<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2012-08-09</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>John Pas</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Proofed and reviewed as part of batch B120616.pdcc.</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="B01412">
<STC T="W">A3465CA</STC>
<STC T="C">R172388</STC>
<BIBNO T="oclc">52614504</BIBNO>
<VID>175748</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="text">
<PB N="1" REF="1" MS="y">
<HEAD><HI>ANSWERS</HI> For the Burghs Royal, to the <HI>MEMORIAL</HI> in behalf of the Burghs of Regality and Baronie and Other Unfree Traders.</HEAD>
<P>THe Memorial is &s;o ill dige&s;ted, that it is much more ea&s;ie to an&s;wer it, then to re&s;ume it.</P>
<P>The Heads principally complained of, are, that <HI>Retailers</HI> in unfree Burghs &s;hould be lyable. and <HI>Secondly,</HI> that the proportion of 10. <HI>lib:</HI> of the Taxt-Roll of 100: <HI>lib,</HI> is an over proportion upon the unfree Traders.</P>
<P>But to clear this matter from all the Mi&s;takes contained in the Memorial, the true im|port of the Act of Parliament 1693. <HI>for the Communication of Trade,</HI> is, <HI>fir&s;t,</HI> to be con&s;ide|red, and by the &s;aid Act the&s;e points are evident. 1. That the Act <HI>ratifies</HI> and <HI>approves</HI> the Contract betwixt the Burghs Royal and Mr. <HI>John Buchan</HI> about the ten pounds which he undertook of the 100. <HI>lib,</HI> for the Communication of Trade that he was thereby allowed to grant. 2. After the Expiration of Mr. <HI>John Buchans</HI> Contract, the Commu|nication of Trade &s;hould continue, The Burghs of Regality, Baronie and other unfree Traders, paying or relieving the Royal Burghs of a ju&s;t proportion of the 100 <HI>lib:</HI> of the Tax-roll effeiring to their Trade, and which Proportion was to be equally conde&s;cended on by the fir&s;t general Meeting of the Royal Burrows after the Expiration of the &s;aid Con|tract, and &s;o furth thereafter with a Provi&s;ion of Relief by the Parliament; Whereby it's evident, that the Memorial pleading for a perpetual Communication, mu&s;t al&s;o acknow|ledge, that the power of rating the Trade of unfree Burghs and others, and burdening them with an effeirand Proportion of the <HI>Tax-roll,</HI> and di&s;tributing the &s;ame among them Belongs in the fir&s;t place to the Convention of the Royal Burrows under Correction of the Parliament. And 3. That for this Communication the Parliament, <HI>Strictly di&s;charges all per&s;ons what&s;omever, to exerci&s;e any kind of Trade, except Burge&s;&s;es in Royal Barghs,</HI> and the&s;e who pay their Proportion of the &s;aid <HI>Quota:</HI> Whereby it is manife&s;t, that by this Article of the &s;aid Act of Parliament, unfree Burghs and others refu&s;ing to pay their Proportion, and accept of the Communication, are not to claim the Benefit of the Act of parliament 1690. But are expre&s;ly di&s;charged, to exerci&s;e any kind of Trade; and the Acts of parliament made in favours of Burghs Royal are to be put in full Execution again&s;t them, as if the Act 1690: or Act 1672: had never been made, and it is po&s;itively ordain|ed, <HI>that none be exempted.</HI></P>
<P>This being the plain meaning and import of the Act 1693. Its evident, that Retailers that have not the Benefit of the &s;aid Communication are lyable as unfree Traders; Likeas the Lords of Se&s;&s;ion, did mo&s;t ju&s;tly find by their Decreets, that they were &s;o lyable which is an evident Confirmation; And farther what can be more unrea&s;onable, then' that the unfree Burghs and other unfree Traders, &s;hould pretend to this Liberty of Retail|ing free of all Burden, when it is perfectly known, that almo&s;t all the inland Burghs Royal of <HI>Scotland</HI> have no Trade; but that of <HI>Retail,</HI> and yet pay their proportions of the <HI>Tax-roll</HI> for the Liberty thereof: But the true Rea&s;on and Ground whereupon the Act of parliament 1693. proceeds, puts this matter beyond all Debate; In as much as it is evi|dent, that the parliament judged the Communication &s;o great equal and ea&s;ie a Favour, that they likewi&s;e judged, that none that &s;hould refu&s;e it could pretend to any manner of Trade to give them any priviledge above the meane&s;t Burgh Royal, which is exactly the ca&s;e of Retailers that the Memorial mo&s;t unrea&s;onably pleads for, nor can there be any thing more manife&s;t, then that the fore&s;aid Act 1693, for Communication of Trade, did take away all former Liberties indulged to unfree Traders, and brought the matter preci&s;ely to this
