and by the Principles of the Common Law these who are restored by way of Justice might pretend to quarrel those who during their Forefaulture were presented to Benefices to which they were Patrons upon pretext that they were to be restor'd intirely Therefore it seems that this Act has been made whereby it is declar'd that such as are presented to Benefices which were at the Presentation of Forefaulted persons shall not be prejudg'd by their Restitution and which was very just since Patrons are not prejudg'd because it is presum'd that the Ordinary would not Collate persons that were insufficient nor were Patrons allow'd to make any advantage by the Presentations and upon the same principle it seems reasonable to conclude that a Minor cannot Revock a presentation granted by him with the consent of his Curators during his Minority THis Act Ratifies an Act of Privy Council whereby Aegyptians were commanded to depart the Kingdom betwixt and the first of August thereafter under the pain of Death but it may be justly doubted how the Council had power to make Acts inferring the pain of Death Since it is a received Principle in our Law as is clear by Craig and others that the Secret Council can make no Act which may infer forefaulture of Life or Estate and though by the Acts 124 and 147. Par. 12 Ja. 6. Judges be ordain'd to punish Aegyptians and that by the 268 Act Par. 15 Ja. 6. Vagabonds and Aegyptians are to be employ'd in Common Works yet by neither of these Acts is the pain of Death to be inflicted and therefore it was lately Debated that this Act was but at best a Temporary Act and so Aegyptians could not be impannelled for their Life but yet this Act has been still repute a sufficient Warrand for punishing by Death such as were known holden and repute to be Aegyptians And I find that upon the last of July 1611. Moses Schaw and others were Hang'd as Aegyptians and it is notour that immediatly after this Act Sheriffs and others did Hang very many by warrand thereof and the Act is not Temporary for it appoints them to be Executed in time coming after the first of August and the Act has ordain'd Aegyptians to be proceeded against as Sorners and common Thieves who are by our Law to be punish'd with Death as is clear by the Narrative of this Act which bears that the Council had Commanded That the Sorners and common Thieves commonly call'd Aegyptians c should depart forth of the Kingdom So that the Council has not inflicted the pain of Death upon a new Crime but has only declared That Aegyptians fell under the old Crime that was punishable by Death Nor can it be deny'd but that from this and many other Acts it is clear that the Council has a power to extend and interpret Statutes even relating to Life and Forefaulture since the Act appoints only such to be punishable by Death as are known holden and repute to be Aegyptians It may be doubted what can prove that the Aegyptians pannell'd are known holden and repute to be such For which beside the common Inferences of notoriety adduc'd by Mascardus and others in probatione notorij Our Law allows that such as call themselves Aegyptians or go up and down the Countrey bleaking their Faces telling Fortunes and speaking the Gebrish peculiar to those people shall be punished as Aegyptians and
Land Parsonage Vicarage or other Living belonging to the said Dignity dissolved from the same without express Warrand from His Majesty and Parliament shall be null For understanding this Act it is fit to know that in every Bishoprick there are several Dignities allow'd by the Canon Law by which Law the Word Dignity is either taken largely so as to comprehend all Ecclesiastical Dignities as in cap. denique dist 4. But properly it imports administrationem Ecclesiasticam cum honore vel jurisdictione conjunctam Glâ—ss in cap. 1. de consuetud in 6. and generally all such to whom the Cognition of Causes could be delegated were accounted Ecclesiastick Dignities cap. cum olim de offic legat There are in every Chapter and Bishoprick with us some of those Dignities but of a different Rank and Jurisdiction not only from those in the Canon Law but the Dignities in our own Bishopricks differ from one another though all of them agree in this that those Dignities which were appointed at the foundation of the Bishopricks continue to this day and the foundations are the Rule and are very different The ordinary Dignities common to all are the Dean the Arch-dean the Chanter the Chancellour and the Thesaurer The Office of the Dean has been fully Explain'd in the Act 2 Par. 22 Ja. 6. The Arch-deacon call'd improperly by us Arch-dean is the Archidiaconus of the Canon Law who though they be inferiour to Deans yet they are in effect the Bishops Vicar and have the Chief Jurisdiction next to him being in the Canon Law oculus Episcopi their Office in that Law was to examine such as were presented to the Bishop and to put them in possession of their Benefice after their admission as