BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
You are here:BAILII >>
Databases >>
Scottish Court of Session Decisions >>
The Trades and Magistrates of Inverness v Duff of Drummuir and Others, Members of the Guildry. [1724] Mor 1839 (00 February 1724)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1724/Mor0501839-004.html Cite as:
[1724] Mor 1839
The Trades and Magistrates of Inverness v. Duff of Drummuir and Others, Members of the Guildry
1724.
February. Case No. No 4.
The Convention of Royal Burghs was found entitled to make an alteration in the set of a burgh. See No 6. p. 1840.
The contrary was found in a subsequent case, infra.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
A committee of the royal burghs, by appointment of the convention anno 1676, confirmed a set and constitution of the burgh of Inverness, or made a new one, by which the trades were totally excluded from being members of the town council, and in consequence from any share of the management of the burgh.
The trades continued in this state till betwixt the year 1689 and the year 1701, during which interval the magistrates began, via facti, to bring some tradesmen into the council; but this having been discontinued from the last-mentioned period, the trades, in the month of June 1722, made application to the magistrates and council for redress of this grievance, and obtained an act of council giving them a certain share of the administration, provisionally always, That what the magistrates and council had done should be authorised and approven of by the convention at their next meeting.
The act of council was accordingly laid before the royal burghs in the month of July thereafter, and received their approbation.
The guildry of the town being dissatisfied with this procedure, suspended both acts; and, amongst other reasons, insisted upon this, That the convention had no power by law to alter the constitution of any burgh; that when the royal grant erecting a burgh did not appear, in such a case the forms which had been customary in the town were presumed to be the set, and were usually confirmed by the convention, as was done in the present case.
It was answered, That the powers of the convention were ascertained by the laws and acts of Parliament establishing their authority, which were numerous and known; and their possession of these powers, by the exercise of them, appeared from their acts for ages past, giving sets to the greatest part of the royal burghs in the nation, and altering them for just and necessary causes.
It was observed likewise for the chargers, That in the present question it seemed extremely odd, that the suspenders should dispute the authority of the convention, since the only title they pretend to, in support of their privileges, was an act of the commissioners of the convention.
The Lords found, That the convention of the royal burghs had power, on just and reasonable considerations, to make alterations, upon due and regular application, in the sets of particular burghs, formerly given them by the convention.
Reporter, Lord Cowper.For the Trades, Dun. Forbes & Jo. Forbes.Alt. Ro. Dundas Advocatus & Ja. Graham.Clerk, Mackenzie.
Fol. Dic. v. 3. p. 100. Edgar, p. 29.
