« PreviousContinue »
of his age. This love of music caused James III. to draw to his court at Stirling those who cherished the harmonic art. His enthusiasm being excited by the musicians who surrounded him, James determined that St Michael's Chapel in the castle of Stirling should be rebuilt and endowed both as a royal chapel and a musical college. His assassination prevented his project from being completely carried out. James IV., it is recorded, did not yield to his royal sire in the love and practice of music, and not forgetful of his father's desire for the establishment of a musical college, the king at length took steps towards this object. Having in 1501 opened negotiations with the court of Rome, proceedings ensued from which it appeared, inter alia, that the pope had got a petition from the king representing that in the Chapel Royal of the Blessed Mary and St Michael, within the palace of the castle of Stirling, in the diocese of St Andrews, one dean and several others, chanters, chaplains, and clerks, daily celebrated mass and discharged other important functions; that the king had caused the chapel to be renovated, and had adorned it with books, cups, and other ornaments. The king, it had also been set forth, had assigned some of his own immoveable property with a view to the chapel being erected and endowed as a collegiate church. The chapel was subsequently erected under a commission from the pope into a collegiate church, with common coffer, seal, chapter, and other collegial insignia.
The endowments, consisting of the revenues of certain lands and churches, parts of the royal domains assigned by the king, were distributed among the dean, sub-dean, and other officers of the collegiate church. The endowments were confirmed by Parliament on 13th March 1503.
By the erection the Provost of the Provostry of Kirkheugh, St Andrews, was constituted Dean of the Chapel Royal, but by a papal bull, dated in 1504, it was declared that the provost should cease to be dean, and that the Bishop of Galloway should in future fill that office.
It should be mentioned that in later years the endowments of the Chapel Royal were transferred to Holyrood House.
The historian of the Chapel Royal relates that for many years, notwithstanding feeble attempts after a better state of things, the revenues of the institution were almost wholly secularised. John Gib, who was appointed groom of the Privy Chamber when James VI. was under the age of nine years, acquired an easy ascendancy over his royal master, and apparently persuaded the king to divert the revenues of the Chapel Royal from their proper use to the beneficial
enjoyment of Gib. This act of sovereignty, which suppressed a national institution, and deprived its proper officers of the means of living, did not commend itself to the Scottish Parliament. In 1606 they ventured on protest, and passed an Act which, in the words of the historian, is illustrative of the intelligence and patriotism of the period. He quotes the Act in its entirety. It, inter alia, ratified and approved of the foundation and institution of the Chapel Royal in so far as concerned the service of His Majesty and his successors in music and all other things not repugnant to the true religion then professed, and by the law established within the realm, and all lands, kirks, teinds, rents, and commodities whatsoever mortified, given, and disponed to the same or to any of the members thereof; and decerned the members of the Chapel Royal to have undoubted right to the whole lands and others which formerly belonged to the Chapel Royal and members thereof.
Although the Act of 1606 formally received the royal assent, King James VI. did not think it necessary to keep faith with the Scottish Parliament and with those serving the Chapel Royal. He asserted his determination to convert the revenues of the institution into a source of permanent emolument to Gib, who was duly made the recipient of these revenues. A counter movement was, however, at work, and in course of time Gib's claim was more or less bought out.
By an instrument of gift, dated 2nd June 1615, the king, on the narrative that the Chapel Royal of Stirling in the days of James IV. was united to the Bishopric of Galloway, together with all lands, etc., pertaining to the Chapel Royal, ratified in favour of William Cowper, then Bishop of Galloway, all gifts, provisions, and mortifications made in favour of him or any of his predecessors of and concerning the Bishopric of Galloway, whereof the Chapel Royal at Stirling with the lands, etc., pertaining thereto, was a part and pertinent; and His Majesty ordained that the Bishops of Galloway be in all time coming chaplains to His Majesty and his successors as Deans of the Chapel Royal of Stirling, etc.
