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
many of the old Acts yet to be seen in the Records of Parliament are left out Observ. That the Acts of Parliament are call'd the Kings Laws and not the Acts of Parliament for the King has only the Legislative power and the Estates of Parliament only consent The Books of Regiam Majestatem are likewise numbred amongst our Laws but what is mean'd by the words Acts and Statutes added in this Act to the Kings Laws and Reg. Maj. I do not understand except by these be mean'd the Burrow-Laws and the Statutes of the Gildry and these other Books that are bound in with Reg. Maj. K. JAMES IV. Parliament I. BY the twelfth Articl Iter. Just. The Burrows had liberty to repledge their own Burgesses from being upon assizes which priviledge is here regulated but now the priviledge it self is in Desuetude for all Burgesses are oblig'd to pass upon assizes except the Chirurgeons of Edinburgh who have a special priviledge because of their necessary attendence upon sick persons BY this Statute all Ships must come first to free Burghs and no Strangers can fraught Ships but now by the 5 Act 3 Sess. 2 Par. Ch. 2. all â—urghs of Barony and Regality may Traffick in the product of Scotland as freely as Royal Burghs Vid. That Act and the observ thereon That part of the Act discharging strangers to buy Fish that is not salted is now in Desuetude It was argued from this Act in the case of the Town of Linlithgow against Borrowstounness that the Burrows Royal had the only priviledge of having all Goods Liver'd and Loadned at their Ports and which is likewise clear by Act 88 Par. 6 Ja. 4. and by Act 152 Par. 12 Ja. 6. 2 o. Without this priviledge the Burrows were not able to pay the sixth part of the burdens laid upon them in contemplation of their Trade since a Clandestine Trade without this might be carry'd on by the Burghs of Barony and Regality who since they may retail publickly might have the same priviledge as they if they had likewise power to import publickly 3 o. This was most convenient for securing the Kings Customs because where ever there is Livering allow'd the King must have Waiters and upon which consideration the Magistrats of Burghs Royal are by the Acts of Parliament appointed to assist the Kings Customers and whereas it was pretended that the priviledge of Commerce was inter regalia and consequently the King might grant a free Port to any Burgh he pleas'd 2 o. The priviledge of a free Port was different from that of Livering and Loadning 3 o. The Acts of Parliament cited did only discharge Strangers to Load and Liver which is yet more clear by the Act 120 Par. 7 Ja. 6. To which it was reply'd that the King and Parliament having formerly granted the sole power of Loadning and Livering to free Burrows it was no diminution of his power to assert that he could not give a new grant of that to any whereof he was formerly divested To the 2 d it was reply'd that the sole priviledge of a free Port granted by a King to a Burgh of Regality or Barony can extend no further than that thereby they may have the priviledge of bringing into their Port the Goods proper only to be sold by them To the 3 d it was reply'd that this Act discharges Strangers and others to Liver at any place except at the Ports of Burghs Royal and though in that 120 Act Par. 7 Ja. 6. This Act is repeated as relating only to strangers yet in the next line Strangers and others are in that 120 again discharged Likeas by the Acts of Parliament the sole priviledge of losing and loosing is declar'd to belong only to Burghs Royal which in Sea-faring Terms signifies loadning and un-loadning BY the Act 85 Par. 11 Ja. 3. The Rents of Churches or Benefices whereof the King is Patron are declar'd to belong to him sede vacante by the priviledge of his Crown and this was so formerly declar'd by the 7 cap. Stat. 2 Rob. 1. And Skeen there observes that cum alicujus beneficii Ecclesiastici patronatus pertinet ad Regem terra si quae sunt ei annexa pertinent quodammodo ad Regem and therefore by this Act it is appointed that it being declar'd by the best and worthiest Clerks of the Realm that if any Church-man received and purchast such a Benefice at Rome they should be punish'd and these who supplyed them This Declaration from Clerks was requir'd because the Secular would not meddle with Church-men in these days till Church-men had some way declar'd them guilty King JAMES the fourth Parliament 2. THat part of the Act appointing the intromission with the Kirk Rents to be a point of Dittay that is to say to be a Crime is now in Desuetude for they have no other priviledge here more than Laicks but to intromet with their Rents either by Arms or open Force is the Crime of oppression with us and was punish'd by the Romans lege Julià de vi per deportationem in liberos homines ultimum supplicium in servos Observ. That by this Act Parsons and Vicars are founded in jure as to Teinds for it is declar'd a Crime to intromet without a right from them I Understand not how it is said here that the King could not discharge any part of the Taxation granted to him though it was granted for a particular or publick use for it is ordinary and lawful to Kings with us to discharge privat parties their particular proportions except the contrary be expresly provided and the offer be so qualifi'd by the Parliament but here the King was minor as appears by the subsequent Act or rather this Taxation being granted originally for maintaining an Ambassador for the Kings Marriage as is clear by the Act and so ad particularem effectum it could not be diverted from that particular use lest else the Embassie should have fail'd And from this we may observe that what is granted for a general and publick use cannot be otherwise apply'd or taken away IT is observable from this Act that the King was Minor and that is the reason why he could not discharge something here exprest which falls not under his annex'd Property THe Parliament here recommends only to the King that his Majesty shall cause his Wardens observe the days appointed for Truce and they meddle not with it because what concerns Peace and War belongs to the King and not to the Parliament THe restrictions here put upon the King proceeded from his minority Nota Councellours are made accusable to the King and Parliament of their Council till the next Parliament for the words are and shall be responsal and accusable to the King for their Counsel but this was in the Kings minority and therefore there were greater reason that they should have been lyable for their Counsel than when a King is major for then he may judge of
