Act, 21 January 1692, Edinburgh

Att Edinburgh the Twentie one day of January Jaj vjc Nyntie two

D1692/1/251

Act

Act and Remitt Lodovick Grant of Freuchie against Sir Robert Gordon

Anent a Petition given in to the Lords of ther Majesties privy Councill be Lodovick Grant of Freuchie one of the saids Lords number Shewing That That2 wher ther being ane alledged depredation Committed in June or Jully Jaj vjc Eightie nyne upon Sir Robert Gordon of Gordonstoune and his tennents of the lands of Dallas Lying near to the braes of Murray and which was pretended to have been done by some persones living upon the petitioners ground and Sir Robert in April or May last haveing raised a summonds before the saids Lords upon the acts of Parliament that relate to the landlords and Cheiftains of Clans in caices of this nature, and which comeing to be called in course the saids Lords did not sustaine process by reasone of the informalities of the executiones, and which was a direct absolviter from the Lybell in that instance and is all evinced from the process it self and acts therupon extracted and therwith produced; And upon which Gordonstoune raised new letters Containeing a dispensatione to cite all parties concerned at the marcat cross of the shyres upon Pretence that ther was not tutas accessus And the messinger in the execution of thir last letters alledged that he was deforced in his office, and that his letters ware away taken from him by some of the petitioners men tennants and servants (which was both false and Calumnious) Sir Robert gave in a most Clamerous bill in December last Representing that the process was not sustained in the first instance Becaus the defenders ware not cited personally or at ther dwalling houses and that ther was no warrant to cite at the marcat crosses And that now upon this later deforcement it was evident that the former citation at the mercat cross was all that he could do, And that thefore process might be sustained upon the first lybell In Respect that the second was violently so taken away from the messinger and this last bill haveing been called upon the twentie fourthe day of december and at that time Sir Robert haveing produced ane execution under Heugh Thane Messinger his hand bearing a Citation at the marcat Croces of Elgine and Innverness against the persones mentioned in the second Lybell upon the last of november and first of December Jaj vjc nyntie one And bearing Lykewayes ane executione of the pretended deforcement done to him in his office, And the petitioner not being here himself at the time, his Lawiers did object against the said execution as most suspect and Craved the same might ly in process till farder information were hade therof from the Petitioner in matter of Fact, The saids Lords by interloquitor superceided to give answer to the said Petition or determine the points of relevancy in relation to Gordonstounes process till the twentieone instant at which time the saids Lords ordered the petitione to be here present himself, and to produce the particular persones mentioned in their said interloquiter who had a more Immeediat dependance upon the supplicant And albeit this Lybell of Sir Robert Gordons will be found to be most Clamerous and caluminious in what may concerne the petitioner so the managing therof upon the event will be found to have been most indirect and unwarrantable Most of the defenders Called for whom the Supplicant is Craved to be Lyable not being so much as legally cited, But upon a most base and sinistreous designe a blank sheet of Paper sent over here to Edinburgh by the said Heugh Thane the messenger and filled up here at Edinburgh by Sir Robert or some petty agent at his order both as to the defenders names and as to the way and maner of their being cited and of his being deforced which as hereafter will appear will be found to be absolutely false as aforsaid, and as the petitioner does owe very much obligation to the saids Lords for allowing him a competent time to come over towards the vindication of himself from so malicious and groundless a lybell so the petitioner being acquanted from his Lawiers of what the saids Lords had ordered in relation to the premisses he had not only come over himself to attend the dyet of Councill Bot have Lykewayes brought over such others of the defenders as ware called his meniall servants and such as had a more Immediat dependance upon him In Relatione how far the petitioner or they might be concerned in this process, Bot as to these who are alledged to be the Immediat actors in the pretended depredatione and deforcement of the messinger, The saids Lords would be pleased to consider that they are not lawfullie cited, and that the executione of the messinger produced was extended in the way and maner forsaid, and is absolutely false and Calumnious And towards the Improveing wherof and that Gordonstoun may abide by the vertue of the same, ther is a bill given in to the saids Lords by such of the defenders as seen to be cheifly loadned in this Lybell, (3And for whom the supplicant in the outmost extent of law is but subsidiarie Lybale, And quher in they doe positively propone Improbation