Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JOHN LAUDER OF FOUNTAINHALL
Subject_2 SUMMER SESSION.
Date: The King
v.
The Laird of Luss
6 January 1680 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The case of the Laird of Luss his ward and marriage pursued against him at the King's instance, was debated in presence of the Duke of Albany and York. Colquhoun of Luss hath lands holden ward of the King, as also other lands holden ward of the Prince: he taxes the ward and marriage of the lands holden of the King, but not those holden of the Prince. He is now pursued (beside the taxed duties,) likewise to pay L.20,000 Scots, as the avail of his marriage, for the lands holden of the Prince. He oppones his composition and change of holding, upon the faith of Act 58, Parliament 1661.
Replied,—That would defend him if there were a Prince extant; but, failing of him, the lands belong to the King, and so, not being taxed, the Prince is not in the case of a subject here, and therefore the marriage is due.
It seems hard, that the event of the King's not having lawful children should be calamitous, misfortunate, and prejudicial to his subjects.
The Lords having advised the debate on the 9th of January 1680, they repelled the haill defences, and found that the King had right to the avail of the marriage, both the King and Prince being here in one person. So that the King's
orbitas shall be penal to his subjects. Vide Dury, 14th January 1626, Hamilton; and 7th July 1629, Lord Cathcart. This decision was thought strange; since they who have componed for their wards and marriage, with the King, are, by the Act of Parliament 1661, secured that no other superior shall claim any right to the casualty of their marriage. Yet the Lords went upon this ground, that they saw not the erection of the principality; and if the King Erector had been asked to whom the principality should belong, in case he had no son or daughter, law verisimiliter presumes he would have answered that the Prince's lands in that case should remain with himself and his successors as his own. See the like presumptions in L. 6 et seq. D. de Pignor.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting