8th
day of May, 1744, saw
the beginning of municipal government in Borrowstounness. For
some considerable time prior to this the trade of the harbour
had increased so much and the burden of its upkeep, which had
apparently been borne privately,1 had
become so heavy that the shipmasters and merchants of the port
had to seriously deliberate on what course was to be followed
for the future. They ultimately decided to apply to Parliament,
and received, after a good deal of trouble and anxiety, an Act
in the fifteenth year of the reign of George the Second. Under
the Act James Main, James Cassels, William Muir, David
Stevenson, George Adam, Duncan
Glasfurd, Thomas Grindlay, James Glasfurd, and
John Drummond, shipmasters; Andrew Cowan, James Tod, Charles
Addison, William Shead, John Pearson, and John Walker,
merchants, were appointed trustees, and power was given to them
to impose " a duty of two pennies Scots, or one-sixth part of a
penny sterling (over and above the duty of Excise), upon every
pint of ale and beer which should be brewed for sale, brought
in, tapped, or sold within the town of Borrowstounness and
liberties thereof, in the county of Linlithgow, for the
clearing, deepening, rebuilding, repairing, and improving the
harbour and piers of Borrowstounness, and also for putting in
execution all other the powers given in said Act." The duty was
declared to be leviable from the 1st day of June, 1744, and for
the term of twenty-five years thereafter. The preamble to the
Act narrates that the town was very well situated for carrying
on foreign and coasting trade for the benefit of the country
thereabouts, and of the town of Borrowstounness in particular,
there being many coal and salt works very near to the town.
These advantages, it continues, could not be obtained unless the
harbour, which was then in a very bad and ruinous condition,
were effectually repaired and made commodious. This would
require a very considerable sum of money, and the town had no
revenues to answer the expense. The inhabitants therefore humbly
craved His Majesty to give them authority to levy this
imposition or duty. As we have just seen, the request was
granted.
This power was renewed by Parliament for other
twenty-five years in 1769, and extended with some enlargement of
powers over the parish; and the renewal took place again in 1794
for twenty-one years, also with enlarged powers, including the
right to exact an anchorage duty of a penny-halfpenny per ton on
every ship entering the harbour. We shall deal more fully with
these renewals later. Most fortunately the minutes of the
trustees have all been preserved. They have been composed and
written with the greatest care; the sederunts are all numbered,
and each minute-book contains a copious index, so that even to
this day it is much easier to find whatever is wanted than in
modern minute-books which have no indices at all.
To most of our townspeople, and even, we think,
to many of our City Fathers, the existence of these interesting
old minutes is unknown.
II.
The first minute-book covers from 8th May, 1744,
to 10th August, 1787, a period of forty-three years—the whole of
the twenty-five years of the first Act, and nearly the whole of
the time of the second Act. The index runs to twelve closely
written pages, and is a first-class synopsis of the contents of
the volume. Indeed, were it not that the space required cannot
be given in our present narrative, we should have reproduced it
in full, with some annotations under each entry. Suitable
annotations would in effect and with little trouble change its
primary character from pure index to useful narrative, and yet
every word of the wonderful synopsis would be retained. During
the forty-three years embraced in minute-book No. 1 there were
329 sederunts, including not only general meetings of the whole
trustees, but of the overseers or county gentlemen appointed
under the Acts, and of the Shore, Streets, Water, and other
special Committees that were from time to time appointed. Copies
of certain mortgages for loans advanced, with various agreements
and contracts also appear in the book. There were considerable
changes among the trustees as time went on owing to deaths and
resignations, but the vacancies were duly filled up after the
procedure prescribed by the Act in such cases had been followed.
The rule was, that notice of the time and place of meeting for
the election of such new trustees should be fixed at or on the
Market Cross and on the outside of the church door of the town
at least ten days before the meeting.
The 1774 Act, it should be mentioned, consisted
of fifteen sections, and nominated certain county gentlemen as "
overseers." The duty of these overseers, of whom three made a
quorum, was to meet at Borrowstounness on the first Wednesday in
June. J745, and yearly thereafter, to examine the receipts and
disbursements connected with the duty.