<PB N="2" REF="2">point either accept of the Communication offered, or otherwi&s;e give over all Trade exer|ced by the Royal Burrows, either by <HI>Export</HI> or <HI>Import,</HI> or by <HI>Retail,</HI> &s;ince the true de&s;ign of the Act was, thas <HI>unfree Brughs</HI> and others, &s;houl either accept of the Communication with its ju&s;t burden, or otherwi&s;e, that the Burghs Royal &s;hould have all the Trade without exception, but no ways that unfree Burghs &s;hould have their freedom to accept or not; And yet tho' not accepting be in a better ca&s;e, then the far greater part of the Burghs Royal, which were mo&s;t ab&s;urd.</P>
<P>The Memorial &s;eems to &s;uppo&s;e, that the Act 1693: was only a Ratification of Mr <HI>John Buchans</HI> temporarie Contract with the Burrows, but the contrary is &s;o manife&s;t by the Tenor of the Act, making the Communication perpetual, and this Communication the only Ground of any Liberty for Trade, that who ever reads it, mu&s;t acknowledge that this Act 1693. was purpo&s;ely de&s;igned to terminat all differences betwixt Burghs Royal and unfree Traders, and to bring the unfree Traders to this preci&s;e point, either accept of the Communication or Trade none at all.</P>
<P>The &s;econd ground of Complaint contained in the Memorial, is, That the Proportion of Burden laid upon the <HI>unfree Traders,</HI> is much heavier then that upon the <HI>Royal Burghs</HI> effeiring to their re&s;pective Trades. But 1. The Memorial repre&s;ents both ju&s;tly and in|geniou&s;ly, that any alledgiance of this kind, can no ways militat again&s;t Mr. <HI>Johns Buchans</HI> relief and reimbur&s;ement for the bygone five years of his Contract; for &s;eing that he ingadged therein <HI>optima fide</HI> and had the Authority of the Parliament, confirming the &s;ame, and upon the Faith al&s;well of the Act of Parliament, as of his fore&s;aid Bargain and Contract, hath made &s;uch con&s;iderable Advances of publick Payments, be|&s;ide the va&s;t Charges he hath been at. It were the greate&s;t Iniquity imaginable, if he &s;hould not in the fir&s;t place, be fully reimbur&s;ed of all his Advances and Charges with Annualrent thereof; &s;pecially &s;eing, that he hath recovered &s;uch Decreets before the Lords, as would undoubtedly obtain him full payment, were it not his Tenderne&s;s to oc|ca&s;ion &s;o great trouble even to tho&s;e that are Refractory: And farder, &s;uch is Mr. <HI>Johns</HI> unwillingne&s;s to di&s;tre&s;s the&s;e unfree Traders, that he is content to allow them five years and a quarter from <HI>Lamba&s;s</HI> la&s;t, for reimbur&s;ing the Sums due to him, and to take his pay|ments Quarterly, providing that the&s;e concerned will agree to any &s;ure Method, where|by his Reimbur&s;ement may be made effectual.</P>
<P>But 2. This Complaint of Inequality betwixt the <HI>Burghs Royal</HI> &amp; the <HI>&V;nfree-Traders,</HI> is wholly groundle&s;s, <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">s may appear by the Taxt-Roll given in by Mr <HI>John Buchan</HI> to the Lords of privy Council, whereby it is evident, that the Sum then Stented was 13 <HI>lib.</HI> 10 <HI>s.</HI> upon the con&s;ideration of 3 <HI>lib.</HI> 10 <HI>s</HI> added for Mr. <HI>Johns</HI> Expen&s;es, &amp; advance of Mony; yet the Bur|den thereby put upon the Unfree-Traders, was not half &s;o great as the Burden of the <HI>Burghs Royal</HI> in the re&s;pective Shires, <HI>Comparing Trade with Trade.</HI> 3. To make this Point more clear by Examples, the Unfree-Traders in <HI>Linlithgow-&s;hire</HI> and tho&s;e of <HI>Roxburgh-&s;hire,</HI> do both complain to the Parliament, that they are over-burdened, and yet the Unfree-Traders in <HI>Linlithgow-&s;hire,</HI> that is, the Towns of <HI>Borow&s;tounne&s;s, Grange-pans,</HI> &amp;c. are only &s;tented to 22 <HI>s.</HI> in the Taxt-Roll, whereas the Town of <HI>Linlithgow</HI> that hath not the tenth part of their Trade, is Stented to 30 <HI>s.