these Laws by the same reason that in England the Paroch is lyable for the Robberies committed therein betwixt Sun and Sun and thus these who have power of Jurisdiction from the Emperour are lyable vias publicas a latronibus purgare Gail observ 64. lib. 2. vid. etiam l. 3. l. congruit ult ff de officio Praesidis It has been doubted whether the Council could in other cases not warranted by express Acts of Parliament oblige the Subjects to give Bond to live peaceably conform to Law and particulary that their Tennents should not keep Conventicles but should go to Church and pay 50 pound Sterling for every Conventicle kept upon their Ground or should present their Delinquents and it was alleadg'd that the Council cannot because regularly one man is not lyable for another mans Crime nor can this inversion of Property and Natural Liberty be introduced by a lesse power than a Parliament nor had Acts of Parliament in this case been necessary if the King and Council could have done the same by their own authority but yet since the King has by express Act of Parliament the same power here that any Prince or Potentat has in any other Kingdoms and that Government belongs to him as Property does to us nor can the peace be secured otherwayes than by allowing him to take all courses for securing the peace and preventing disorders that therefore this joyned with the practice of the Council is a sufficient warrand for exacting such Bonds the practice of our King and Council being the best interpreter of the prerogative especially where the things for which Band is to be taken are not contrary to express Law and it is implyed in the nature of alledgiance that Land-lords should entertain none but such as will live regularly and if they transgressed the Master could not in common Law thereafter recept them without being lyable as we see in SpuilÈies or if the King pleased he might denounce the transgressors Rebels and so might put the Master in mala fide and though there be no such particular Laws warranding the taking of such Bonds yet it will appear by many instances in this Book that Laws are extended de casu in casum and thus this power seems inherent in the Crown likeas the matter of Property is sufficiently secured by the alternative foresaid of either presenting or paying the damnage which alternative seems to be founded upon the same principle of justice with actiones noxales mentioned in the Civil Law Domino damnato permittitur aut litis aestimationem sufferre aut ipsum servum noxae dedere vid. Tit. 8. lib. 4. Institut I find many instances in the Registers of Council wherein the Subjects are charg'd to secure the peace under the pain of Treason as in the case of the Lord Yester BOnd 's given by Cautioners for broken men do oblige the Heirs and Successors of the Cautioners though they be not mentioned in the Band. Observ. 1. In Law he who obligeth himself to pay a Sum obligeth his Heirs for as in Law qui sibi providet haeredibus providet sic qui se obligat haeredes obligat and therefore a man having bound himself and his Heirs Male it was found that the Creditor was not thereby excluded from pursuing the Heirs Female or any other Heirs but that he was only bound to discuss first the Heirs who were specially named in the Obligation 18 February 1663. Blair contra Anderson but yet Obligations for performing a deed such as to present a Thief are of their own nature personal and therefore this Act was necessary THe taking of Surety from Chief of Clanns doth not loose the Obligation taken from Land-lords e contra and the reason why this Act seemed necessary was because this seemed to be an Innovation and it seemed not just that both the Chiefs and Land-lords should be lyable since they could not both have absolute command over the person to be presented but yet this Act was most suitable to Law since novatio non praesumitur nisi ubi hoc expresse actum est l. ult Cod. de Nov. And the Tennents in the High-lands are influenced both by Chiefs and Land-lords but to make this Law more just the Council gives action of a relief against the Lands-lord if the Lands-lord harbour or to the Lands-lord against the Chief if the Chief recept him BY this Act if Goods be taken away by any Clann'd man and recept in the Country of their Chief for the space of 12 hours to his knowledge the Chief shall be lyable in solidum for all the Goods taken away though there were but very few of his men present as was found in a case pursued by Francis Irwing against Glenurchie before the Council all such Chiefs being lyable in solidum and not pro ratâ only for the wrongs committed by their Clanns BY this Act no Magistrat may keep a Thief or Malefactor in Arms with him albeit he pretend he is his Prisoner but he must deâ—ain him in a closs house both because squalor carceris is a part of the punishment due to Malefactors and because if this were allow'd Magistrats might by collusion suffer Malefactors to enjoy their liberty IS explained Crim. pr. tit Theft THis Act ordaining Masters to present their Tennents upon the Kings closs Valentines or Orders in little Papers like Valentines is observ'd in the whole Registers of Council THese two Acts discharging the Borderers of Scotland to marry with the Borderers of England or to labour their Lands are abrogated by the Union BY this Act the Land-lord doing diligence by obtaining Decreet of removing using Horning and doing all other things that was in his power after the fact comes to his knowledge is no further lyable Nota By this Act the Land-lord must be put in mala fide by intimation of his Tennents Crime 2. Dubitatur whether this priviledge should not likewise extend to Chiefs of Clanns since they have less interest in the Delinquents then the Land-lords BY the 100 Act of this Parliament such as committed Slaughter Mutilation or other hurt upon Thieves are not lyable But by this Act an Indemnity is likewise granted to such as raise fire against them that being there forgot THis Act is explained in the Observations upon the 29 Act of this same Parliament BY this Act the Burrows pay the sixth part of the Impositions of Scotland which is yet in observance and because of this burden they have the only priviledge of Trading and therefore they justly pretended that their priviledge of Trading could not be communicable to the Burghs of Barony and Regality who bore no part in this burden Nota That though by this Act the Taxation of the Burrows is not to be altered that is only mean't of the 6 part which is to be born by the Burrows in general for notwithstanding of this Act the Convention of Burrows do
are doom'd to have lost their Estates and Goods after much debate are notwithstanding quoad their Persons only warded during the Kings pleasure And His Majesty by His gracious Letter Nov. 1679 allowed such as were absent from the Host at Bothwel-Bridge to be only fined at most in two years valued Rent This Act was also the foundation of all our old Proclamations whereby all the Heretors betwixt sixty and sixteen were charged to come to the Kings Host when our Kings were either engaged against their Enemies at Home or Abroad at which occasions Heretors and Liferenters whether Men or Women holding immediatly of the King were cited and they cited and brought out their Vassals and therefore it was a good defence that they held not of the King as is to be seen in the Journal Books Feb 19 1600. But now the Council commands all Heretors by Proclamation to go to the Host under the command of such Captains as are named in the Proclamation This Obligation and Statute is not now taken away by the late Act giving His Majesty the Militia as was found by the Privy Council October 1677 and by the Justices in March 1680. so that Heretors must attend either but not both in the same Countries so the last Act abrogates not the first and that being given as a favour were none if it took off the first which is greater and arises from a feudal obligation or at least is due to the King as King and without which the peace of the Country could not be maintained and by the Act 25 Sess 3 Par 1 Car 2 after the Militia is granted the Parliament in the same Act makes a further tender of all their Lives and Fortunes betwixâ— sixty and sixteen when they shall be called for Secundo It was found that this Crime was not punishable now only by the punishment exprest in Chap 15 Stat Alexander 2 whereby a Thane was only punishable in six Cows and a young Cow an Ochiern in fifteen Ewes or six Shillings and a Labouring Man in one Cow and one Sheep for that Statute is justly abrogated by this Act that is posterior the Remedies in that Statute having been probably found ineffectual because of their meanness This Ochiern is by Skeen called a Freeholder but I find by many old evidents that an Ochiern is a Chief of the Branch of a great Family who has a considerable command and it is the corruption of the Irish Wochteran which signifies still in the Highlands a Master or Superior Tertio It was found that though such as were above sixty or below sixteen were not obliged to go to the Host themselves because of the 23. Stat K. Will and this is sustained Feb 21 1600 yet their Age did not excuse them from sending which clears why David Lawson was convict for byding from the Raid of Dumfries in Regent Mortons time though he was alleaged to be past sixty five Quarto That such Burgesses as had Lands in the Countrey were obliged to send one for these Lands though it was alleaged that Burgesses did not usually keep Horses except they had been commanded by the Town where they lived to serve there Quinto That the Captains under whom they were commanded to go to the Host could not warrand them to stay at home because this Feudal obligation could not be dispensed with by Captains who were only impowered to command but if they came once out and were listed it was found that the Captains might allow them to return home upon occasion of sickness or for other excuses of which he was a competent Judge Sexto That the King needed not prove that the Pannels came not to the Host that being a Negative but that it was necessary for the Pannel to prove that he was at the Host. Septimo That the King was not obliged to prove the Pannels to be Heretors but that they were obliged to renunce any Heretage they had in favours of the King if they denied they were Heretors even as in other cases the King is not obliged to prove that any were his Vassals but they behoved to disclaim upon their hazard and of old the notoriety of their being Heretors was refer'd to the Assize without any further probation as June 12. 1557. and some times to the Pannels oath as in the case of William Wallace July 2. 1600 Octavo That not only such as were Heretors by being actually Infeft were to send to the Host but that appearand Heirs and such as possessed the Lands were to send it being unreasonable that the appearand Heir's lying out and not entering should prejudge the King more in this case than it does as to the casuality of Escheat c. Nono It was found that such as possess'd by the courtesie of Scotland were obliged to go to the Host by an express Decision at this time though the curiality be but a Liferent and other Liferenters were not obliged to go since Heretors in our Law are exponed in opposition to Liferenters These words in this Act without a reasonable excuse seem to insinuate that not only relevant or legal Defences but even reasonable or equitable Defences ought to be received to defend such as stayed from the Kings Host And thus Inquests favour such as were known to be of so infirm a Constitution as that they could not without great danger to their life undergo the fatigue of an Army though they were not labouring under any present form'd Disease or Morbus Sonticus and for the same reason mean Heretors were excused though of old I find that this was found to be no Defence in the case of John Ross of Drumgranich July 2. 1600. but the reason that inclined the Judges in this year 1680. not to fine small Heretors was because the Proclamation commanded none to come out but such as were to come upon Horseback and so such only could be fined as could keep Horses and though the Decisions at this time did only oblige such as had 100 l of valued Rent to go yet by the 120 Act Par 9 Jac 1 such as can spend twenty pounds of Land-rent yearly are obliged to keep a Horse which by the 267 Act Par 15 Jac 6 is to be computed 200 l of yearly constant Rent I find by the Feudal Law that the Vassal qui Dominum in bello non adjuvavit aut periclitantem deseruit feudum amiâ—â—ebat Rosenthal Conclus 16 num 1 but yet the words of the Text in the Feudal Law feudorum lib 2 tit 24 Par 2. are only Item qui dominum suum cum quo ad praelium iverit in acie periclitantem dimiserit beneficio indignum se Judicavit and yet even by this Text it is implyed that he is obliged to go and the expressing of that Obligation seems omitted because it was unnecessar being implyed in the very nature of the Few Craâ—g expresses it thus Alia est etiam feudi si non anâ—iâ—tendi saltem Vassalli ob quasi delictum
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
after the former The old extent is said in all Retours to be tempore pacis and the new tempore guerrae or belli the reason of which some think to be that the new extent being made in time of War there was a necessity to highten the Valuation for maintaining the War These Casualties being the greatest part of the Kings Revenue whereas the old extent is very inconsiderable being in time of Peace when there was no necessity for any addition to the Revenue and when the value of the Money was very mean BY this Act four of the old Council are to sit with the new Council but this Act is now innovated by the posterior different Constitutions of privat Burghs Edinburgh and many other Burghs having far more whilst others have but the numbers here prescrived or fewer And as to Edinburgh the manner of choosing the Magistrates and Councâ—l thereof is regulated by â—KING IAMES the sixth his Decreet arbitral commonly call'd the Sett Vid. Ja. 3. Par. 5 Act 30. THe Superiour not entering to his Superiority to the effect he may enter his Vassal tines his Superiority for his lifetime and though this Act determines not for whose lifetime the Superiority is to be lost yet by an Act of Sederunt Anno 1634. It is ordain'd That the Superior tines his Superiority for his own lifetime and not for the Vassals lifetime and declares this to be the meaning of the Act. BY this Act it is clear that stealing of Dogs Hauks and the like is not to be punish'd as Theft but only by a fine or Penalty of ten pounds and in effect this is not contrectatio rei alienae lucri faciendi causa these Beasts being rather useful for sport than gain but it may be doubted if a Fowler who makes it his Trade ita lucrum sacit may not be punish'd as a Thief for stealing another poor Fowlers Dog who lives by that Trade and whose Dog is his Pleugh and especially since such Dogs are now bought and Sold. THis Act containing the pains of such as break Dovecots Cunninghares c. is alter'd and the Penalty hightned by subsequent Acts of Parliament viz. by the 84 Act 6 Par. Ja. 6. and by the 3 Act Par. 19 Ja. 6. but these Acts are without prejudice of putting all former Acts to Execution made against the foresaid Crimes THis penal Statute against Ferriers not making Bridges is in Desuetude as are the Prices here exprest Vid. Act 39. Par. 3 Ja. 1. Supra and Act 20 Par. 4 Ja. 3. King JAMES the third Parliament 8. IT would seem by this Act that all ordinary Actions must be first pursu'd before inferiour Courts which is likewise appointed by the 105. Act 14 Par. Ja. 3. But now any Action may be