William Cowper, Bishop of Galloway, died on 15th February 1619, and was succeeded in the See of Galloway by Andrew Lamb, then Bishop of Brechin. This prelate, finding himself unable to discharge the duties of Dean of the Chapel Royal, resigned the office, and all the teinds and revenues of every description belonging thereto, into the hands of the king, who thereupon effected an important change.
By letters of presentation, dated 16th July 1621, the king, with advice of the lords of the Privy Council, dissolved the Deanery, with all
the lands, kirks, and teinds belonging thereto, from the Bishopric of Galloway, and from the Crown, and erected the same into a distinct benefice, to be called in all time coming the Deanery of the Chapel Royal of Stirling, to be disponed and gifted by His Majesty to such person or persons as he should please, to be called Deans of the Chapel Royal. Further, by the said letters His Majesty incorporated with the said Deanery certain kirks, lands, teinds, and others belonging to the monastery of Dundrennan, and ordained a letter of gift to be made under the Great Seal in competent and due form to the Bishop of Dunblane making him Dean of the Chapel Royal of Stirling during his life, and giving him the office, benefice, and dignity of the Deanery of the said Chapel Royal, with lands, teinds, kirks, fruits, emoluments, and casualties whatsoever, which of old belonged to the patrimony of the benefice. A charter of mortification, dated 16th July 1621, under the Great Seal, was expede in favour of Adam, Bishop of Dunblane, in terms of the said letters. By the Act, 1621, cap. 57 (Thomson's ed., Vol. IV. p. 649), entitled "Annexation of the Chapel Royal to the Bishopric of Dunblane," the foresaid gift and grant and charter of mortification were ratified and approved and confirmed by the king and estates of Parliament.
Thereafter the Privy Council proceeded to recover from Grissell Anderson, the widow of Bishop Cowper, the charters and other writs of the institution. Bearing the documents entrusted to her late husband, Mrs Cowper appeared before the Privy Council and duly delivered the charters, etc., which were thereafter delivered to the Bishop of Dunblane. The Bishop zealously sought to restore the Chapel Royal to its former opulence, but in those days it was far from an easy matter to make rights effectual.
On the translation of Adam, Bishop of Dunblane, to the See of Aberdeen in 1635, he was succeeded in the See of Dunblane by Dr James Wedderburn, in whose favour Charles I., of date 14th October 1635, granted a presentation and appointment to the Deanery, making him Dean of the Chapel Royal during his life, and giving, granting, and confirming to him and his successors in office, the gift and grant enjoyed by Adam, Bishop of Dunblane.
Dr Wedderburn held the office of dean with all the emoluments belonging thereto until he was deprived of his office of bishop and excommunicated by the General Assembly of 1638, in the course of their proceedings against the order of bishops, which ended in the abolition of Episcopacy.
No successor to Dr Wedderburn in the
Deanery was appointed until the restoration of the Stuart dynasty after the Usurpation.
From the Restoration, however, until the Revolution in 1688 and final establishment of Presbytery in Scotland, the office and emoluments of Dean of the Chapel Royal were held by the successive Bishops of Dunblane during that period.
At the Revolution in 1688 the whole patrimony of the Chapel Royal reverted to the Crown as bona vacantia.
Their Majesties, William and Mary, made a grant of the whole revenues of the Chapel to Mr William Carstairs, Minister of the Gospel, whom they at the same time appointed to be one of their ordinary chaplains in Scotland.
The revenues were afterwards applied by the Crown principally in grants for life or during pleasure to literary men holding cures in the Church of Scotland, who were generally at the same time appointed royal chaplains, and were commonly styled Deans of the Chapel Royal.
Under the existing gifts the revenues are devoted to the endowment of professorships in the Faculty of Divinity in the Scotch universities, the subjects gifted being described as "All and sundry the feu-duties, teind-duties, profits, and emoluments whatsoever appertaining to the said Chapel Royal of Scotland by the ancient rights and foundations thereof or by any other right or title whatsoever and whereunto the dean, sub-dean, rectors, prebends, chanters, chancellors, treasurers, sacrists, or any other office-bearers belonging to the said Chapel Royal, at any time theretofore held or lawfully might have had right or title, comprehending the Abbacy of Crossraguell and Dundrennan, being parts and pendicles of the said Chapel Royal.
