Tag Archives: January

Act, 28 January 1692, Edinburgh

Posted on by

Att Edinburgh the Twentie Eight day of January Jaj vjc nyntie two years

D1692/1/271

Act

Act Sir Alexander Burnet and his brother

Anent a Petition given in to the Lords of their majesties privy Councill be Sir Alexander Burnett of Craigmyle and Thomas Burnet his brother german Shewing That quher the petitioners haveing in obedience to the saids Lords ordinance about a year a goe found cautione for their peacable behavior under ther majesties government King William and Queen Mary and to appear before the saids Lords when called, and now haveing taken the benefite of their Majesties most gracious indemnity before Andrew Frazer of Kinmundie deputie of Aberdeen as theire oathes subscryved be them and the said sheriff Depute and his Clerk before famous witnesses therwith produced would testifie and Therfore Humbly supplicating to the effect aftermentioned The Lords of their majesties Privy Councill haveing Considered this petitione given in to them be the above Sir Alexander Burnet of Craigmyle and his brother with the oathes of alledgance mentioned therin and produced therwith They appoint the Clerks of Councill to receive in the saids oathes of alledgance and heirby gives order and warrand to the saids Clerks of Councill to deliver up to the saids petitioners the within bonds granted be them and their Cautioners.

At Edinburgh 28 January 1692

D1692/1/271

Act

Act for Sir Alexander Burnet and his brother

Concerning a petition given in to the lords of their majesties’ privy council by Sir Alexander Burnet of Craigmyle and Thomas Burnet his brother german, showing that where the petitioners having in obedience to the said lords’ ordinance about a year ago found caution for their peaceable behaviour under their majesties’ government King William and Queen Mary, and to appear before the said lords when called, and now having taken the benefit of their majesties’ most gracious indemnity before Andrew Fraser of Kinmundy depute of Aberdeen as their oaths subscribed by them and the said sheriff depute and his clerk before famous witnesses therwith produced would testify, and therefore humbly supplicating to the effect aforementioned. The lords of their majesties’ privy council having considered this petition given in to them by the above Sir Alexander Burnet of Craigmyle and his brother with the oaths of allegiance mentioned therein and produced therewith, they appoint the clerks of council to receive in the said oaths of allegiance and hereby give order and warrant to the said clerks of council to deliver up to the said petitioners the within bonds granted by them and their cautioners.

1. NRS, PC2/24, 14r.

1. NRS, PC2/24, 14r.

Sederunt, 28 January 1692, Edinburgh

Posted on by

Att Edinburgh the Twentie Eight day of January Jaj vjc nyntie two years1

D1692/1/262

Sederunt

Lord Chanceler; Marquis of Douglas; Earl of Crafurd; Earl of Mortone; Earl of Leven; Viscount Stair; Lord Ruthven; Lord Polwarth; Master of Burghlie; Lord Hatton; Lord Aberuchell; Lord Fountonhall; Laird of Grant; Laird of Stevensone; Laird of Leyes; Laird of Brodie

At Edinburgh 28 January 16921

D1692/1/262

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; [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 Robert Sinclair] laird of Stevenson; [Sir Thomas Burnet] laird of Leys; [James Brodie] laird of Brody

1. NRS, PC2/24, 13v.

2. NRS, PC2/24, 13v.

1. NRS, PC2/24, 13v.

2. NRS, PC2/24, 13v.

Act, 21 January 1692, Edinburgh

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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, 19 January 1692, Edinburgh

Posted on by

Att Edinburgh the nynteinth day of January Jaj vjc nyntie tou years

D1692/1/231

Act

Act Mr Robert Stewart

Anent a Petition given in to the Lords of their majesties privy Councill be Mr Robert Stewart advocat shewing That quheras the petitioner engadged as Cautioner for Captain John Liveingstone that he should continue under his confinement within his house in the Cannongate dureing the saids Lords pleasure under a penaltie And seing the saids Lords have lately liberate the said Captain Livingston from all Imprisonment upon his finding Cautione to live peacably and appear when called wherby the petitioners former bond is fullfilled and Therfore Humbly suplicating to the effect aftermentioned The Lords of their majesties privy Councill haveing Considered this petitione given in to them be the above Mr Robert Stewart advocat They heirby give order and warrand to the Clerks of Councill to give up to the petitioner his bond of Cautionrie abovementioned.