against the said execution as being absolutely false That Gordonstoune might abide be the same sub pericule falsi And which being prejudiciall to the pursuars insisting in the principall cause This Petitione given in for such of the defenders who seem to be most concerned must be legally Determined by the saids Lords before the Petitioner, or those others who are come over with him can be oblidged as is conceived to propone a legall defence in Causa, Secundo The saids Lords would be pleased to consider that this alledged depredation committed against the pursuar was done in the time of ane intestine Warr, and whill the Eenemies forces was up on the place In and about the time the depredatione was alleadged to have been Committed, so that how straitly so ever the Lewes and acts of Parliament run in the generall againest the Landlords and Chiftains of Clans in the Highlands yet that is only in time of peace and so cannot be extended to such a Circumstantiat case to have its equall force now contrair to the true Designe and Import of the Law Tertio the saids Lords would be pleased to Consider not only the Circumstances of time, And that ther was ane enemy in the Countrey who oblidged many of the comons to Joyne with them and which must Certainely allow a Relaxation from the severitie of these lawes as to Landlords and Cheifftains upon such ane occasion But Lykwayes that the petitioner did all that was then prestable by him and caused make search and inquyry for each of the pursuars goods as wer alleadged to be away taken within his bounds and caused accordingly make restitution of the same Quarto such was the prevalent of these that ware in Oppositione of the government for the tyme That the Petitioner was forced to retire himself to Innerness and did ther attend his majesties forces with a Considerable number of his oun clan and upon which account he and his men tennents and servants and others haveing a dependance upon the petitioner sufered great herships and depredationes in their cornes Catle and burning of their houses to the value of Upwards of Twelue hundred pund Sterling and wherof nather the petitioner or they have ever yett received a six penie And Therfore it is Remitted To the saids Lords Consider That as the pretended damadges done to the pursuer in this alledged Depredation Is not the hundred part of what the supplicant and his freends have suffered and for which the petitioner cannot be Lyable as is conceived for the grounds forsaid, So with all deference the supplicant hath much more reasone to apply to the saids Lords for a legall reparation of so vast and great damage done to him and his freends by these that were then in Opposition to the government and upon no other account bot for the petitioners adherence therto, then that he should be conveened as a Contradictor in this process upon a lybell so miserably patched up and Caried on by so unjust and indirect methods in relatione to the pursuars damadge which when at the bottom considered will be found to consist more in Clamour and groundless noise then of Just intrest or any thing else. And Therfore Humbly Craveing That before the saids Lords proceid to consider the principall cause and that seing Improbation is proponed for these who is most concerned in this process against the said False executione of Heugh Thaine the messenger which has Created all this trouble to the petitioner That the saids Lords would proceid to determine the Import of that point as being prejudicial and if any dificulty Occurred in the premisses, That they would call his procurator in their oun presence to be heard both against the relevancy of the Lybell and to what else way concerne the petitioners interest therin Or these others whom the petitioner has brought over As haveing a more Immediat Dependance upon the petitioner and that for the reasones and Causes aboverepresented and what upon debate might farder arise in relatione to the premisses as the said Petition bears The Lords of his Majesties Privy Councill haveing Considered the petition given in to them be the Laird of Grant with another petition given in to them be John Grant in Autharnick and other defender of the above proces at Gordonstounes instance and Haveing called both parties and their procurators and the pursuar and the Laird of Grant defender haveing Compeired both personally at the barr with their severall advocats which ware fully heard upon the subject maner of the said Petitiones The saids Lords of their majesties Privy Councill In Respect of the Laird of Grant his personall appearance Doe Sustaine Process upon the Lybell at Gordonstons instance notwithstanding of any alleadgence of Improbation proponed for the Laird of Grant or any other of the defenders Reserving the said alledgance of Improbatione to be insisted in before the Lords of session And Recomends to the saids Lords of Sessione to discuss the same sumarly without abiding the course oft he roll and the Councill Declares they will hear both parties upon the lybell, and allowes the Clerks of Councill to give up the 4Executione quarrelled notwithstanding of any former order appointing the same to remaine in their hands.