The overseers named in the first Act were the
Most Noble James Duke of Hamilton and Brandon, the Right
Honourable David Earl of Buchan, the Right Honourable John Earl
of Stair, the Right Honourable John Earl of Hopetoun, the Right
Honourable David Lord Cardross, the Right Honourable Lord
Torphichen, the Right Honourable Lord Archibald Hamilton, the
Honourable Charles Hope Weir-Hall of Craigie, Esq.; Sir James
Cunningham, Bart.; Sir James Dalzell, Bart.; George Dundas of
Dundas, Esq.; Alexander Hamilton of Inverwick, Esq.; Thomas
Sharp of Houston, Esq.; Alexander Hamilton of Pencaitland, Esq.;
John Stewart of Eastbinning, Esq.; Robert Ramsay of Blackcraig,
Esq.; George Dundas of Duddingston, Esq.; Andrew Marjoribanks of
Marjoribanks, Esq.; Walter Hamilton of West Port, Esq.; James
Glan of Longcroft, Esq.; John Gellon of Wallhouse, Esq.;
together with the Knight of the Shire of the county of
Linlithgow, or any three or more of them.
III.
There were numbers of brewers in the town, at
Kinneil, and at Borrowstoun also, and it was this fact that
suggested to the promoters of the Act the idea of raising a
revenue out of an impost duty on ale and beer.
The trustees from the first had their hands full
of new schemes. They also had many contentions with the brewers
regarding the exaction of the new duties. There was no standing
chairman, the trustees electing one of their number to be preses
at each sederunt, and so we find that the work of conducting the
meetings was shared by nearly all the members from time to time.
At one of the first meetings it was agreed that
the Act of Parliament be "publickly advertised by tuck of drum
thorough the town." One George Robertson was appointed officer
for convening the trustees to their several meetings, and his
allowance for each meeting was twopence sterling, and Thomas
Glasfurd, in Bo'ness, was appointed collector of the duty at £15
sterling as a "cellary for said office yearly." Doubts were
expressed by the trustees at their very first meeting as to the
proper interpretation to be put on certain parts of the Act, and
it was resolved " that two of their number should go to
Edinburgh and consult ane able lawier with respect to-such parts
as seem intricate to them." At a later meeting the advice of the
" lawier was read, and the cost thereof— £2 10s.
6d.—ordered to be paid.
It was agreed by a majority to clean and deepen
"for the conveniency of shipping coming into the harbour " the
east side of the wester key (quay), and two of the trustees were
appointed to meet with the masons who were last employed in
building at the "keys," and "commune" with them as to the work.
In due course these trustees reported that they had "communed"
with the masons of " Lymkills" anent building the pier.
The brewers not only refused to pay the
collector, but they compeared before the trustees when summoned,
and still refused to pay. On 19th July, 1744, they "gave in" a
letter to the trustees, in which they intimated that they had
unanimously agreed to pay trustees sixpence each boll of malt
"grinded at their milns," and in no other shape would they agree
unless "stressed." If the impost of two pennies per pint were
enforced, the letter continued, they were afraid the whole town
would feel the bad consequences thereof. This, by order of the
whole brewers in the town, was signed by James Young, William
Cunningham, Alexander Taylor, Robert Cram, and Robert Cowan. The
trustees unanimously refused the proposal, considering it quite
contrary to the Act, and agreed to give each brewer a new
summons for another meeting. The brewers-were all again charged
to make payment, and still refused. The trustees then resolved
to "distress" them. Feeling ran so high apparently that no local
officer could be persuaded to do this, and the trustees were
obliged to send to Edinburgh for a messenger and witnesses.
These came on 14th September, 1744, but found all the brewers'
doors shut. Thereupon it was agreed by the trustees that
"Letters of Opening Doors" should be sent for.
IV.
Things were becoming serious, and John Walker and
William Shead, two of the trustees, refused to act any longer.
It is evident that there had been many "threatenings against the
persons of the several trustees by the brewers." In consequence
of this the trustees agreed that Letters of Lawburrows be sent
for and executed against the brewers; and, further, that
application be made for a party of the military to protect the
officers in " distressing " them for payment of their arrears.