At Edinburgh 19 January 1692

D1692/1/231

Act

Act for Mr Robert Stewart

Concerning a petition given in to the lords of their majesties’ privy council by Mr Robert Stewart advocate showing that whereas the petitioner engaged as cautioner for Captain John Livingstone that he should continue under his confinement within his house in the Canongate during the said lords’ pleasure under a penalty, and seeing the said lords have lately liberated the said Captain Livingstone from all imprisonment upon his finding caution to live peaceably and appear when called whereby the petitioner’s former bond is fulfilled and therefore humbly supplicating to the effect aftermentioned, the lords of their majesties’ privy council, having considered this petition given in to them by the above Mr Robert Stewart advocate, they hereby give order and warrant to the clerks of council to give up to the petitioner his bond of caution above mentioned.

1. NRS, PC2/24, 11r.

1. NRS, PC2/24, 11r.

Act, 19 January 1692, Edinburgh

Posted on by

Att Edinburgh the nynteinth day of January Jaj vjc nyntie tou years

D1692/1/221

Act

Act Balcaskie and Mckenzie

Anent a Petition given in to the Lords of ther majesties privy Councill be Sir Thomas Stewart late of Balcaskie and Mr Roderick Mckenzie of Prestonhall shewing That the petitioners being bound as Surities for John Master of Tarbett and Alexander Frazer of Kinaeries that they should not goe above two mylles distance from the toune of Edinburgh And now seing the saids Lords have alloued the saids persones to goe to their respective homes In respect that the master of Tarbat did obtaine his majesties Remission and that Kinaries did give new baill for his liveing peacably at home and Therfore Humbly suplicating to the effect after mentioned The Lords of their Majesties privy Councill haveing Considered this petition given in to them be the above Sir Thomas Stewart and Mr Roderick Mackenzie They heirby give order and warrand to the Clerks of Councill To deliver up to the petitioners their bond of Cautionrie abovementioned.

At 19 January 1692

D1692/1/221

Act

Act for Balcaskie and Mckenzie

Concerning a petition given in to the lords of their majesties’ privy council by Sir Thomas Stewart, late of Balcaskie, and Mr Roderick Mckenzie of Prestonhall, showing that the petitioners being bound as sureties for John, master of Tarbet and Alexander Fraser of Kinneries that they should not go above two miles distance from the town of Edinburgh, and now seeing the said lords have allowed the said persons to go to their respective homes in respect that the master of Tarbat did obtain his majesty’s remission and that Kinneries did give new bail for his living peaceably at home, and therefore humbly supplicating to the effect after mentioned. The lords of their majesties’ privy council having considered this petition given in to them by the above Sir Thomas Stewart and Mr Roderick Mackenzie they hereby give order and warrant to the clerks of council to deliver up to the petitioners their bond of caution above mentioned.

1. NRS, PC2/24, 10v-11r.

1. NRS, PC2/24, 10v-11r.

Sederunt, 19 January 1692, Edinburgh

Posted on by

Att Edinburgh the nynteinth day of January Jaj vjc nyntie tou years1

D1692/1/212

Sederunt

Lord Chancelor; Marquis of Douglas; Earl of Crafurd; Earl of Mortone; Earl of Leven; Viscount Stair; Lord Ruthven; Master of Burghlie; Lord Hatton; Lord Aberuchill; Lord Fountanhall; Laird of Grant; Laird of Pollock; Laird of Stevenson; Laird of Leyes; Laird of Brodie; Sir Thomas Livingston

At Edinburgh 19 January 16921

D1692/1/212

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; [David] Lord Ruthven; [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