also to visit the Diocy every three year if the Bishop be not present and to oversee the Manners and Living of the Clergy The Chanter is in the Canon Law called Primicerius because he is first of the Order of the Singers and by the Greek Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his employment was to oversee such as sung and read in the Church and with us the Sub-chanter is a dignity called Succentor in the Canon Law and that likewise he was allow'd a dignity by the Canon Law is clear Innocent cap. 3. inter dilectos de excess prael The Chancellor was so called because he kept the Seal of the Church Cujac ad tit ut Eccles. bon sine diminut conserv he was likewise Superviser of the Bibliotheck of Schools and of these who taught the Clergy cap. penult ult de translat Epis. cap. veniens de reg trans ad monast In England the Chancellor is in effect a Church-Lawyer who judges for the Bishop through the whole Diocy and is universal Commissary whereas these only are called Commissars by that Law to whom the judging in particular Places or Cases is committed But with us the Chancellor is still a Church-man and the Province of Saint Andrews has its Chancellor as well as the special Bishopricks the Bishop of Edinburgh being the Chancellor of the Province of Saint Andrews The Thesaurer is he who did oversee the Thesaury and all things else belonging to the Church who in the forecited cap. cum olim is accounted to have Ecclesiastick Dignity It is observ'd by Bengeus de beneficiis Ecclesiasticis Renat Chopin and other Canonists that both the Jurisdiction and Precedency amongst those Dignities is now consuetudinary and alter'd much according to the custom of the several Places and it is so with us where they are regulated according to the special Foundations or Custom if these be wanting or lost THis Act is Explain'd in many other Acts concerning the priviledge of Burghs Royal. THis Act is formerly Explain'd in Act 47. Parl. 11. Ja. 6. BY this Act all playing at Cards or Dice in any Inn or Ale-house is discharg'd under the pain of fourty Pounds and all playing at Cards or Dice even in privat Houses is forbidden except where the Masters of the Families play and all playing at Cards and Dice even though the Master play and all Horse-Races are so far restrain'd that the Gainer cannot have Action for any thing he wins above an hundred Merks But yet it was found that the Loser is still lyable in payment and therefore the Kings Advocat was found to have interest to compear and crave the Money to be consign'd November 12. 1668. Park contra Somervel Where it was debated if this was vitium reale and might be taken from an Assigney though he knew not how the Money was dew for else this Act might be eluded by filling up the name of an Assigney By the Civil Law Tit. 43. lib. 3. l. 1. Cod. de aleatoribus he that is overcome at such Games is not oblig'd to pay and though he pay he or his heirs have repetition and by the Canon Law Church-men who use such Games cannot be promoted to Benefices cap. 11. de excess prelat but yet wagering seu sponsio was by that Law allowed l. 17. § ult ff de prescript verb. and so our Horse-races were not condemn'd by that Law though they are by ours for that Law did think that nullam turpitudinem continet in se spoâ— sio nam inde rixae oriri non solent but our Law did condemn Horse-Races because they occasion'd great Idleness and Expence This Act is still exactly observ'd but is not extended to other Wagers such as that Ships will arrive at such a day or in such a place which was not found to fall under this Act which speaks only of Cards Dice and Horse-Races it seems that this Act would not be extended to any other Game ex paritate rationis but yet I find that by the late Decisions of most Nations these are not sustain'd tanquam otiosi aleatorii contractus qui nihil in se continent praeter inanem animorum concertationem Stockman decis 134. Molin tract de usur quest 3. num 97. By the Civil Law likewise though wagering was allow'd yet where either of the Parties did certainly know the thing whereupon he wagered but conceal'd his knowledge as for instance if a man should wager that such a man should be dead before a year elapsed and that he knew him to be already dead the Law would not allow Action upon that Wager because in effect that were to cheat and accordingly our Courts in Scotland have most justly decided Wagers likewise upon the deaths of Princes are discharg'd as giving occasion of jealousie as also Wagers concerning the event of Publick Undertakings for the good of the Countrey such as the success of Arms c. and that lest men should be tempted either to wish the Armies of their native Country not to prosper or to reveal their Secrets to the end they may not prosper vid. Zipeum in not juris belli lib. 3. in fin there is such an Act as ours made by Lewis 13. of France amongst his Statutes cap. 138.