pursu'd before the Session or Parliament in the first instance But there can no action be rais'd before the Parliament without special warrand first past in the Articles for bringing the same before the Parliament Vid. not on Act 16 Pa. 6 Ja. 2. Act 76 Pa. 19 Ja. 2. and 27 Act 5 Pa. Ja. 3. supra BY this Act which is in present observance such Assyzers as assoilÈie a Pannel unjustly are to be pursu'd for Error but such as condemn him unjustly are not the reason whereof seems to be that the Law-givers presum'd that no Assyzer would condemn unjustly but that probably they might shew favour in absolving and if Assyzers were punish'd for condemning they would never Condemn and since they get no Sallaries they should not be severely us'd but though we have no Law allowing assyzes of error against such as condemn yet it may be alleadg'd that Assyzers may be pursu'd if they condemn a man without any shadow of probation 2 o. This Act appoints that the Assyzers who are to judge of the Error be noble persons for these that are to judge of the Error of others ought to be more judicious than they but by a Statut Sess. 1591. c. 117. It is declar'd that by noble persons is meant only Landed-gentlemen 3 o. The error must be infer'd upon Principles and Grounds which were represented to the Assyze at the time of the Verdict though the Retour may be reduc'd upon other grounds than such as was than represented as is clear by the Act 13 Par. 22 Ja. 6. It is also appointed by this Act that though the Verdict be reduc'd yet the person assoilÈed unjustly cannot thereafter be punish'd there being jus quaesitum to him by the Verdict and upon the same principle by the 91 Act Par. 11 Ja. 6. If any speak to the Assize after they are inclos'd the Verdict is declar'd null but the Pannel being thereby acquit cannot thereafter be accus'd 4 o. The place of Reg. Maj. cited but not exprest in this Act is lib. 1. c. 14. where an assize of error is said to consist of twenty four leil and lawful men though they are call'd here twenty five noble persons 5 o. It may be doubted from this Act whether though the Pannel be not assoilÈed yet it any or moe assizers who voted to assoilÈe notwithstanding of the clear Evidences to the contrary may not be pursu'd as temere jurantes super assisam since he is guilty of Perjury and Perjury is infer'd from an unjust Oath and not from the Effect and though it may be pretended that he follow'd his privat knowledge yet that cannot defend since this may be urg'd for all of them if all should assoilÈe nor could any thing deter each particular Assyzer more than that each may be found guilty whereas if they thought that they would not be lyable except the major part assoilÈed they would adventure upon assoilÈing as an uncertain Event But yet the Justices inclin'd not to this Opinion since no Error was ever pursu'd except where a person guilty was freed this being the vindicta publica allow'd in that case It is likewise observable from this Act That the Assyzers committing wilful error shall first be called before the King and His Council who shall give them a great Assyze and therefore His Majesties Advocat having pursued an assyze of Error in July 1681. He first called the Persons who had committed the Error before the Privy Council and asked at every man Judicially whether he owned his Verdict or not and these that owned not the Verdict were not insisted against Criminally but when this Cause came to be called before the Justices It was alleadged for them 1 o. That the Verdict bearing only that the major part had assoilÈed non constabat who had assoilÈed and who condemned which should hold much more after the Act of Regulations in Anno 1672 by which it is appointed that the assyzers should mark in their Verdict who assoilÈed or condemned to the end it might be known who should be pursued for Error but this was repelled because the King being prejudged by the Verdict their giving in the Verdict made all
as go to the KINGS Host to take free Quarter or Meat and Drink gratis which we call Free-quarter which may be further clear from cap. 5. Stat. 1. Rob. 1. Where these that come to the Host are ordain'd to be serv'd for their Money and that they take nothing but at the sight of the Baillies and others there mention'd under the pain of being punish'd as Robbers But it is still doubted whether the Countrey may be put to be the first advancers when the Militia is rais'd in such haste that these who are remote cannot provide present money and the Countrey into which they are sent have by their irregularities occasion'd their coming it being unjust that innocent Shires who send in their Militia should be put to expences in levying and entertaining men to repress the irregularities of others IT is observable from this Act that it is not the Parliament but the KING without mentioning consent of Parliament who commands the Proprietars of Castles to furnish them for Defence against the Enemy with Victual and Artillery and the reason of this is because there was no Fort nor Strength or turris pinnata call'd Tower-houses allow'd to be build in Scotland without an express Warrand under the Kings own hand this being one of the effects oâ— his Prerogative in the sole disposing and making of Peace and War and since Arms cannot be born without his Licence much less should Strengths be built and from these grounds and the practise of other Nations it was contended lately that the King may Garrison any mans house when he and his Council find the having a Garrison in that place for maintaining the Peace of the Countrey is necessary But Craig is of opinion that it is Treason or at least Purpresture to deny the King the use of our Castles or Towers in such cases Jure anglorum turres omnes quia ad defensionem sâ—u munitionem regni extructae tantum praesumuntur ad regem pertinent ad quem regni defensio quod si idem jure nostro observari quis dicat non ut opinor aâ—errabit cur enim qui turrim sive fortalâ—â—tium suum regi denegat crimen laesae Majestatis incurrit magis quam si equum aut aedes aut rem aliam nulla alia ratio probabilis reddi potest nisi quod negatio haec ex jure feudali regem dominum videtur privare jure fui dominij species quaedam purpresturae est alias res nostras principi poscenti possumus negare sine perduellionis periculo Which agrees with the opinion of forraign Lawyers who treat of the power of Kings in general Fritz de jur praesidij penes quem Monarchia is urbes arces occupare potest â—isque pro tuenda securitate publica praesidia imponere potest But in this as in all such cases the prerogative should not be made use of except in cases of extream necessity and even then the Heretor is to be repaid if he must hire another House as at Sea in Storms all the parties concern'd in the Ship are to contribute for repairing his loss who for lightning and securing his Ship is forc'd to throw his Goods over-board IF a Woman who has a Conjunct-fee alienat it during her marriage the alienation is 〈◊〉 except she ratifie the same judicially outwith the presence of her Husband upon oath never to revock it and then the alienation is valid but though this Act sustains a judicial Instrument under the Seal of the Judge as a sufficient probation yet now something must be produc'd under her own hand or by two Notars and the Lords would not sustain the Act of Renunciation though under the hand of both Judge and Clerk February 15. 