1. NRS, PC2/24, 10v.

2. NRS, PC2/24, 10v.

1. NRS, PC2/24, 10v.

2. NRS, PC2/24, 10v.

Act, 14 January 1692, Edinburgh

Posted on by

Edinburgh the Fourteinth day of January Jaj vjc nyntie two years

D1692/1/201

Act

Act Mr William Gullon

Anent a Petition given in to the Lords of their majesties privy Councill be Mr William Gullon preacher of the gospell Shewing That quher the petitioner served in the meetting house of the paroch of Ceudinghame, Haymouth and Aytoune at the desyre and invitatione of the people of the said paroches and ther continued till the deprivatione of Mr Alexander Douglas late incumbent at Coldinghame since which tyme the petitioner at the appoyntment of the Presbytrie of Chirnsyde and with consent and at the desyre of the said people hath supplied the said vaccancie and preached in the said2 Church quhich was allready made appear to the saids Lords in June Jaj vjc nyntie one at quhich tyme the saids Lords granted to the petitioner the half of the stipend Jaj vjc Eightie nyne and Jaj vjc nyntie of the saids parish of Coldinghame and the petitioner being informed that upon applicatione to the saids Lords by Mr Alexander Douglas late incumbent at Coldinghame and mr James Lawtie late incumbent of Chirnsyde misrepresenting to the saids Lords as of the forsaid parishes ware still vaccant and not supplyed Supplyed by any other minister the saids Lords have been pleased to grant the stipend of Coldinghame for the year Jaj vjc nyntie one to the said Mr Alexander Douglas and the stipend of Eymouth for the year Jaj vjc nyntie one to said Mr James Lawtie Wheras it is humbly offered to the saids Lords Consideratione that the saids Mr Alexander Douglas and Mr James Lawtie being deprived by the saids Lords for not obeying the proclamation and not praying for King William and Queen Mary and have never qualified themselves by takeing the oath of alledgance, yet have taken upon them to preach in the Church of Aytoune upon a pretended call of some of the heritors of Coldinghame and Eymouth and therby pretends right to the stipend and the saids calls being offered to the presbytrie of Chirnsyde ware found not to be in the termes of the act of Parliament and nothing hath followed therupon wherby the said Mr Alexander Douglas and Mr James Lawtie have no right at all to the stipend bot one the contrary the petitioner haveing supplyed the vaccancie of the said Church of Coldinghame ever since the deprivatione of the said Mr Alexander Douglas by the appointment of the Presbytrie and at the desyre and with the consent of the heritors and elders and other parishoners of the said parish of Coldinghame as ane testificat under the hands of the heritors and elders of the said parish produced would testifie, hath therby right conforme to the act of Parliament to the stipend of the said parish of Coldinghame and what ever favor It pleased the saids Lords to conferr upon the said Mr Alexander Douglas and Mr James Lawtie, yet the same cannot prejudge the petitioner his right and Just clame to the stipend for which he hath actually served in the saids paroches And Therfore Humbly Craving the saids Lords to take the premisses to ther serious Consideration and to recall the right granted by the saids Lords to the said Mr Alexander Douglas and to be pleased to grant the petitioner a right to the stipend of the said parish of Coldinghame for the said year Jaj vjc nyntie one In respect that he hade served in the said parish the said year and yet continueth in the same and if the saids Lords thought fitt to appoint the stipend of Eymouth betuixt the said Mr Alexander Douglas and Mr James Lawtie who have no right therto Bot only what the saids Lords are pleased to allow in point of favor as the petitione bears The Lords of ther majesties privy Councill Haveing Considered the petition given in to them be the above Mr William Gullane and answers made therto be the above Mr Alexander Douglas and Mr James Lawtie with the writtes produced for aither partie They Refuse the Desyre of the petitione and adheres to their former interloquitor in favors of the above Mr Douglas and Mr Lawtie.

