Domestic annals of Scotland : $b from the revolution to the rebellion of 1745Chambers, Robert
History
Domestic annals of Scotland : $b from the revolution to the rebellion of 1745
Chambers, Robert
Scotland -- History -- 1689-1745
The Earl of Moray, being pursued at law for a tradesman’s account, which
was referred to his oath, craved the Court of Session to appoint a
commission to take his oath at Dunnibrissle, on the ground that, if he
were obliged to come to Edinburgh for the purpose, he should incur as
much expense as the whole amount of the alleged debt. As Dunnibrissle is
visible from Edinburgh across the Firth of Forth, this must be looked
upon as an eccentrically economical movement on his lordship’s part. The
court granted the commission, but ordained his lordship to pay any
expense which might be incurred by the debtor, or his representative, in
travelling to Dunnibrissle to be present at the oath-taking.[97]
The court had occasionally not less whimsical cases before it. In
February 1698, there was one regarding a copper caldron, which had been
poinded, but not first taken to the Cross to be ‘appreciate.’ The
defenders represented that they had done something equivalent in
carrying thither a part of it—the ledges—as a symbol; following here a
rule applicable with heavy movables, as where a salt-pan was represented
by two nails; nay, a symbol not homogeneous, as a wisp of straw for a
flock of sheep, fulfilled the law. The defence was sustained, and the
poinding affirmed.[98]
[Sidenote: 1692. DEC.]
The Privy Council had under its hands three Protestant clergymen—namely,
Mr John Hay, late minister at Falkland; Mr Alexander Leslie, late
minister at Crail; and Mr Patrick Middleton, late minister at Leslie—in
short, three of the ‘outed’ Episcopal clergy—for not praying for William
and Mary. They acknowledged that they prayed ‘only in general terms’ for
the king and queen, and were therefore discharged from thereafter
exercising any clerical functions, under severe penalties. Soon after,
the Council judged, in the case of Mr Alexander Lundie, late minister of
Cupar, who stated that, ‘having a mixed auditory, he prayed so as might
please both parties.’ This style of praying, or else the manner of
alluding to it, did not please the Privy Council, and Mr Lundie was
ordered ‘to be carried from the bar, by the macers, to the Tolbooth,
there to remain during the Council’s pleasure.’ Having lain there four
days, far from all means of subsistence, while his wife was ill of a
dangerous disease at home, and his family of small children required his
care, Mr Lundie was fain to beg the Council’s pardon for what he had
said, and so obtained his liberation also, but only with a discharge
from all clerical functions till he should properly qualify himself
according to act of parliament.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account