Parliament was Adjourned by Proclamation was elapsed a new Parliament behoved to be called Or if the current Parliament ought to be Adjourned by a new Proclamation notwithstanding the Day was elaps'd and it was found that it might be Adjourned since the power of Calling and Dissolving Parliaments is the Kings Prerogative and a Letter to this purpose from the King is Registrated in the Council Books in July 1683. King CHARLES 2. Parliament 1. Session 2. EPiscopacy having been Restor'd in anno 1606. Bishops were by the Rebellious Parliaments abolish'd and therefore are by this Act Restor'd to their undoubted Priviledge in Parliament that is to say to be a third Estate their Function Dignities and Estates but before this Act of Parliament the Secret Council by their Act in June 1662. Discharg'd any Person to meddle with their Estates or Revenues in Obedience to a Letter directed by His Majesty which gave the first rise both to that Act of Council and this Act of Parliament By the first Act Par. 12. Ja. 6. King James had permitted the Church to be Govern'd by General-assemblies Synods and Presbytries Which Act was not expresly abrogated by the 2 Act Par. 18. Ja. 6. and therefore it is by this Act expresly abrogated They are also Restor'd to their Commissariots and Quots of Testaments but the present Commissars Rights are reserv'd and albeit they be Restored to the Superiorities Yet Vassals having Entered by or having pay'd to the Superiors for the Interval are secur'd BY this Act taking up Arms though in Defence of Religion is Declar'd Treason and conform to this Clause all going to Field-conventicles in Arms was Declar'd Treasonable though it was alleadg'd that this was not a Rising in Arms since every man went without knowing of his Neighbour for the Council and Justices thought that at this rate a multitude of Arm'd men might easily assemble and the Levying War or taking up Arms being impersonally Discharg'd it reaches every single man and though there were only one single man in Arms yet he would be guilty of Treason especially after that Proclamation for he knew not but others might be there versabatur in illicito By this Act also all accession to the Suspending His Majesty or His Successors or to the Restraining their Persons or inviting Forraigners to Invade their Dominions is declar'd Treason There is one Branch of this Clause which may seem hard but was necessary viz. Or put limitations upon their due Obedience for the former age and this having invented new Treasons in asserting they would own the King in as far as He would keep the Covenant or own Jesus Christ But reserving still to themselves to judge how far the King did so they did by a necessary consequence conclude that they were no further oblig'd than they pleas'd and so made themselves in effect Judges above the King than both which nothing can be more Treasonable And I remember that Sir Francis Bacon in his History of King Henry 7. Tells us That the Judges of England found Sir Robert Clifford guilty of Treason because he said that if he knew Perkin Werbeck were King Edward 's Son he would never bear Arms against him though the Words were alleadg'd to be only conditional for they thought it a dangerous thing to admit ands and ifs to qualifie words of Treason whereby any man might express his malice and blanch his danger The denying His Majesties Supremacy as it was then Established is declar'd punishable by in-capacity and such other punishment as is thereto due by Law But it had been fitter to Determine that punishment and from the words as it is now Establisht It may be doubted whether the Impugning the Supremacy absolutely be punishable by this Act since the Supremacy is extended by a posterior Act viz. The 1 Act 2 Par. Ch. 2. But that Act being only an Explication of this all such as Impugn the Kings Supremacy absolutely are punishable From these words also That they shall be punishable by such other pains as are due by Law in such cases It may be doubted what punishment is due to such as Impugn the Kings Supremacy besides incapacity and it seems they may be pannal'd upon the 129 and 130 Acts 8 Par. Ja. 6. It has been urg'd That all speaking against the Kings Prerogative is only punishable by incapacity and arbitrary punishments because this Clause sayes That if they Speak Print c. against the Kings Supremacy in Causes Ecclesiastick or to justifie any of the actings or practices abovementioned they shall be so punished But so it is that all rising in Arms to Depose the King c. are above-mentioned Ergo say they The speaking or Preaching in Defence of these is only to be so punished and they urge this from the Principles of Reason and the practice of other Nations and that excellent Law si quis imperatori maledixerit lib 9. tit 7. C. but this were a most absur'd Gloss For certainly if this Objection prov'd any thing it would prove that no words could infer Treason which is expresly contrary to the very Act whereby all these Positions are Declar'd Treason and consequently