</HI> And as for <HI>Roxburgh-&s;hire,</HI> the Unfree-Traders there, <HI>viz.</HI> the Town of <HI>Kel&s;o, Hawick, Melro&s;s,</HI> and others therein, are only Stented to 21 <HI>s.</HI> when the Burgh of <HI>Jedburgh</HI> alone is 26 <HI>s.</HI> albeit it hath not the fourth of the Trade of the fore&s;aid Unfree-Traders in that Shire, and &s;o the like Examples may be given in almo&s;t every Shire of the Kingdom; and it can be made appear, that the Unfree-Burghs have three times more Tunnage in Shipping, (which is the greate&s;t part of the Trade of the Nation,) then the Royal Burrows have, whereby it may plainly appear, that when the Royal Burrows demand of the Unfree-Traders the Sum of 10 <HI>lib.</HI> only in the Taxt-Roll, and that they Stent them&s;elves, and pay in their &s;everal proportions to the General-Receiver, their Burden is by far le&s;s and in effect not the third in proportion to the Royal Burrows, in the &s;everal Shires of the Kingdom.</P>
<P>The Memorial alledges, That the <HI>Royal Burrows</HI> have Lands, and con&s;iderable Common Goods, whereby they may pay a far greater proportion then the Unfre-Burghs. <HI>To which it is An&s;wered,</HI> That &s;everal <HI>Royal Burghs,</HI> as <HI>Dy&s;er<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">, Culro&s;s, Ea&s;ter-easter,</HI> and others, have no common Goods, and yet do pay their part of the Taxt-Roll to all <HI>Ce&s;&s;es and Sup|plies,</HI> effeirand to their Trade. But 2. It is mo&s;t certain in general, that the common Goods given to Burrows, was not at all given to them for the payment of their &s;ixt part of the <HI>Ce&s;s, Supply,</HI> and the like publick Burdens, but really and truely for the &s;upport only of the re&s;pective Burghs, as to their particular and re&s;pective Expen&s;es, for <HI>Watching, Warding, building and repairing of Pri&s;on-Hou&s;es, providing and <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">urni&s;hing of Guard-Hou&s;es, main|taining of their Kirks, Harbours, and other publick Works, &s;ending of Commi&s;&s;ioners to Par|liaments, Conventions of E&s;tates, and general and particular Convention of Burrows,</HI> and de|fraying their other incident Expen&s;es, to all which, it is well known that the common
<PB N="3" REF="2">Goods of the <HI>Royal Burrows</HI> are &s;o little &s;ufficient, that the greate&s;t part of them have been nece&s;&s;itat for the&s;e very ends and u&s;es to Stent their Inhabitants, or contract Debt, to which might be added, that &s;everal Unfree-Burghs have al&s;o common Goods. But 3. The truth of the matter is, that <HI>Ce&s;s, Supply, and the like Burdens,</HI> whereof the <HI>Royal Burrows</HI> bear the &s;ixth part, are directly Impo&s;ed on them in regard of their Trade, and the E&s;tates per|&s;onal and real that their Burge&s;&s;es have ari&s;ing from it, of which Ce&s;s and other Burdens, it is well known, that even their real E&s;tates bear &s;o &s;mall a proportion of it, that they are not only exceedingly burdened, but were they to pay the fore&s;aid publick Dues out of the &s;aid real E&s;tates, the &s;ame in many parts would be quite exhau&s;ted, but in effect all this is but Trifling! <HI>It is the Trade of the</HI> Royal Burghs <HI>that is con&s;idered as to the pay|ment of Ce&s;s and Supply,</HI> and &s;ince the <HI>&V;nfree-Burghs,</HI> and others, have the Communica|tion thereof by Act of Parliament, it is mo&s;t ju&s;t, and <HI>ordained</HI> by the &s;ame Act, that they &s;hould al&s;o bear their proportion of the &s;aid publick Burdens, and when their Intere&s;t in Trade &s;hall be duely con&s;idered, as above-demon&s;trat, it will plainly appear that the fore|&s;aid 10 <HI>lib.</HI> of the 100 <HI>lib.</HI> is a very moderat and ea&s;ie proportion, and would be certainly found &s;o, if the di&s;tribution thereof were once equally and fairly &s;etled.</P>