Edinburgh 14 January 1692

D1692/1/201

Act

Act for Mr William Gullon

Concerning a petition given in to the lords of their majesties’ privy council by Mr William Gullon, preacher of the Gospel, showing that where the petitioner served in the meeting house of the parish of Coldingham,Eyemouth and Ayton at the desire and invitation of the people of the said parishes and there continued till the deprivation of Mr Alexander Douglas, late incumbent at Coldingham, since which time the petitioner at the appointment of the presbytery of Chirnside, and with consent and at the desire of the said people he has supplied the said vacancy and preached in the said church which was already made appear to the said lords in June 1691 at which time the said lords granted to the petitioner the half of the stipend of 1689 and 1690 of the said parish of Coldingham, and the petitioner being informed that upon application to the said lords by Mr Alexander Douglas, late incumbent at Coldingham, and Mr James Lawtie, late incumbent of Chirnside misrepresenting to the said lords as of the forsaid parishes were still vacant and not supplied by any other minister, the said lords have been pleased to grant the stipend of Coldingham for the year 1691 to the said Mr Alexander Douglas, and the stipend of Eyemouth for the year 1691 to said Mr James Lawtie, whereas it is humbly offered to the said lords consideration that the said Mr Alexander Douglas and Mr James Lawtie, being deprived by the said lords for not obeying the proclamation and not praying for King William and Queen Mary, and have never qualified themselves by taking the oath of allegiance, yet have taken upon them to preach in the church of Ayton upon a pretended call of some of the heritors of Coldingham and Eyemouth and thereby pretends right to the stipend and the said calls being offered to the presbytery of Chirnside were found not to be in the terms of the act of parliament, and nothing hath followed thereupon whereby the said Mr Alexander Douglas and Mr James Lawtie have no right at all to the stipend but on the contrary the petitioner having supplied the vacancy of the said church of Coldingham ever since the deprivation of the said Mr Alexander Douglas, by the appointment of the presbytery and at the desire and with the consent of the heritors and elders and other parishioners of the said parish of Coldingham as an testificate, under the hands of the heritors and elders of the said parish produced would testify, hath thereby right conforming to the act of parliament to the stipend of the said parish of Coldingham, and whatever favour it pleased the said lords to confer upon the said Mr Alexander Douglas and Mr James Lawtie, yet the same cannot prejudge the petitioner his right and lust claim to the stipend for which he has actually served in the said parishes, and therefore humbly craving the said lords to take the premisses to their serious consideration and to recall the right granted by the said lords to the said Mr Alexander Douglas, and to be pleased to grant the petitioner a right to the stipend of the said parish of Coldingham for the said year 1691, in respect that he had served in the said parish the said year and yet continues in the same, and if the said lords thought fit to appoint the stipend of Eyemouth between the said Mr Alexander Douglas and Mr James Lawtie, who have no right thereto but only what the said lords are pleased to allow in point of favour as the petition bears. The lords of their majesties’ privy council having considered the petition given in to them by the above Mr William Gullon and answers made thereto by the above Mr Alexander Douglas and Mr James Lawtie, with the writs produced for either party, they refuse the desire of the petition and adheres to their former interlocutor in favour of the above Mr Douglas and Mr Lawtie.

1. NRS, PC2/24, 9v-10v.

2. The word ‘paroch’ scored out here.

1. NRS, PC2/24, 9v-10v.

Order, 14 January 1692, Edinburgh

Posted on by

Edinburgh the Fourteinth day of January Jaj vjc nyntie two years

D1692/1/191

Order

Recomendatione Elizabeth Douglas

Anent a Petitione given in to the Lords of their majesties privy Councill, be Elizabeth Douglas relict of umquhill John Murray merchant traveller to London Shewing That quher the poor petitioner is old and infirme and was left with many small Childrein after her husbands decease among whom she hade thrie sones who maintained her untill within this short tyme that they went to their majesties service and they payed the petitioners house maill and other necessaries Bot being the will of god one of them was killed in the said service at Dunkell And the other now lately killed in Ireland the thrid being as yett in their majesties service in the generalls oun Company at Dumbar presently Bot hade wyfe and Cheldreen and could doe no help to the petitioner who is old guttish and infirme and redacted to extream poverty And Therfore Humbly Craveing the saids Lords to take the petitioners Condition which is very miserable to consideratione seing now she hade lost them that helped her And that in their majesties service and to allow the poor old infirme woman some thing to help her to live upon who is not able to live without supplied from the saids Lords goodnes as the petition bears The Lords of their majesties privy Councill Haveing considered this petition given in to them be the above Elizabeth Douglas They Recommend to the Lords of their majesties thesaurie to cause payment be made to the petitioner of such Charitable supplie as they should find her condition doeth stand a need of and Requyre.

Edinburgh 14 January 1692

D1692/1/191

Order

Recommendation for Elizabeth Douglas

Concerning a petition given in to the lords of their majesties’ privy council by Elizabeth Douglas, relict of the late John Murray, merchant traveller to London, showing that where the poor petitioner is old and infirm and was left with many small children after her husband’s decease, among whom she had three sons who maintained her until within this short time that they went to their majesties service, and they paid the petitioner’s house, mail and other necessities, but being the will of God one of them was killed in the said service at Dunkeld, and the other now lately killed in Ireland, the third being as yet in their majesties’ service in the general’s own company at Dunbar presently, but had wife and children and could do no help to the petitioner who is old, guttish and infirm, and reduced to extreme poverty, and therefore humbly craving the said lords to take the petitioner’s condition which is very miserable to consideration seeing now she had lost them that helped her, and that in their majesties’ service, and to allow the poor, old, infirm woman something to help her to live upon who is not able to live without being supplied from the said lords’ goodness, as the petition bears. The lords of their majesties’ privy council having considered this petition given in to them by the above Elizabeth Douglas they recommend to the lords of their majesties’ treasury to cause payment be made to the petitioner of such charitable supply as they should find her condition does stand a need of and require.