1678. Gordon contra Maxvel The reason of which Decision I conceive to be not because this Act to which the Decision is contrary is only set down as a Memorandum and relates a Decision of Parliament without Statuting any thing thereupon for confirming the same for the meer setting down this Decision among the Acts of Parliament gives it the strength of an Act but because the time of that Act one Notar was sufficient but now either a Woman must subscrive her self or two Notars for her Observ. 1 o. That Decisions of Parliament bind as Laws though they be not set down as general Laws for the inserting them amongst Laws make them equal to Laws Some times Decisions by the King are inserted amongst the Acts of Parliament as cap. 16 David 2. Observ. 2 o. That though an oath is sufficient to confirm the Renunciation of a Joynture stante matrimonio Yet it is not sufficient to confirm a personal obligation granted by a Woman stante matrimonio as is decided November 8 1677. Sinclar contra Richardson and his Spouse the reason of which disparity seems to be that in Conjunct-fees she is domina and the Obligation is not to take effect till after her Husbands death But in other Obligations where the design is to bind her self the Obligation is invalid because she being sub potestate mariti cannot oblige her self and upon the same ground it is that Dispositions granted by Heretrixes stante matrimonio will be sustained they having therein plenum dominium as to the Property and even personal Obligations for sums of Money granted by a Woman who was an appearand Heir there being a Back-bond granted to her declaring that she should not be thereby personally oblig'd was sustain'd to be the foundation of a Comprizing for as she might have dispon'd her own Heretage expresly so she might have lawfully granted an Obligation whereby the same might have been Adjudg'd January 23. 1678. Pringle and Bruce contra Paterson vid. Stockman decis 59. BY the Canon Law Laicks have no power of choising or electing â—hurch men c. Quisquis 43. c massana 56. de elect elect potest So that the priviledge here granted seems contrary to the Canon Law But as the King of France had power by the Concordata with Pope Leo 10 th to nominat Bishops and Abbots so our King had the nomination of Bishops and Abbots and the provision of them belong'd to the Pope as is clear by the 125 Act 7 Par. Ja. 5. Which though this Act says did belong to our Kings by the Priviledge of their Crown for prerogative was then call'd priviledge yet it is conâ—eâ—â— that they deriv'd this priviledge from the Pope Act 53 Par. 5 Ja. 4. For understanding this Act it is necessâ—ry to know that if the Kings who had these priviledges did not nominat within six Moneths the Pope might confer the Benefice as he pleas'd and if the King did nominat an unfit person the Pope might refuse him and the King was oblig'd to nâ—me another within three Moneths vid. past de benefi cap. 8. But our Kings not acknowledging this power of precluding It is Statute by this Act that our Kings may present at all times till the Prelate
Oath Observ. 3. It may be doubted whether this Act ordaining Merchant Accompts to prescrive in 3 years doth reach to Compts owing to Strangers for they seem not oblig'd to know our Law and this would ruin all Commerce locus contractus semper attendendus But it was found that this Act does extend to all Merchant Goods as well when sold in gross as by retail It may be doubted whether these two last Acts run against Minors since it is provided expresly that Prescriptions against Spuilzies and Ejections shall not run against them which shows that if this had been design'd in the other Prescriptions the same Clause had been renew'd since it was under consideration and so seems not to have been forgot only and there seems to be some reason for this since Minors are prejudg'd by SpuilÈies and Ejections and so Prescriptions in these should not run against them but in removings the hazard is only that a new Warning must be used and in other the like debts the only loss is that the debt cannot be prov'd by Witnesses after three years and so since these prescriptions did little hurt to Minors it was not necessary to stop their course It is also observable that though all these Prescriptions run in 3 years yet if actions be once intented they stop the prescriptions and thereafter SpuilÈies Removings or Aliments c. do not prescrive in less time than 40 years as all other debts do and till then violent profits are due or the like debts may be prov'd as if the action had been pursu'd within 3 years 26 January 1622. Herring contra Ramsay As also by our late Decisions if the Pursuer has continued to employ a Merchant the currency of that Compt and trust will preclude the prescription so that many former years preceeding the three last may be craved though this Act ordains all Merchant Compts to prescrive within that time but if a Bond be taken for these posterior years it is thought that cannot be called a current Compt and it may be debated whether in Law one or two Articles will make a current Compt and if it do there may be many wayes taken to elude this Act vid. 16 December 1675. Somerâ—el contra the Executors of Muirhead This currency extends to Brewers Compts of furnishing 13 November 1677. Wilson contra Ferguson Vid. Sand. lib 5. Decis Tit. 6. Though it was alleadg'd that albeit it should hold in Merchant Compts where there are Discharges taken and where a Compt Book adminiculats the recept yet it ought not to be consider'd in furnishing of Ale where neither of these are observ'd and yet this currency was not respected in Servants Feeâ— for these same reasons and because a Servants Fee is alter'd at the Masters discretion 12 February 1680. Ross contra Mr. Salton VId. Crim. Obs. Tit. Forestallers and Tit. 32. IT may be doubted whether this Act that gives power to the Sheriffs and other Judges to throw down Cruives and Yairs ought to be extended to Dykes built over waters or a part of the water for making a Dam to a Miln 2 o. VVhether Sheriffs or Lords of Regality c. may execute this Commission for their own advantage and where they themselves are the parties grieved since that were sibi jus dicâ—re and they would probably be partial whereas they may get others to execute the same THis Act Discharging exportation of Coals is now in Desuetude THis Act Fining such as propone unjust exceptions or lose the Pley within Burgh for the use of the poor is conform to that Title in the Civil Law instit de panis temere litigantium For there can be nothing so absurd and unjust as that men should not at least have their true expenses upon Oath whereas we use to modifie little or nothing even where there is not the least colour for a pursuit or defence and this I think a great iniquity in all Judges who are guilty of it Vid. instit de paen temere litigantium BY this Act the Lords of Session are ordain'd to distribute Justice without respect to any privat writing impetrat from His Majesty and by this His Majesty is freed from importunity and his people from unjustice This was formerly statuted by King David 2. cap. 18. cap. 41. and by the 2. cap. Statut. 1. Rob. 1. Judges are ordain'd to Judge secundum leges antiquas and in the Civil Law per l. 1. 6. C. si contr jus vel util publ per novel 82. cap. 13. and in the Canon Law cap. 5. de Rescript This same Law is also in France and is Learnedly Treated by Rebuff ad constitut Reg. tit de rescript and Plutarch commends Antiochus for having made a Law in these same terms but though the former Statute of King David warrands the Judge not to respect that Command but to indorse and send back the warrand and not execute the unjust Command which is by the 41. cap. of the same Statutes extended so that they are not oblig'd to delay Justice upon any such privat warrand Yet I find by § 10. cap. 20. of these same Statutes that the King may Discharge or Prohibite a Judge to proceed in the case of Perambulation for certain Causes for reconciling which Statutes it must be answered that the King cannot either simpliciter discharge a Perambulation nor any other Process but that he may discharge it for weighty Causes relating to the publick to which all privat interests must cede even as he may remit Crimes for such causes though these be of greater consequence or rather that the King may discharge Perambulations because the publick Peace is oftimes concerned in these since there used to be ordinarly great Convocations at such Perambulations and therefore the Justice General was of old only Judge competent to Perambulations Upon March 4. 1553. The Queen Regent appears in the Session and declares that the Lords should proceed to do Justice notwithstanding of any Letter or Order from her which is marked in the Books of Sederunt Observ. 2. That before this Act the Council us'd frequently to discharge the Lords of Session to proceed in judging privat Causes whereof many Examples are to be seen in Hopes larger Practiques and an instance of it is to be found in the 94 Act of this Parliament but that Custom is here discharg'd and as yet the Council uses frequently to discharge the Justices to proceed And notwithstanding of this Act I find in the Registers of Council 1581. King James Revocks in two several Cases Gifts granted by himself and Discharges the Lords of Session to sustain Action upon them Observ. 3 o. That the Lords are also allowed to proceed not only to decide but also to cause Execute their Sentences notwithstanding of such privat writings Charge or Command so that the Privy Council cannot Suspend the Lords Sentences neither by an Act of Council nor yet by Letters under the Signet But yet
allowance is only specifickly given to Dukes Marquesses Earls Viscounts Lords or Prelats and yet I see no reason for the Distinction but on the contrary it seems more reasonable that to the end a whole Shire may be represented that therefore they may be allow'd to deput some to Vote in case others be absent for though it may be answer'd that the power of Proxies is unnecessary in Shires because if their members be necessarly absent they may choose others For to this it may be reply'd that they cannot choose new Commissioners except in case of Deâ—th whereas the Shire may be much concern'd to have their Proxies at any one Dyet Likeas by the 52 Act Par. 3 Ja. 1. All Free-holders are allow'd to have Proxies in case of lawful absence from Parliaments It is ordinary also for the chief Burrows to choose and send an Assistant to attend their Commissioner Observ. 2. By the said 52 Act Par. 3 Ja. 1. absents seem only to be allow'd to send their Procurators for excusing their absence but by this Act they are allow'd to Reason and Vote and therefore it may be doubted whether a Brother who cannot Vote in his own Brothers Cause may notwithstanding be admitted to Vote for his Brother as Proxie for another to whom his Brother is a stranger since here sustinent personam extranei but seing the affection is the same I think they would not be allow'd nor does the Parliament now allow Proxies in any case It may be liâ—ewise doubted if this Act may be extended to Conventions since the Act speaks only of Parliaments and does not add or other General Councils as the Act 113 Par. 11 Ja. 6. and other Acts do but yet the Act 52 Par. 3 Ja. 1. allowing Proxies in absence speaks of Parliaments and General Councils Obs. 3. It is the Kings advantage and interest that Proxies should be allow'd for they are only to be allow'd by this Act where the reason of absence is warranted by the King His Commissionâ—r or Council and so the King may allow Proxies or not as He pleases and needs never allow any to those whom He suspects which is also the present Custom of England as to the Peers Observ. 4. That though Letters of Actourney out of the Chancery be sufficient for absence in other Courts yet by this Act the absents must give a written warrand under their own hand THis Act gives instructions to Justices of Peace and Constables which iâ— renew'd and somewhat altered by the 38 Act Par. 1 Ch. 2. But by this Act their Decreets are ordain'd to receive Execution by Letters of Horning and Poynding and that no Suspension shall be granted but on Consignation which Consignation is neither appointed by the foresaid Act 38. nor is it now in viridi observantia and though by both the Acts they are ordain'd to proceed against Cutters of green Wood Slayers of red and black Fish c. yet they are not in use to proceed in such cases because the Act appoints that Commissions shall be granted to them for that effect but these Commissions have never as yet been granted Though by our Customes no person can be holden as confest except they be personally cited because else men might be drawn in snares by Citations at Dwelling-houses yet here they are allow'd to be holden as confest upon the second Citation at their Dwelling-houses because the subject is small in Justice of Peace Courts This Act is likewise Explain'd crim pract tit Justices of Peace and is Ratifi'd by the 38 Act Par. 1 Ch. 2. Where the Council is allow'd to grant them what further instructions they shall think fit The Council uses to name Justices of Peace in place of such as dy and it being alleadg'd that all Commissions for Justices of Peace should slow from the King immediatly this was refused by the King as being contrary to the constant Custome of Council whom the King allows to name Justices of Peace BY this excellent Act such as have peaceably possessed their Lands for fourty years are secured by Prescription As to this Act it is observable First That Prescription is only competent to such as have bruiked by vertue of Heretable Infeftments and therefore he who alleadges Prescription must alleadge an Heretable Title but though the Possessor be not expresly Infest yet if he has possessed the subject as part and pertinent it will be sufficient and therefore a Salmond-fishing was found to be prescriv'd though it was alleadg'd to be inter regalia since the Prescriver was Infest cum piscationibus in general February 7. 1672. But if the Prescriver be Infest upon a bounded Evident it will not furnish him a valid Title for prescriving as part and Pertinent any Land that is without the bounding November 14. 1671. This Act is also extended to Heretable Offices as to Patronages Pensions and all Servitudes though not expresly mention'd and though Heretors and Wodsetters are enumerated sometimes as different from one another Act 6 Sess. 2 Par. 1 Ch. 2. yet Heretage in this Act comprehends Wodsets and it is even extended to long Tacks so that it was found that after fourty years they could not be quarrel'd as granted without consent of the Patron July 7. 1677. This want of a Title likewise and of bona fides hinders a Vassal to prescrive against his Superiour since the reddendo of that same Charter whereupon he founds his prescription obliges him still to know his Superiours Right and by this Act for the same cause a Wodset cannot prescrive where the Reversion was incorporat in the body of his own Infeftment Since this Act appoints that His Majesties Lieges bruiking for 40. years shall have Right by prescription it may be doubted whether prescription can run in favours of strangers who have not been Naturalized Observ. 2. That these fourty years are only to run from the date of their Infestments by this Act and yet in warrandice it is only to run from the date of the Distress but from both it is clear that the reason is because till then they who have such Rights non valent agere and therefore the exception allow'd by the Civil Law of non valens agere is allowable in ours though it be not expressed in this Act as minority is whereby it seems that exceptio firmat regulam in non exceptis Likeas it was found in the Earl of Lauderdail's case against the Earl of Tweddel that Lauderdail being Forefaulted by the Usurpers prescription could not run against him during that Forefaulture but where there is a Title prescription may run albeit the Defender was absens reipublicae causa at the least durst not come home in the Usurpers time for alleadg'd Crimes committed against them as was found in White-foords case the 24 of July 1678. He having kill'd in Holland Dorislaus one of the Kings Murderers for the Lords thought that he might have Transferr'd his Title to another and if this reason hold it seems that
be no Burgh Royal July 10. 1623. The reason of which Exception was founded upon the exactness of Town Clerks and the constant Custom thereof Booking how soon the Seasin is granted and so far are Seasins within Burgh exeem'd from such Solemnities that the Lords sustain'd a Seasin within Town being subscribed by the Town Clerk though there was no Vestige of it in the Towns Register nor the Notars Protocal and was Latent for many years June 30. 1668. and thus singular Successors were not sufficiently secur'd by this Statute within Burghs for though Town Clerks use to Registrat yet there being no necessity upon them to Registrat and the Seasin not being annulled for not Registration it follows clearly that there is no security and therefore by the 11 Act Par. 3 Ch. 2. This is alter'd and the necessity of Registration is thereby extended to Seasins within Burgh and to all other Writs which by this Act must be Registrated THe Form us'd in loosing Arrestments of old was by the Messengers giving a Testificat under his Hand that the Arrestment laid on by him was loos'd this being too great a Trust for a Messenger and they receiving oftimes irresponsal Cautioners By this Act it is ordain'd that Arrestments shall be loos'd only by Letters on Bills past by the Lords which is now observ'd and Caution is found to a particular Servant in the Bill-Chamber to whom the Trying that the Caution is sufficient is referr'd and the ordinary way to hinder an unsufficient Cautioner is by getting a Warrand in praesentia from the Lords of Session for that Effect after presenting whereof to that Servant if insufficient Caution be receiv'd The Lords will give Warrand to Arrest de novo but if the Caution be once found and the Letters exped The Lords will not allow upon a Bill Arrestment to be made de novo nor recal their Letters though the Caution be insufficient the Clerk of the Bills being answerable by his Office for the sufficiency of the Caution THis Act grants power to all who are Infeft in â—oâ—â—estâ—ies to Judge such as shoot and kill Vennison and Wild-fowl therein and that by an Inquest which seems to exclude all other wayes of Tryal for inclusio unius est exclusio aâ—â—â—rius and this Inquest was ordain'd to prevent the partiality and passion of the Heretor THis Act punishing Drunkards by sining is not well enough observ'd though it be renew'd Act 19 Par. 1 Ch. 2. It seems by this Act that the Kirk is regulariter founded in the judgeing and sining of Drunkards though it may be alleadg'd that this were to secularize too much Kirk Sessions which is properly an Ecclesiastick Judicature and by the Commission granted to the Justices of Peace The Justices seem to be made the only Judges as appears not only by the Instructions given to them but by the said 19 Act Sess. 1 Par. 1 Ch. 2. Though it be alleadg'd that Kirk-sessions have likewise a cumulative Jurisdiction for punishment of all Scandals for which the 22 Act 3 Sess. Par. 2 Ch 2. is alleadg'd and the constant practice of the whole Nation and it was found by the Council May 1681. The Kings Advocat contra the Justices of Peace of Dumfermling that the Kirk-sessions might uplift such fines as were voluntarly pay'd to them for such Scandals without being countable to the Justices of Peace for them THe difference betwixt a Caulp and HereÈeld is that a Caulp is is the best aught or Beast that a man has which is due to the Chief or Master after his Death for protecting his Bairns given by express paction whereas a HereÈeld is the best Beast due to the Master only by Law after his Tennents Death Caulps are here Discharg'd but HereÈelds were allow'd Quon Attach cap. 23. But it would seem that HereÈelds and all taking of the best Beast is discharg'd by this Act albeit indeed they are not THis Act is Explain'd in the 45 Act Par. 11 Ja. 6. To which is to be added that by this Act the Relicts and Bairns of Notars being oblig'd to bring in their Protocals to the Clerk-register within fifteen dayes after any Notars decease the Register uses to appoint a Deput call'd now the Clerk of the Notars who draws their Bill and receives Caution from them and is by his admission oblig'd to do Diligence to mark the Books of Notars and to receive Band for their returning their Books and therefore Sir William Primrose for not doing Diligence was Depos'd upon a Bill to the Lords February 19 1680. Though he alleadg'd that the Wives and Bairns only of the Notars were oblig'd to bring in their Protocals but not he and he was content for the future to follow what Instructions should be given him King IAMES the sixth Parl. 23 THere being a General-Assembly held at Pearth in August 1618. by Hadingtoun Southesk and Scoon as His Majesties Commissioners there were five Articles therein past in order to uniformity with England viz. Kneeling at the Sacrament Privat Communion Privat Baptism Confirmation of Children and the observing some Festival Dayes for conformity with the Church of England as far as was possible Which Articles are here Ratifi'd in Parliament nor is there any standing Law made since to abrogat them albeit for Peaces sake they have not been much observ'd VId. observ on Act 3 Par. 22 Ja. 6. Supra IN this Act it is warranted that such as Compris'd great Estates for small sums did notwithstanding possess the whole Rents for payment of their small Annualrent and therefore to Correct this it is ordain'd by this Act that the Comprizer shall impute in payment of his principal sum the superplus of the Rents of the Lands intrometted with by him and the true reason of the former Custom was because by the 37 Act Par. 5. Ja. 3. The Lands Comprized were to be adjusted by the Sheriff with the sums Comprized for and so the Rent was at first but answerable to the Annualrent though thereafter all being Comprised the Compriser appropriated all the Rents without imputing as said is Observ. 2. That this Act makes only the Compriser lyable for his actual intromission and it has been found that the Compriser is not bound to intromet But yet this is so severe to the poor Debitor and the other Comprisers all whom the first Compriser may debar and so suffer the Tennents to Bankrupt and the Lands to become waste that therefore if a Compriser once intromet he is bound to continue his intromission and where there are Tacks standing he is bound to do Diligence February 9. 1639. or where there are moe Comprisers the Lords may force the first Compriser to do Diligence or if he do not betwixt and such a time yearly they may allow access for the second to enter to the Possession February 11. 1636. July 1662. Or if the first Compriser exclude any Diligence that the second is using he will eo ipso
would discourage them both from Rebellion and Robbery if they knew they behov'd to be still lyable in Restitution and though the King did remit vindictam publicam privatam by this Proclamation yet that vindicta privata was not to be interpret damnage and interest but that Revenge and Criminal Action which any privat party might pursue without the King and vindicta is still contra-distinguished from damnum interesse 5. When the Law allows to the Prince a power to remit and discharge the Damnage done to privat parties in contemplation of a publick Peace Lawyers acknowledge that this can only be done if Peace cannot otherwise be procur'd for otherwise publick Peace is none of these just Causes for which Property can be inverted and therefore any such Indemnity after the Peace is Established cannot prejudge privat Subjects as to their Restitution as Gail expresly Declares observ 56. num 6. King CHARLES 2. Parliament 1. Sess. 3. BIshops being restored in the former Session of Parliament the King does in this Act Declare That He will maintain and preserve that Government in the Church and not give any Connivance to the prejudice thereof in the least and so all Indulgences are from this still urg'd to be contrary to the Royal Promise and the publick Faith By this Act Ministers absenting themselves without a lawful excuse from the Diocesian meeting or not concurring in the Church-discipline when required by the Arch-bishop are to be Suspended till the next Diocesian meeting and if they conform not then to be Depos'd and though this be design'd chiefly against the Non-conforming Ministers Yet it has been repin'd at by some of the Episcopal Clergy because the Bishops have by it a power to Suspend by themselves and by the present Discipline of the Church the Bishop may Depose by himself without the concourse of the Clergy even in the Diocesian meetings though he usually takes alongs with him the advice of the Ministry In this Act with-drawing from publick Worship as well as keeping of Conventicles is Declared to be Seditious and therefore each Heretor with-drawing loses the fourth part of his years Rent each Yeoman or Tennent may be fin'd not exceeding a fourth of his free Moveables every Burges is to lose his Freedom and may be fin'd in a fourth part of his Moveables and the Council have by this Act a very full and undetermin'd power to inflict Corporal beside the former punishments But it seems that 〈…〉 those Punishments can be inflicted upon With-drawers except where they have first been admonished by their Minister in presence of two Witnesses But since the Minister of the Paroch is not here specifi'd it was thought that persons might be fin'd after an Admonition given by any Minister appointed by the Privy Council or Presbytry This part of the Act is not expresly abrogated but the Fines are altered by the 7 Act of the 2 Sess. Par. 2 Ch. 2. By which every Protestant With-drawer whereas this Act extends both to Papists and Protestants is to be Fin'd thus viz. an Heritor in the eight part of his valu'd Rent a Tennent in six Pounds Scots a Cottar in fourty shilling Scots every person above the Degree of a Tennent but having no real Estate in twelve Pounds Every considerable Merchant in twelve Pounds Every inferiour Merchant and considerable Trades-man in six pounds and the other Inhabitants within Burgh in fourty shilling and His Majesties Privy Council is by this last Act allow'd to force all who shall with-draw from their Paroch Churches for a year together to give bond that they shall not rise against the King nor His Authority and to banish or secure them in case of refusal Whereas by this first Act there is a general power given to the Council by the Parliament to do every thing that they shall find necessary for procuring obedience to this Act and putting the same to punctual Execution upon which Clause was founded the Councils putting Heretors to give Bond for their Wives Tennents and Servants keeping the Church for since the Parliament might have exacted such a Bond for that effect it was thought the Council might since they have by this Clause a Parliamentary power By the other Act also it is appointed That the same shall continue for three years except His Majesty shall think fit it continue longer and it was thought that this power of Fining might be continued by the Council without any new express Order from the King since His Majesty did not Command the contrary as also upon this Clause was founded the Indulgence 1679. The Parliament having put it in His Majesties power to punish With-drawers or not as he thought fit after three years were elapsed THis Act is Explained in the 5 Act of the former Session THis Act against Protections is Explained fully in the Act 47 Par. 11 Ja. 6. THis Act declares the King to have the only Power of Calling or Dissolving Synods and that His Majesty has not only a Negative Voice in stopping Acts to be made in such Synods but even a Negative in not suffering any thing to be Treated or Debated there except what is contained in his Proclamation or Instructions This meeting of the Church is with us call'd a Convocation though it be here only call'd a Synod Nor can it be deny'd but that the Emperors did of old call the Synods and the formula was Visum est mihi jussi Thus Euzeb Speaking of Constantine sayes Cum per varia loca exorirentur inter Episcopos dissentiones ipse seu communis Episcopus a Deo constitutus Synodos ministrorum Dei indicebat And thus Leo writing to the Emperor Theodosius si pietas vestra suggestioni ac supplicationi dignaâ—ur annuere ut intra Italiam haberi jubeatis Episcopale Concilium cito poterunt omnia scandala quae in perturbationem totius Ecclesia sunt commota resecari THis Act is Explain'd in the 10 Act Par. 4 Queen Mary and and in the Observations upon the 226 Act Par. 14 Ja. 6. BY this Act all Strong-waters are Discharg'd to be imported under the pain of Escheating thereof because it prejudged the Sale of Barley which is the great Native Commodity of this Kingdom But yet by the second Act of the 4 Session of the 2 Par. Ch. 2. All these Acts against strong-waters are Rescinded and an Imposition thereon is imposed but yet it was thought by the Council that notwithstanding of that last Act His Majesty might by His Prâ—rogative in the Ordering and Disposal of Trade with Forraigners asserted by the 27 Act of this Session of Parliament Discharge again the Importation of Brandy and other strong-waters and accordingly a Proclamation was issued out Discharging them in March 1680. and it was urg'd that the Parliament thought that the King might Dispose upon these against an express Act of Parliament for though by this Act the Importation of them be absolutely Discharged Yet the King had