At Edinburgh 21 January 1692

D1692/1/251

Act

Act and Remit for Lodovick Grant of Freuchie against Sir Robert Gordon

Concerning a petition given in to the Lords of their majesties’ privy council by Lodovick Grant of Freuchie, one of the said lords number, showing that where there being an alleged depredation committed in June or July 1689 upon Sir Robert Gordon of Gordonstoun and his tenants of the lands of Dallas lying near to the Braes of Murray, and which was pretended to have been done by some persons living upon the petitioner’s ground and Sir Robert in April or May last having raised a summons before the said lords upon the acts of parliament that relate to the landlords and chieftains of clans in cases of this nature, and which coming to be called in course the said lords did not sustain process by reason of the informalities of the executions, and which was a direct absolvitor from the libel in that instance, and is all evinced from the process itself and acts thereupon extracted and therewith produced; and upon which Gordonstoun raised new letters containing a dispensation to cite all parties concerned at the mercat cross of the shires upon pretence that there was not tutas accessus2, and the messinger in the execution of their last letters alleged that he was deforced in his office, and that his letters were taken away from him by some of the petitioner’s men, tenants and servants (which was both false and calumnious) Sir Robert gave in a most clamorous bill in December last representing that the process was not sustained in the first instance because the defenders were not cited personally or at their dwelling houses and that there was no warrant to cite at the mercat crosses, and that now upon this later deforcement it was evident that the former citation at the mercat cross was all that he could do, and that therefore process might be sustained upon the first libel in respect that the second was violently so taken away from the messenger and this last bill having been called upon the twenty fourth day of December and at that time Sir Robert having produced an execution under Heugh Thane, messenger, his hand bearing a citation at the mercat crosses of Elgin and Inverness against the persons mentioned in the second libel upon the last of November and first of December 1691, and bearing likewise an execution of the pretended deforcement done to him in his office, and the petitioner not being here himself at the time, his lawyers did object against the said execution as most suspect and craved the same might lie in process till further information were had thereof from the petitioner in matter of fact, the said lords by interlocutor superceded to give answer to the said petition or determine the points of relevancy in relation to Gordonstoun’s process till the twenty first instant, at which time the said lords ordered the petition to be here present himself, and to produce the particular persons mentioned in their said interlocutor who had a more immediate dependence upon the supplicant, and albeit this libel of Sir Robert Gordon’s will be found to be most clamorous and calumnious in what may concern the petitioner so the managing thereof upon the event will be found to have been most indirect and unwarrantable, most of the defenders called for whom the supplicant is craved to be liable not being so much as legally cited, but upon a most base and sinistrous design a blank sheet of paper sent over here to Edinburgh by the said Heugh Thane, the messenger, and filled up here at Edinburgh by Sir Robert or some petty agent at his order, both as to the defenders names and as to the way and manner of their being cited and of his being deforced, which as hereafter will appear will be found to be absolutely false as aforesaid, and as the petitioner does owe very much obligation to the said lords for allowing him a competent time to come over towards the vindication of himself from so malicious and groundless a libel, so the petitioner being acquainted from his lawyers of what the said lords had ordered in relation to the premisses he had not only come over himself to attend the diet of council but have likewise brought over such others of the defenders as were called his menial servants and such as had a more immediate dependence upon him in relation how far the petitioner or they might be concerned in this process, but as to those who are alleged to be the immediate actors in the pretended depredation and deforcement of the messinger, the said lords would be pleased to consider that they are not lawfully cited, and that the execution of the messinger produced was extended in the way and manner forsaid, and is absolutely false and calumnious, and towards the improving whereof, and that Gordonstoun may abide by the virtue of the same, there is a bill given in to the said lords by such of the defenders as seen to be chiefly loadened in this libel, (and for whom the supplicant in the utmost extent of law is but subsidiarily liable, and where in they do positively propone improbation against the said execution as being absolutely false, that