Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
At the election for choosing a representative in Parliament for the county of Aberdeen, 24th November 1806, Stewart Soutar, factor to the Earl of Fife, claimed to be enrolled as a freeholder, and produced as his title a disposition by Lord Fife, dated 29th July 1803, in favour of Soutar, and the heirs-male of his body; whom failing, to the Earl himself, and his heirs in the subsisting entail of the estate of Braco. It also contained this provision, that, in the event of Soutar's selling the property, he shall make the first offer to Lord Fife, or his heir of entail. It was not alleged that any price was paid for this vote, or any expense incurred in making up his titles.
It was objected, that the clause of return and pre-emption, united with the other circumstances to make this a nominal vote, as was found in the case of David Soutar, (No. 6. Appendix, supra.) In answer to this, a discharge and renunciation, executed by Lord Fife, 17th Novermber 1806, was produced, which declares:
“And whereas I now understand that the substitution and clause of pre-emption above mentioned have been, (contrary to my intention and understanding,) interpreted, or alleged to afford a presumption, that the disposition above narrated was not real, absolute and independent; therefore, in order to remove every objection, and without hurt or prejudice to the absolute right, conveyed to the said Stewart Soutar by the foresaid disposition, but in corroboration thereof, do hereby, for me, my heirs and successors whatsoever, renounce and discharge the whole provisions and conditions of substitution of my heirs, and the right of pre-emption conceived in my favours by the disposition above narrated, and in the instrument of sasine following thereupon.”
Soutar, at the meeting when his claim was objected to, offered to take all the oaths required by law, and to answer all pertinent interrogatories regarding the nature of his titles, and the objections urged against them on the head of nominality.
The meeting rejected the claim.
Soutar complained to the Court against this judgment of the Freeholders. The Court had no difficulty in dismissing the complaint. The object in view was clearly to increase the Noble Lord's political influence. The original constitution of the grants shewed the intention distinctly, which the discharge could not cure; as the moment after it served the present political purpose, the confidential connection between the parties was such, that, on Lord Fife's requisition, it would be delivered back; and but for this, it is obvious that the vote would not have been created.
Three other votes, in exactly similar circumstances, were claimed by other dependents of Lord Fife; and the same fate attended the whole of them.
Act. Gordon.Agent, W. Inglis, W. S.Alt. Hamilton.Agent, Jas. Dundas, W. S.Clerk, Mackenzie.
Fac. Coll. No. 274. p. 616.
