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 £1, 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 >>
Duke of Hamilton, and The Bailie of the Town and Regality of Borrowstownness, v The Trades. [1694] Mor 13072 (19 January 1694)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1694/Mor3113072-020.html Cite as:
[1694] Mor 13072
Duke of Hamilton, and The Bailie of the Town and Regality of Borrowstownness, v. The Trades
Date: 19 January 1694 Case No. No 20.
Who liable to be stented in burghs of regality?
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Arniston reported the Duke of Hamilton, and the Bailie of the town and regality of Borrowstownness, against the Trades there. The question was, if, upon the new act of Parliament 1693, giving a communication of trade to burghs of regalities, and baronies, according as they should agree with Mr John Buchan, only merchant-traders in export and import are to be stented, or if all the mechanics, such as tailors, shoemakers, &c. must also bear a proportional share in the tax; who alleged they were not concerned, seeing they had no benefit by the privilege of trade that was not communicated. Answered, It is the foreign trade that makes the place flourish; and if it were not for that resort and concourse of people, these tradesmen would not be employed, nor find encouragement there; and so they must bear a share of the burden, in the same way as tradesmen do in royal burghs. The Lords having read the last clause of that act of Parliament, ordaining all traders and others having benefit thereby to be stented, found the word ‘others’ was not merely exegetick and superfluous, and consequently it could signify none, nor be intended for any but tradesmen, and so found them liable, but not in an equal share with merchants, their concern being less and mote remote; but found this would not extend to inhabitants who had no trade, but lived on their own; and that it was not a ground to make them liable, that by the quick return of trade you get things cheaper, that being only an accidental advantage.