Gordonstoun might abide by the same under false proof, and which being prejudicial to the pursuers insisting in the principal cause this petition given in for such of the defenders who seem to be most concerned, must be legally determined by the said lords before the petitioner, or those others who are come over with him can be obliged as is conceived to propone a legal defence in the cause; secondly, the said lords would be pleased to consider that this alleged depredation committed against the pursuer was done in the time of ane intestine war, and while the enemy’s forces was up on the place in and about the time the depredation was alleged to have been committed, so that how straitly so ever the laws and acts of parliament run in the general against the landlords and chieftains of clans in the Highlands, yet that is only in time of peace and so cannot be extended to such a circumstantial case to have its equal force now contrary to the true design and import of the law; thirdly, the said lords would be pleased to consider not only the circumstances of time, and that there was an enemy in the country who obliged many of the commons to join with them and which must certainly allow a relaxation from the severity of these laws as to landlords and chieftains upon such an occasion, but likewise that the petitioner did all that was then prestable by him and caused make search and inquiry for each of the pursuers goods as were alleged to be taken away within his bounds and caused accordingly make restitution of the same; fourthly, such was the prevalence of these that were in opposition of the government for the time that the petitioner was forced to retire himself to Inverness and did there attend his majesties’ forces with a considerable number of his own clan and upon which account he and his men, tenants and servants and others having a dependence upon the petitioner, suffered great hardships and depredations in their corns, cattle and burning of their houses, to the value of upwards of twelve hundred pounds sterling, and whereof neither the petitioner nor they have ever yet received a six penny, and therefore it is remitted to the said lords to consider that as the pretended damages done to the pursuer in this alleged depredation is not the hundredth part of what the supplicant and his friends have suffered and for which the petitioner cannot be liable as is conceived for the grounds forsaid, so with all deference the supplicant has much more reason to apply to the said lords for a legal reparation of so vast and great damage done to him and his friends by these that were then in opposition to the government, and upon no other account but for the petitioner’s adherence thereto, than that he should be conveened as a contradictor in this process upon a libel so miserably patched up and carried on by so unjust and indirect methods in relation to the pursuer’s damage which when at the bottom considered will be found to consist more in clamour and groundless noise then of just interest or anything else. And therefore humbly craving that before the said lords proceed to consider the principal cause and that seeing improbation is proponed for these who are most concerned in this process against the said false execution of Heugh Thane the messenger which has created all this trouble to the petitioner, that the said lords would proceed to determine the import of that point as being prejudicial and if any difficulty occurred in the premises, that they would call his procurator in their own presence to be heard both against the relevancy of the libel and to what else way concern the petitioner’s interest therein or those others whom the petitioner has brought over, as having a more immediate dependence upon the petitioner and that for the reasons and causes above represented and what upon debate might further arise in relation to the premisses as the said petition bears. The lords of his majesty’s privy council having considered the petition given in to them by the laird of Grant, with another petition given in to them by John Grant in Autharnick and other defender of the above process at Gordonstoun’s instance and having called both parties and their procurators and the pursuer and the laird of Grant defender having compeared both personally at the bar with their several advocates which were fully heard upon the subject manner of the said petitions, the said lords of their majesties’ privy council in respect of the laird of Grant his personal appearance, do sustain the process upon the libel at Gordonstoun’s instance, notwithstanding of any allegation of improbation proponed for the laird of Grant, or any other of the defenders reserving the said allegation of improbation to be insisted in before the lords of session, and recommends to the said lords of session to discuss the same summarily without abiding the course of the roll and the council declares they will hear both parties upon the libel, and allow the clerks of council to give up the execution quarrelled notwithstanding of any former order appointing the same to remain in their hands.

1. NRS, PC2/24, 11r-13v.

2. Sic.

3. Closing bracket missing.

4. The word ‘petitione’ scored out here.

1. NRS, PC2/24, 11r-13v.

2. ‘safe access’

Sederunt, 21 January 1692, Edinburgh

Att Edinburgh the Twentie one day of January Jaj vjc Nyntie two1

D1692/1/242

Sederunt

Lord Chancelor; Marquis of Douglas; Earl of Crafurd; Earl of Leven; Viscount Stair; Lord Raith; Lord Ruthven; Lord Polwarth; Master of Burleigh; Lord Hatton; Lord Aberuchell; Lord Fountenhall; Laird of Grant; Laird of Pollock; Laird of Stevenson; Laird of Leyes; Laird of Brodie; Sir Thomas Livingstone

At Edinburgh 21 January 16921

D1692/1/242

Sederunt

[John Hay] earl of Tweeddale, Lord Chancellor; [James Douglas] marquis of Douglas; [William Lindsay] earl of Crawford; [David Leslie] earl of Leven; [James Dalrymple] Viscount Stair; [David] Lord Ruthven; [Patrick Hume] Lord Polwarth; [Robert Balfour] master of Burleigh; [Sir John Lauder] Lord Hatton; [Sir Colin Campbell] Lord Aberurchill; [Sir John Lauder] Lord Fountainhall; [Ludovic Grant] laird of Grant; [Sir John Maxwell] laird of Pollok; [Sir Robert Sinclair] laird of Stevenson; [Sir Thomas Burnet] laird of Leys; [James Brodie] laird of Brody; Sir Thomas Livingston/p>

1. NRS, PC2/24, 11r.

2. NRS, PC2/24, 11r.

1. NRS, PC2/24, 11r.

2. NRS, PC2/24, 11r.

Act, 21 January 1692, Edinburgh

Att Edinburgh The Tuenty first day of Janwary Jaj vjc nyntie tuo years

A1692/1/491

Act

Repryve William Irvine

Anent a petitione given In to the Lords of their Majsties privie Councell Be Uilliam Irvine prisoner In the tolbooth of Edinburgh Sheuing that wher the petitioner Being pursued before the Baillies of Edinburgh and their assessors for Having accessione to and being airt and pairt of the slaughter of […] Pattoune one of the Gentlemen of the guaird who was killed upon last mundays night And the petitioner Having receaved his Lybell yesterdays morning was necessitat to ansuer therto about tuelve a clock And after Debate The Magistrats by their Interloquitor found That it was sufficient to inferr the paine of death against the petitioner that he Did strik att the defunct uith ane drauen suord and that he att that tyme receaved wounds of which he dyed But lykewayes did sustaine the defence which was unansuerable in Law that the defunct was the first aggressor by drawing his suord and pushing at him before the petitioner did Draw his suord in his oune defence And ther having been ten or tuelve witnesses adduced for proving of the Lybell And some of which Having deponed That they saw both the petitioner and the defunct closslie Ingadged with their drauen suords and that the defunct receaved ane wound at that tyme of which therafter he dyed The petitioner was found guiltie and sentenced to be execute this day att three of the clock in the afternoon And Itis now Humblie represented to their Lordships for the petitioner That by the whole probatione adduced Against him Itis Evident and beyond all shaddow of debaite or contraversie clear that the defunct was not killed by the petitioner For primo The Chirurgeons and all those who sighted the defuncts body Did Depone that he receaved but one wound and that the orefeice therof was so small that it was Impossible this wound could be Given by ane broad Suord Secundo severall of the other witnesses adduced for proving of the Lybell doe all aggrie in this That the defunct was killed by one Guillone who did the same with ane stoge of ane small suord and who Immediatly after he had Committed the Fact Did dight the blood off of the Blead of his suord and soe made his escape And ther is not soe much as one uitness depones that the petitioner did wound the Defunct And the whole uitnesses doe Concurr in this That the suord which the petitioner had in his hand was ane Broad Suord Tertio when the