The Deanery revenues are derived from lands in the Counties of Wigtown, Kirkcudbright, Ayr, and Perth, also from teinds of the lands of Shaws, Helmburn, and Balliades, in the parishes of Ettrick and Kirkhope, in the county of Selkirk.
MESSRS KENNETH MACDONALD & BARKER,
solicitors, 11 Queensgate, Inverness, inform us that Mr H. L. Williamson, solicitor, Perth, has been assumed as a partner in their firm as from 1st July, and that the business will be
carried on at the above address under the same firm name.
MR JOHN NIMMO, solicitor, sole partner of the firm of Nimmo & Fisher, solicitors, Wishaw, has assumed as a partner his son, Mr H. W. Nimmo, B.L., solicitor. The business will in future be carried on under the firm name of John Nimmo & Son, solicitors, Wishaw.
FACULTY OF ADVOCATES.-A meeting of the Faculty of Advocates was held on 4th July in the Advocates' Library, the Dean of Faculty (Mr Condie Sandeman, K.C.) presiding. It was reported that the arrangements for the transfer to the Faculty of the library and other property of the Juridical Society of Edinburgh were in course of completion, and it was remitted to the Curators of the Advocates' Library to take charge of the Society's premises and library, to carry out such repairs and rearrangements as might be necessary, and to frame a scheme for the future administration of the library. Reports by a Committee of Faculty on the Adoption of Children (Scotland) Bill and the Guardianship of Children (Scotland) Bill were submitted and adopted.
MESSRS FALCONER & MARSHALL, solicitors and notaries public, Kinross, intimate that they have assumed as a partner Mr D. A. R. Cuthbert, M.C., solicitor. The business will be carried on in the firm name of Messrs Falconer & Marshall. Mr Cuthbert, who has been associated with the firm for the last six months, has had a wide legal experience, and was for several years managing clerk to a large firm of Writers to the Signet.
The seventh clause in the Trust Act of 1921, to which your correspondent refers, carries his criticism of the action of the Bank of England very little further. In this clause notice to a co-trustee of the action to be taken by the others is not dispensed with-advisedly-else the position of a trustee out of touch with the majority would be impossible.
Adequate notice implies an opportunity to acknowledge, and the Bank are taking a reasonable method of obtaining evidence of receipt of such notice by the remaining trustee. There may be other methods by which such notice might be proved, but that is beside the point.—I am, yours faithfully,
W. O. DUNCAN.
THE BANK OF ENGLAND.
With reference to the recent article under the above heading, another legal firm has written in sympathy, and has called attention to a further requirement of the Bank. Where, for example, there are persons in a joint account and one dies, although his death is proved by a certificate, yet in the case of a transfer the Bank will not approve of a form running in the survivor's name unless it contains the words 'Survivor in a joint account with deceased (naming him). The transfer is accordingly returned by the Bank to the agent that the addition may be made and initialed, or a fresh transfer executed.
The Bank have also forms which they issue for amalgamation of accounts in their books. Thus a man may hold stock in his own name in one account. Then in another account he may hold stock jointly with another who is dead and whose death is proved. Yet he may not include both stocks in one transfer without an amalgamation form being signed.
INCREASE OF RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST (RESTRICTIONS) ACT, 1920 (10 & 11 GEO. V. CAP. 17), SECTION 12 (2)—RENT and MORTGAGE INTEREST (RESTRICTIONS) ACT, 1923 (13 & 14 GEO V. CAP. 32), SECTION 10 (1).—A dwellinghouse was let for three years at £74, 4s. a year, and five shillings a week (which amounted to £13 a year) for attendance. Both sums were to be paid quarterly in one payment of £21, 16s. The agreement stated that the first payment was due on 24th June 1921, such rent to include attendance. The lease came to an end These regulations, like the declinature of the on 24th March 1924, and the tenant claimed to Bank to accept a transfer signed by a quorum continue in occupation of the dwelling-house in of Scottish trustees (without a form specially virtue of the provisions of the Increase of Rent signed by all the trustees authorising the and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Acts. quorum to act), are not generally known, and Held that as the rent included attendance the friction and delays are occasioned which it landlord was entitled to obtain possession.would be desirable to avoid. Perhaps if the | K.B. Div. (Lush J.).—16th May 1924.