all words whatsoever which express these Positions are punishable as â—reason and it is fit to know that it is not that very formula or words which are condemn'd but these Positions are condemn'd for else it were easie to make the Act elusory and to evade it by using other words than the words here set down and the Analysis of that part of the Act is that first the Positions are Declar'd Treasonable 2. The speaking against the Kings Supremacy and the Ecclesiastical Government as now Establish'd c. is forbidden 3. The Plotting or Contriving any thing against the King consequentially to these Positions is Declar'd punishable by Forefaulture 4. That the speaking c. against the Supremacy and the Establish'd Government of the Church is to be punish'd arbitrarly and the words Or to justifie any of the Deeds declar'd againstly this present Act are to be restricted to words relative to the Supremacy c. mention'd in that Clause only It is also observable That the Impugning the Government by Bishops or the Kings Supremacy are only punishable if they be pursu'd within eight Moneths and Sentenc'd within four Moneths thereafter and are only punishable by this Act if it was done by malicious and advis'd Speaking and therefore it appears that such as were Drunk when they spoke these words are not punishable by this Act nor such as are reputed fatuus and Fools though they be not declared Idiots or Furious and yet it seems that all Writing Preaching and Prayers and such malicious Expressions to stir up the people to a dislike of His Majesties Royal Prerogative and Supremacy in Causes Ecclesiastick are punishable indefinitly and that because either the Law presumes they are premeditated or because of the great danger arising therefrom and therefore it will have them punish'd as such
the same when His Majesties Authority is fully represented and His Nobility and Servants fully conveen'd a great instance whereof appear'd in the late Rebellion of Bothwel-bridge 2. The Summer Session was very well contriv'd for the administration of Justice because in the Moneths of June and July such as have affairs in dependence before the Session had then no Labouring at Home those two Moneths falling very conveniently in betwixt Seed-time and Harvest and we having formerly had the Moneth of March adjected to the Winter Session that Moneth was taken from it because it was a part of our Seed-time and consequently to have it now a part of our Session must be very inconvenient 2. In those two Moneths His Majesties Subjects in the Isles and remote Countreys can only come to get Justice administrated to them in the Summer there being no passage from these places to the Session in the Winter time or at least if they do come they must stay the whole Winter and in some years the storms are such that there is no Travelling even from nearer Countreys nor is the winter fit for old men Bishops Clergy-men and such as are infirm to travel in 3. The Season in these two Moneths being very moderat with us and the dayes long much more Bussiness is dispatched than in the Winter time and there is far more conveniency of Informing than in the cold and rigid Winter Nights which puts men to great expense and occasions many Diseases 4. Though his Majesties Subjects now procure Decreets or get Bonds yet the same being Suspended they cannot be discuss'd for nine or ten Moneths during which time also widows and Orphans starve Masters cannot remove Tennents because they Advocat the Cause and Debitors become Insolvent Creditors likewise being forc'd to use Adjudiâ—â—â—ions within year and day of one another are altogether by the said long Vacation excluded 5. Not only Business before the Session by this means but even before inferiour Courts are stopt for such as are conscious to the injustice of their own cause stop procedure there likewise by Advocations which cannot be discuss'd for nine or ten Moneths 6. Not only in these particulars but in general the course of Justice is stopt here far contrary not only to our conveniency but to the Custom of all Nations who allow in place of one four or five Sessions There being no Vacation in the world longer than two Moneths except in Scotland who now allow seven during which time honest men are Defrauded Bankrupt and violent Possessors are Indulg'd Probation by Witnesses and otherwise perish and to be short there is no face of Justice during that time 7. As the Vacation is too long for the conveniency of the People so is the Winter Session too long for the conveniency of the Judges Advocats and other Members of the Colledge of Justice who must either destroy themselves by toiling too much or the Peoples Business by their languid and negligent mannadgement thereof it being undenyable that before the four Moneths used to expire formerly all persons concerned did languish weary and wish for a Vacation 8. The shortness of the time now allow'd forces the Judges to give shorter audience and to frequent