petitioner was brought to the Guaird and was ther examined by one of the Baillies he did ther ex recente protest his Innocence and that he made noe use of his suord but for his defence and that he had noe quarrell against the defunct and that he had never seen him before Quarto James Hay pirriwigg maker who is ane persone of Intire reputatione who was present at the begining and during the whole tyme of the Actione does expressly depone in thir tearmes That the defunct did attack both Gullion and the petitioner with ane drauen suord and did clossly pursue them And that they did retire before him till at last they were forced to returne and in their oune defence to draw their suords and that the defunct did Continow to assault and Invade the petitioner till Gullon who hes escaped did Give the defunct the wound quherof he dyed which did in precise termes prove the defence if ther had been ane other Concurring witness with him But It was the petitioners misfortune that ther was none else present at that tyme of the begining of this scuffle but one James Broune who declares the truth of the matter of fact to be in every Circumstance as Hay hes deponed But in respect that Broune declared upon oath that he was not worth the Kings unlaw the baillies refuised to admitt him as ane witness and would not receave him even cum nota And ther being none else present but these tuo The Assyse did find the defence not proven And therfore the petitioner is necessitat to make this Humble applicatione to their Lordships who are alwayes in use to Grant Repryvalls to others in farr Less favourable Circumstances then these the petitioner is in And the Magistrats doe expressly declare their satisfactione that the same should be Granted by the saids Lords to the petitioner And by what is above represented It clearly appears that the petitioner was neither the author nor Actor of the slaughter and is only reached upon that subtility of our Law as being airt and pairt and would certainly have proven his defence which was sustained to him if the other witness had not been poor And the petitioner is Confident that ther was others who were present and would Lykewayes Concurred in this But the tryall was soe summar that the petitioner Could gett noe Informatione of any others who were present And Itis Hard to hurrie a persone off this wordle to Eternitie especiallie wher his Innocence does soe manifestly appear And therfore Humblie Craving their Lordships seriouslie to Consider the premisess and all the particular Circumstances above represented for the petitioner And in respect therof to Grant him ane Considerable tyme for preparing himself for death And therafter to Call for the adjurnalls of the Courte By which they will find the haill premisses verified And the petitioner is most willing to take on himself ane Act of Banishment and to find Cautione not to returne and to spend the rest of his Life in their Majesties service as ane souldier as the said petitione Bears The saids Lords of their Majesties privie Councell Having Considered this petitione Given In to them be the above William Irvine They heirby Repryve the said William from the sentence of death pronunced against him Be the magistrats of Edinburgh untill the tuenty Eight day of January instant Inclusive And discharges the saids magistrats to putt the said sentence in executione untill the tuenty nynth day of the said moneth And in the meantyme Alloues the Magistrats of Edinburgh Relict Children or neerest of Kinn of the defunct to see and ansuer this petitione Betuixt and the said tuenty Eight day of January And ordaines Intimatione heirof to be made to the Magistrats of Edinburgh To the effect above specified. Sic subscribitur Tueeddale Cancell Douglass Craufurd Mortoune Leiven Stair Raith Ruthven Pollwarth Ballfour.

At Edinburgh 21 January 1692

A1692/1/491

Act

Reprieve for William Irvine

Concerning a petition given in to the lords of their majesties’ privy council by William Irvine, prisoner in the tolbooth of Edinburgh, showing that where the petitioner being pursued before the baillies of Edinburgh and their assessors for having accession to and being art and part of the slaughter of James Patton, one of the gentlemen of the guard who was killed upon last Monday night, and the petitioner having received his libel yesterday morning was necessitated to answer thereto about twelve o’clock, and after debate the magistrates by their interlocutor found that it was sufficient to infer the pain of death against the petitioner that he did strike at the defunct with a drawn sword and that he at that time received wounds of which he died, but likewise did sustain the defence which was unanswerable in law that the defunct was the first aggressor by drawing his sword and pushing at him before the petitioner did draw his sword in his own defence, and there having been ten or twelve witnesses adduced for proving of the libel, and some of which having deponed that they saw both the petitioner and the defunct closely engaged with their drawn swords and that the defunct received a wound at that time of which thereafter he died, the petitioner was found guilty and sentenced to be executed this day at three o’clock in the afternoon, and it is now humbly represented to their lordships for the petitioner that by the whole probation adduced against him it is evident and beyond all shadow of debate or controversy clear that the defunct was not killed by the petitioner. Firstly, the surgeons and all those who sighted the defunct’s body did depone that he received but one wound and that the orifice thereof was so small that it was impossible this wound could be given by a broadsword; secondly, several of the other witnesses adduced for proving of the libel do all agree in this that the defunct was killed by one Guillon who did the same with one cut of a small sword and who immediately after he had committed the fact did wipe the blood off of the blade of his sword and so made his escape, and there is not so much as one witness depones that the petitioner did wound the defunct, and the whole witnesses do concur in this that the sword which the petitioner had in his hand was a broadsword; thirdly, when the petitioner was brought to the guard and was there examined by one of the baillies he did there immediately protest his innocence and that he made no use of his sword but for his defence and that he had no quarrel against the defunct and that he had never seen him before; fourthly, James Hay periwig maker who is a person of entire reputation who was present at the beginning and during the whole time of the action does expressly depone in these terms that the defunct did attack both Gullion and the petitioner with a drawn sword and did closely pursue them, and that they did retire before him until at last they were forced to return and in their own defence to draw their swords and that the defunct did continue to assault and invade the petitioner till Gullon, who has escaped, did give the defunct the wound whereof he died which did in precise terms prove the defence if there had been another concurring witness with him, but it was the petitioner’s misfortune that there was none else present at that time of the beginning of this scuffle, but one James Brown who declares the truth of the matter of fact to be in every circumstance as Hay has deponed, but in respect that Brown declared upon oath that he was not worth the king’s unlaw, the baillies refused to admit him as a witness and would not receive him even with a note, and there being none else present but these two the assise did find the defence not proven, and therefore the petitioner is necessitated to make this humble application to their lordships who are always in use to grant reprieves to others in far less favourable circumstances than these the petitioner is in. And the magistrates do expressly declare their satisfaction that the same should be granted by the said lords to the petitioner, and by what is above represented, it clearly appears that the petitioner was neither the author nor actor of the slaughter and is only reached upon that subtility of our law as being art and part and would certainly have proven his defence which was sustained to him if the other witness had not been poor, and the petitioner is confident that there was others who were present and would likewise have concurred in this, but the trial was so summary that the petitioner could get no information of any others who were present, and it is hard to hurry a person off this world to eternity especially where his innocence does so manifestly appear, and therefore humbly craving their lordships seriously to consider the premises and all the particular circumstances above represented for the petitioner, and in respect thereof to grant him a considerable time for preparing himself for death, and thereafter to call for the adjournals of the court, by which they will find the whole premises verified, and the petitioner is most willing to take on himself an act of banishment and to find caution not to return and to spend the rest of his life in their majesties’ service as a soldier as the said petition bears. The said lords of their majesties’ privy council having considered this petition given in to them by the above William Irvine they hereby reprieve the said William from the sentence of death pronounced against him by the magistrates of Edinburgh until 28 January instant inclusive, and discharge the said magistrates to put the said sentence in execution until the 29th day of the said month, and in the meantime allows the magistrates of Edinburgh relict, children or nearest of kin of the defunct to see and answer this petition between and the said 28 January, and ordain intimation hereof to be made to the magistrates of Edinburgh to the effect above specified. Signed thus, earl of Tweeddale, chancellor, marquis of Douglas, earl of Crawford, earl of Morton, earl of Leven, Viscount Stair, Lord Raith, Lord Ruthven, Lord Polwarth [and] master of Burleigh.

1. NRS, PC1/47, 584-5.

2. NRS, PC1/47, 585.

1. NRS, PC1/47, 584-5.

2. NRS, PC1/47, 585.

Sederunt, 21 January 1692, Edinburgh

Att Edinburgh The Tuenty first day of Janwary Jaj vjc nyntie tuo years1

A1692/1/482

Sederunt

Lord Chancellor; Marquis of Douglass; Earl of Craufurd; Earl of Mortoune; Earl of Leven; Viscount Stair; Lord Raith; Lord Ruthven; Lord Pollwarth; Master of Burleigh; Lord Aberuchill; Lord Funtainhall; Laird of Grant; Laird of Pollock; Laird of Brody; Sir Thomas Livingstoune

At Edinburgh 21 January 16921

A1692/1/482

Sederunt

[John Hay] earl of Tweeddale, lord chancellor; [James Douglas] marquis of Douglas; [William Lindsay] earl of Crawford; [James Douglas] earl of Morton; [David Leslie] earl of Leven; [James Dalrymple] Viscount Stair; [Alexander Melville] Lord Raith; [David] Lord Ruthven; [Patrick Hume] Lord Polwarth; [Robert Balfour] master of Burleigh; [Sir Colin Campbell] Lord Aberuchill; [Sir John Lauder] Lord Fountainhall; [Ludovic Grant] laird of Grant; [Sir John Maxwell] laird of Pollok; [James Brodie] laird of Brody; Sir Thomas Livingstone

1. NRS, PC1/47, 583.

2. NRS, PC1/47, 583.

1. NRS, PC1/47, 583.

2. NRS, PC1/47, 583.