CONVEYANCING AND VOTE MAKING. 1681, cap 21, and 16 Geo. II., section 9, to be
By WM. YEAMAN.
In the "Scots Law Times" of 23rd February 1924 an article appeared entitled "Fagots," in which there was explained for the benefit of students of law the method adopted by conveyancers for the purpose of creating votes after the Reform Act of 1832-a method which was declared to be illegal. In the present article it is proposed to bring before students the ingenious methods the profession adopted in order to create votes prior to the Reform Act, and which fell into disuse thereafter.
The subject now has only an historical interest, but in the course of their professional career the present-day students may have occasion to refer to the inventories of the titles of large landed estates, and these, containing frequent renewals of Crown rights and the other instruments employed in separating the property, conveying the superiority and reinvesting their owner in the property, will be more easily understood if the state of the election law of the period in question is set forth, and also the procedure followed by the conveyancers of a bygone day for the purpose of creating votes and enabling their clients to carry elections of Members of Parliament.
At the outset it is necessary to explain that during the eighteenth century, and especially after the '45 Rebellion, when ward-holdings were abolished-ward-holding being a form of military tenure-landed property became to a great extent a mercantile commodity. The practice was then becoming common for landed proprietors holding of the Crown to grant feurights of portions of their estates for adequate value, the consideration being partly money down and partly a specified ground rent called the feu-duty. A stipulation was also made for casualties of superiority, which might be taxed or fixed at a certain sum, or be the yearly rent of the ground feued and the buildings thereon, subject to certain deductions. Such conveyances of the property in feu left the right of freehold or of superiority unimpaired. This right of superiority might be sold as a separate estate, and, when covering feued property of the requisite extent, entitled the purchaser to be enrolled as a freeholder. Such right of superiority then became a marketable commodity like the separate rights of property conferred by the feu-rights.
About the middle of the eighteenth century almost every great landed proprietor in Scotland became desirous of increasing his political influence. To entitle anyone to be enrolled as a freeholder of a county, or to elect or be elected its Member of Parliament, he required in virtue of the older statutes, particularly
publicly infeft in property or superiority and in possession of a 40s. land of old extent holden of the King or Prince, or liable in public burden for His Majesty's supplies for £400 Scots of valued rent. To enjoy this privilege it was not necessary for the claimant to be infeft in the dominium utile. It was sufficient that he had a title to the superiority either in fee or liferent. Up to this time scarcely any feu-rights were granted except to parties bona fide paying adequate value and in exchange getting the entire right of property and possession of the lands feued. The number of superiors thereof, and as such county voters on any roll, was therefore very limited. If any great landed proprietor, therefore, could legally add a number of friendly liferent freeholders to the roll, his influence would thereby become paramount.
It does not seem to be recorded who the conveyancer was who first devised the scheme of creating a new class of feu-rights and of freehold voters, but it is a well-known fact that in many of the counties of Scotland the rival great landed proprietors soon came to adopt a similar course.