1. NRS, PC2/24, 9r-9v.

1. NRS, PC2/24, 9r-9v.

Order, 14 January 1692, Edinburgh

Posted on by

Edinburgh the Fourteinth day of January Jaj vjc nyntie two years

D1692/1/181

Order

Recomendatione in favors of Two Danish Troopers

Anent a Petitione given in to the Lords of their majesties privy Councill be Petter Prizonoustie and Albert Cronenberg two danish Troopers Shewing That the petitioners hade been in millitary service to their majesties King William and Queen Mary in Ireland under the Conduct of Collonoll Christopher Parnnup wher for the space of two years they ware fighting against the rebellious Irish Behaveing themselves valient and Servicable as occasion did affoord and their pass uould informe Both being the petitiones late so ordered by divine Providence that at2 the intakeing of Kingsaill The Petitioners did fall in the hands of their enemies and the one lost his left hand and the other was shott through his legg and foot and therby rendered incapable for any furder service, and for that end Haveing obtained a pass to goe homward or wher else providence in ther misery should conduct them Bot being altogither destitute of all earthly means to cary the Petitioners in ther Jurney They therby intreat the saids Lords as the only supporters of their majesties faithfull and thus hurted servants And Therfore Humbly Craveing that the saids Lords would look upon them with the eyes of mercy as objects of Pitty as strangers in a strange land wounded and lamed and in capable for any service and with the granting the petitioners a case for their free travelling to grant the saids Lords a favorable Suitour of Charitie for the carieing them on their Jurney as the Petition bears The Lords of his Majesties privy Councill Haveing he and this petitione given in to them be the within Peeter Bozonouskie and Albert Cronenberg read in their presence They Recomend to the Lords Commissioners of ther majesties thesaurie To give orders for furnishing the petitioners with such Charitable supplie as the saids Lords should find their cause and Condition to requyre and stands in need of And Recomends to the Lord Chancelor to signe a pass to the petitioners for travelling from this to their oun homes.

Edinburgh 14 January 1692

D1692/1/181

Order

Recommendation in favour of Two Danish Troopers

Concerning a petition given in to the lords of their majesties’ privy council by Petter Prizonoustie and Albert Cronenberg, two Danish troopers, showing that the petitioners had been in military service to their majesties King William and Queen Mary in Ireland under the conduct of Colonel Christopher Prenup where for the space of two years they were fighting against the rebellious Irish, behaving themselves valiant and serviceable as occasion did afford and their pass would inform both, being the petitioners late so ordered by divine Providence that at the intaking of Kingsail the petitioners did fall in the hands of their enemies and the one lost his left hand and the other was shot through his leg and foot and thereby rendered incapable for any further service, and for that end having obtained a pass to go homeward or where else providence in their misery should conduct them, but being altogether destitute of all earthly means to carry the petitioners in their journey they thereby entreat the said lords as the only supporters of their majesties’ faithfull and thus hurt servants, and therefore humbly craving that the said lords would look upon them with the eyes of mercy as objects of pity as strangers in a strange land, wounded and lamed and in capable for any service, and with the granting the petitioners a case for their free travelling, to grant the said lords a favorable suiter of charity for the caring them on their journey as the petition bears. The lords of his majesty’s privy council having he and this petition given in to them by the within Peeter Bozonouskie and Albert Cronenberg read in their presence, they recommend to the lords commissioners of their majesties’ treasure to give orders for furnishing the petitioners with such charitable supply as the said lords should find their cause and condition to require and stands in need of, and recommend to the Lord Chancellor to sign a pass to the petitioners for travelling from this to their own homes.

1. NRS, PC2/24, 8v-9r.

2. Insertion.

1. NRS, PC2/24, 8v-9r.