<P>And where it is alledged, That the <HI>Cu&s;tom-Books</HI> are the be&s;t rule for valuing the Trade, and that by the&s;e it will appear that the Unfree-Taders have not the <HI>fourtieth part</HI> of the Trade of the Nation. <HI>It is An&s;wered,</HI> That the <HI>Cu&s;tom-Books</HI> are no rule: For 1. A great part of the Burden on Trade, is payed by Retailers in <HI>Burghs Royal,</HI> who&s;e Trade neither doth nor can appear in the <HI>Cu&s;tom-Books.</HI> 2. The Trade that doth appear by the &s;ame <HI>Cn&s;tom-Books,</HI> is again diffu&s;ed to the Retailers in <HI>&V;nfree-Burghs,</HI> as well as to the Retailers in <HI>Burghs Royal.</HI> 3. The <HI>Cu&s;tom-Books</HI> are only kept at Sea-Towns and Ports, where a great quantity of Goods is entered in other mens Names, and for certain doth not belong to the Merchants of the re&s;pective <HI>Burghs Royal,</HI> but to Merchants of other Towns, both free and unfree, as may be &s;een at <HI>Leith, Newport-Gla&s;gow Pre&s;toun-pans, Borrow&s;toun|ne&s;s,</HI> &amp;c. 4. If certain Unfree-Towns, as <HI>Borrow&s;tounne&s;s, Grange-pans, Pre&s;toun-pans, Greenock, Kel&s;o, and the like,</HI> were rated according to the <HI>Cu&s;tom-Books,</HI> the&s;e alone would pay the 10 <HI>lib.</HI> without burdening the re&s;t of the Unfree-Burghs, whereby it is manife&s;t, that the <HI>Cu&s;tom-Books</HI> are no rule in this matter; but the true and only ju&s;t rule is, that the proportion of Trade, whether by <HI>Export,</HI> or <HI>Import,</HI> or <HI>Retail,</HI> &s;hould determine the proportion of the Burden, and by this rule it will quickly appear how light a part the Un|free-Traders have by the &s;aid 10 <HI>lib.</HI> proportion.</P>
<P>But the true, &s;hort, and clear account of this whole matter is, that &s;uch of the Unfree-Traders as have the real Benefit, will not agree to an equal di&s;tribution of the 10 <HI>lib.</HI> among them&s;elves, which would render all ea&s;ie, and therefore a clamour is rai&s;ed on the account of &s;ome of the &s;maller Unfree-Burghs, that their own Neighbours only, endeavour to over-burden. But 1. As to what is pa&s;t, let Mr. <HI>John Buchan</HI> be relieved, as all do agree And 2. As to the future, let the Unfree Traders, either take upon them the Burden of the &s;aid 10 <HI>lib.</HI> which for certain (if ju&s;tly divided) will be both light and ea&s;ie; or otherwi&s;e, let them give over, and renounce all Trade in favours of the <HI>Burghs Royal,</HI> who will never decline the whole Burden, when they &s;hall have the whole Trade, according to the true meaning of the &s;aid Act 16<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">3, and there is an end of the Contraver&s;ie.</P>
<P>The Memorial doth al&s;o plead, That the Unfree-Burghs undergoing their proportion of the Taxt-Roll, may al&s;o be allowed to be repre&s;ented in the Conventions of Burrows, but by what right or rea&s;on? The <HI>Royal Burghs</HI> are &s;uch by their <HI>Charters of Foundation and Erection,</HI> whereby they al&s;o make the third E&s;tate of the Kingdom, and have the Right of their <HI>Conventions</HI> e&s;tabli&s;hed by many Acts of Parliament, whereas the Unfree-Traders are really <HI>&V;&s;urpers</HI> upon the <HI>Burghs Royal,</HI> as to the point of Trade, and the Communication is only introduced as an expedient, that &s;eing that they will and do ur&s;urp Trade, they may have a lawful Title to it, paying their ju&s;t proportion of the Burden, which can never be a ground to give them acce&s;s to other Priviledges of the <HI>Royal Burghs,</HI> whereof there is not the lea&s;t Ve&s;tige or Title in the Acts of Parliament, and in effect all the vagrant Chap-men in the Countrey may as well crave to be repre&s;ented in the fore&s;aid <HI>Convention,</HI> as the fore&s;aid <HI>&V;nfree-Burghs.</HI> They alledge indeed, that &s;ince they come in to bear Burden, and have a vi|&s;ible Intere&s;t, to &s;ee that they be not wronged in altering or changing of the Taxt-Roll, they ought al&s;o to be repre&s;ented; but the Act of Parliament 1693 is mo&s;t clear in the contrary, giving (as rea&s;on is) the power of proportionating, and likewi&s;e of altering and chang|ing the Taxt-Roll, expre&s;ly to the <HI>Burghs Royal,</HI> in their general Coventions, and provid|ing no other remedy for the <HI>&V;nfree-Burghs,</HI> if over-burdened, but to apply to the Parlia|ment, which is indeed &s;ufficient; and &s;ince they have &s;uch an ea&s;ie <HI>Offer of Communication,</HI> it is but too vi&s;ible, that all their quarrellings at the Burden that attends it, are plainly partial, &s;elf-intere&s;t, and untoward Humors.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