The following is a summary of the methods evolved by the profession in the adaptation of estates of superiority to the creation of votes, and therefrom students will (in the language of Professor Menzies) have the benefit of observing feudal principles illustrated by circumstances which were singularly fitted to exhibit their peculiar character and force, viz. :
I. If the owner of lands held them of the Crown and the old extent or valued rent thereof was large enough to enable several votes to be created, each voter's qualification amounting to a 40s. land, or £400 Scots of valued rent, the lands after being surveyed were parcelled out into separate farms. Thereafter the Commissioners of Supply of the County, on satisfactory evidence being led, granted a decreet of division of the cumulo valued rent of the whole estate among the separate farms conform to the relative proportions that the real rent of each farm bore to the cumulo real rent of the whole lands. A feu-right of each farm, in which a nominal feu-duty was inserted, was then granted by the owner to a friend, who acknowledged that the feu was only held by him in trust. As soon as the grantee in the feu-right was infeft by an instrument of sasine being expede on his feu-right the dominium utile was separated or split from the superiority. Then the owner conveyed to the intended voter, his political friend, the dominium directum or superiority by a disposition a me de superiore meo. The voter obtained a charter from the Crown and, after expeding an instrument of sasine thereon, he was entitled to be
enrolled as a freeholder, and was expected to support by his votes the political leanings of the landowner. Thereafter the owner of the dominium utile granted an ordinary disposition of the subjects feued in favour of the owner, who could then complete his title as subvassal of the voter.
II. When several votes were to be created the following procedure was adopted in order to save the expense of separate charters, viz. : (a) The owner granted a feu-right and so split the superiority from the property. (b) He executed a procuratory of resignation for new infeftment to himself.
(c) He obtained
a Crown charter of
resignation. (d) He granted to each voter a disposition of his portion of the lands and therein assigned the unexecuted precept of sasine and the clause of dispensation in the Crown charter.
(e) The voter was infeft on the charter and disposition.
(f) The grantee in the feu reconveyed the dominium utile to the owner. III. The same end was obtained succinctly thus: The owner granted to the intended voter an absolute conveyance of the property containing an obligation on him to reconvey the dominium utile after completing his title. The voter thereafter resigned upon the disposition, and, having completed his right as Crown vassal, he granted a feu-charter to the
IV. When a Crown vassal in lands capable of affording several votes sold his lands under reservation of one vote to himself the arrangement was carried into effect by his conveying the lands to which the reservation did not apply by a disposition in usual form but granting a feu-right of the portion which was to constitute his qualification. The purchaser accordingly got the dominium utile of that portion, the superiority remaining with the seller.
V. The foregoing methods relate to cases where votes were created by constituting estates of superiority. Owners could also make votes by splitting or dividing existing estates of superiority. Thus anyone possessing the dominium directum of Crown lands of £800 Scots valued rent could create one vote in addition to his own by conveying the pro indiviso half of the lands, the right of property being excepted from the warrandice. In such a case the voter would complete his title by charter of resignation or of confirmation. The consent of the vassal to multiplication of superiors had first to be obtained.
VI. Liferent qualifications were constituted in similar ways, the only difference being that the conveyance of the dominium directum with
the assignation of the open precept of sasine, etc., and the instrument of sasine were only for the liferent of the disponee. Such liferents were in course of time terminated by the death of the liferenters or by renunciation by them, and the fee remained all along with the original
It will readily be seen that the constitution of votes tended to complicate the titles of large landed estates, especially when the proper procedure was not carried out at the right time, and titles had to be made up when deaths occurred prior to conveyances being granted
The creation of votes did not proceed without challenge from political opponents, and the legality of the methods adopted was contested in the Courts. It appears from the report of the case of George Skene and Charles Hunter v. David Ogilvie (M. 8792) that in the course of the contest between the Earls of Strathmore and Panmure for the county of Forfar, previous to the general election, 1768, the Earl of Strathmore complained of fourteen different enrolments in virtue of dispositions granted by the Earl of Panmure. It was pleaded against Ogilvie that the tenements or holdings of which his qualification was composed lay discontiguous and that infeftment had not been taken upon each tenement separately, but upon one part of the whole. The Court of Session sustained the objection, but on appeal the House of Lords reversed the judgment. The appeal is reported in Paton's Appeals (Vol. II. p. 141). It may be useful to note the titles under which Ogilvie claimed a vote, and to give the rubric of the case. The titles were as follow:
1. Charter under the Great Seal to Earl of Panmure of various lands dated 6th August 1765.
2. Disposition of certain lands by the Earl
The rubric reads thus:
reversing the judgment of the Court of