the Side-Bars more than is fit 3. The want of the Summer Session destroys Trade and Commerce Because 1. Merchants cannot get in their Money with which they should Trade wanting the Execution of Law for so long a time 2. There is now no Whitsunday Term so that the Course of Money is stopt and it is undenyable that there are no payments now at Whitsunday whereas we having had two Terms formerly Whitsunday and Martinmas there were very wisely two Sessions appointed one in the Summer for those who did not pay at Whitsunday and another in the Winter for those who did not pay at Martinmass 3. There being no concourse and meetings of the People for seven Moneths there can be little Commerce For all Traffique arises and Bargains are made upon such occasions 4. It is undenyable that twice more Merchants have broke in those two years that we wanted a Summer Session than in any six formerly from which decay of Trade also arises a great loss to His Majesty in His Customs and Revenue 4. This want of the Summer Session is very prejudicial to the private Estates and Interests of almost all sorts of People For 1. There is alwise greatest consumption of Corn Cattle and all Products of the Nation in more frequent and numerous concourse of People and the greater the Consumption be the prices rises so much the higher 2. The Victual of the Northern Shires not being Transportable till April because of the Storms it was only vented during the Summer Session and now the price of the Victual there is much faln and His Majesties 〈◊〉 in those Shires much prejudg'd 3. The Heritors of Store-rooms in the South and West are very much prejudg'd since a great part of their Cattle especially of the younger was only vented in the Summer Session 4. The Heretors in the Shires about Edinburgh are prejudg'd in every thing that is pay'd to them 5. The half of the Town of Edinburgh it self is almost laid waste Landlords having almost lost half their Rent and the best Trades-men running away to other Nations because they are idle for seven Moneths here By which also His Majesty is a great loser in His Revenue that Town paying him more alone than a sixth part of what is pay'd by all the Burghs-Royal in the Kingdom and Trade by this extraordinary Poverty decaying in Edinburgh which is the Fountain of Commerce and the Staple Port of the Nation it must proportionally decay in all the other Towns since their Trade and Commerce depends upon it 6. His Majesties ordinary and additional Excise in Edinburgh has very much decreased and the Brewers are almost all broken within these two years as the Tacks-men and Customers too well know The Ministers Stipends likewise being pay'd out of the Annuities on House-Meals they must likewise decrease as the House-meals do Nor is the Town able to keep up the Company nor to furnish His Majesty such assistance as formerly it gave in the Rebellions at Pentland and Bothwel As to the contrary Arguments it was answered that as to the first Business did increase daily in all Nations with the improvement of Land and of Trade and the multiplying of Diligences so that Processes could not be sooner ended than formerly without deciding them more carefully To the second no man now needed to come till his Cause was call'd because all Causes were decided in their course by a Roll and so it was no matter whether he came Summer or Winter To the third it was answer'd there was more Planting and improvement in the Moneth of March which is now lost than in both the Moneths of June and July It may be doubted if the King can recal the Summer Session without an express Act of Parliament and it
are allow'd in all Courts except the Justice Court where â—ssonzie must be proven by Witnesses present in Court And to allow Testificats is dangerous because they may be forg'd yet they were allow'd even in Treason in E. Laudons case 1 Apryl 1684. but the speciality there was that the Earl was in Holland for it was thought hard to bring Phisicians from thence and yet I think the Seal of the Town should be brought in that case Vid. stat Will. c. 26. num 2. Quon Attach c. 33. THe meaning of this Act is when any Defender finds Caution to answer as Law will which is called here a Borgh upon a Weir of Law he may either answer presently or may have a day to give in his Defences he finding Caution to answer of new this is explained R. M. l. 1. c. 11. num 4. But now with us there is no dyet allow'd in Criminal Courts for the dyets there are peremptor THis falsing of Dooms or Appeal was altered and in place of them are come our Suspensions and Reductions of Decreets for the Doom is a Decreet and in these Reductions and Suspensions it is lawful to insert only one Reason at first and the rest may be now eeked without protesting for a Liberty to eeke new Reasons as is required by this Act and a Borgh or Caution is yet necessary in Suspensions as it was in falsing of Dooms By the Civil Law Appeals were to be interpos'd within ten days after Sentence but by this Act the Appeal was to be us'd immediatly or at least before the Pursuer walkt 40 paces by the Act 99. Parl. 6. Ja. 4. and in place of the words here used viz. That Doom is false stink and and rotten in the self and thereto a Borgh the party leased was to say I am gratumly hurt and injured by the said Doom and therefore I Appeal and this was done because the words here us'd were Rude and Unmanerly THe meaning of this Act is That if the Pursuer be forc'd to find Caution to answer as Law will he may force the Defender to Recounter it That is to say to find Caution also and whosoever is absent after Caution is so found shall lose the cause and shall be unlaw'd also Vid. c. 18. vers 2. 3. l. 1. R. M. THis Act appoints That the Ships which break in this Kingdom shall be Confiscated amongst us if the Ship belongs to a Countrey which uses that Law against us For clearing this it is fit to know that by the Civil Law the Goods of Ship-wrackt Persons fell not to the Fisk. l. 1. C. de naufr si quando naufragio navis expulsa fuerit ad Litius vel si quando aliquam terram attigerit ad Dominos pertineat fiscus meus sese non interponat quidenim jus habet fiscus in aliena calamitate ut de re tam luctuosa compendium sectetur and by the Canon Law qui christianos naufragium sacientes damnata cupiditate râ—bus suis spoliant excommunicantur c. 3. Extr. de Rapt But yet France does Confiscat Ship-wrackt Goods le bris est confisque au segnieur Soveraigne â—odin de 〈◊〉 C. ult Where it is asserted that this was the Law of both Eastern and Western Seas which is false for it is not the custome of Holland nor Pole nor Denmark Vid. Curick ad tit 9. jur Hans with us if no Living Creature escape that was in the Ship the Goods are Wreck and belong to the Admiral by his Gift from the King but if any Living Creature escape neither Ship nor Goods are Wreck as was decided where only ane Ox escapt 12 December 1622. And yet by the present custome of the Admirality though no Living Creature escape the Admiral secures only the Goods and restors them if the true Owner claime them and prove his Propertie within year and day being repayed of his Salvage for which we have no positive Statute And it seems we have borrowed this from the Statute of Hen. 3. anno 1226. cited by Curick tit 9. Though Skeen de verb. sig verb. Wrack cites another Statute viz. Anno 3. Ed. 1. C. 4. So that though the Custome seems unjust yet this Law has seem'd just because of Lex talionis And the Title quod quisque juris in alium statuit ut ipse eodem jure utatur tit 2. lib. 2. ff And yet our present Custome has justly corrected this Law in manner above mentioned And I likewise believe that even after the Year is Elapsed the true Proprietar may recover his Goods if he prove the Propertie and if his Goods be extant for 1. That which is mine cannot be taken from me without my own fact and deed 2. There were as good reason for the King to seize upon Goods that were Robb'd by Land for the Proprietar quytes his Goods as unwillingly in the one case as in the other 3 ly Even in Goods that are thrown over Board for the securitie of the Vessel the Law presums no design in the Proprietar to quite them as de relicta § Fin. Inst. de rer divis And therefore much lesse ought this to be sustained in Goods forced from the Proprietar by a Tempest since there is some consent in the one but none in the other 4 to If any privat man seize on such Ship-wrackt Goods his seizing on them would be a Crime l. 1. l. ult de inâ—end ruin l. de submersis C. de naufrag And it is strange that private men should be punished because they seized on what was anothers and yet the same calamitie which aggrages the Crime in them should establish a Right in the Publick and it may be well argued that either the Propertie is lost by the Ship-wrack and if so why has the Proprietar action against the seizers or if it be not lost how has the Fisk acquyred the Propertie for duo non possunt esse domini ejusdem rei in solidum 5 o. There is lesse reason for a shorter prescription in such than in any other Moveables For in other Goods there may be a presumed design to quite the possession but here there can be none for it is palpably to be imputed to force 6 o. This is destructive to all Commerce and no Nation ought to sustain it because all Nations will loss equalie by it 7 o. The Owners may not know where to seek their Ship-wrackt Goods because lost in very remote Countries and oftentimes the Owners themselves being lost with them leave none to prosecute their Rights so that upon the whole matter it seems that the custome of other Nations can no more justifie ours in this than the eating of our men amongst the Cannibals would justifie our eating them and it seems rather that Letters of Mark ought to be granted in such cases if restitution be refus'd THough this Act appoints Advocats to give their Oath of Calumnie only in Temporal Courts yet this holds also in the Commissar