Three of the " overseers," Mr. John Gillon of
Wallhouse. Andrew Marjoriebanks of Marjoriebanks, and Sir James
Dalyell of Binns, met with the brewers and endeavoured to have
the dispute adjusted, but things did not improve. James Young,
one of the brewers, took out Letters of Lawburrows against James
Tod, Andrew Cowan, and Duncan Glasfurd, three of the trustees,
and the brewers in the " towns of Borrowstoun and Inveravon
suspended the decreets of the trustees against them, alleging
that they were not within the libertys and privileges of Bo'ness."
All this caused the trustees to engage a James Addison, writer
in Edinburgh, to advise them.
John Walkinshaw of Scotstoun and Robert Paterson,
merchants, were elected in room of Walker and Shead, resigned.
A new officer was appointed in the person of one
George Rodger. The officer's duties had increased very much
owing to the disputes with the brewers. The trustees were
convened oftener, and he had also to deliver copies of the
brewers' charges, and to summon and do everything necessary
concerning the brewers. For all this he was to be allowed "
therty shillings per annum." Rodger having agreed to the Balary
and accepted office, the collector was ordered " to pay him 10s.
in part, and to take receipt for the same." He appears to have
been a zealous officer. A proclamation was made about this time
by
"Took of Drum" commissioning any person or
persons "whatsomever" that shall see any ale or beer coming into
the town without permit from the collector to stop the same, and
thereupon give notice to the collector or any of the trustees
that the same might be seized. Whoever did so was to be allowed
one-half of all such ale. Rodger soon after appointment made a
seizure of a cask containing 20 pints of ale brought into the
town without paying the duty. The trustees confiscated it for
the use of the harbour in terms of the Act, and ordained that it
should be "exposed to publick roup after intimation by Took of
Drum, and to be set up at 2s. stg., cask and all." It realised
2s. 6d. sterling, the officer receiving one-half and the
collector the other for behoof of the harbour.
V.
John Henderson, who had prior to the 1744 Act,
been appointed by the shipmasters for taking care of the piers
and levying the duties, was granted a commission from the
trustees to continue in that capacity under them. His office is
described as "shoremaster."
The contract for making additions to the easter
pier (not what is now the easter pier, but, as we think, the
east side of the wester pier) was with John Miller, John Clark,
and John Wilson, masons in Lymkills. It is engrossed in the
minute book, and contains a detailed specification of the work.
The progress of the masons in preparing the stones was
apparently leisurely, and a letter was despatched to see " when
they intend to come over and build the said pier, and also to
make enquirie concerning boats to bring over the stones."
There appears to have been some difficulty in
getting over the materials for building the pier, but it was
solved by the trustees purchasing for that purpose an Arbroath
boat which was then lying here. It cost £60 sterling, and the
shoremaster was authorised to let out or freight the same to any
person who might want to freight her to any place at any time
when not needed for carrying stones for the pier. After the pier
was finished the "ston boat" became unprofitable. It was then
exposed to public roup and sale in the house of James Rennie,
brewer in Borrowstounness, and bought by Charles Addison at £66
10s.
Great damage was every now and then done by
shipping to the west side of the wester pier, and also to other
parts of both piers, through shipmasters not securing their
vessels as they ought. As a result, the shoremaster was
specially instructed to report damage at once, so that the
trustees might recover the cost of repairing it from the proper
persons, and this order was to be duly intimated to all
shipmasters.
George Adam, one of the original trustees, having
died, Captain George Walker was unanimously elected in his
place. Some time later Robert Paterson, an assumed trustee,
having died, and David Stevenson, an original trustee, having
refused to act longer, the trustees unanimously elected John
Falconer and John Addison, both shipmasters in Bo'ness, in their
places.
VI.
The trustees had taken up a firm attitude with
the brewers from the beginning, and it was only right they
should do so. The duty was the only source of revenue for the
maintenance of the town and harbour, and it must also be
remembered the trustees had, on the strength of the new impost,
undertaken some costly improvements. They therefore insisted on
their tax. The brewers were stubborn in their refusals, and
ultimately decided to appeal to the Quarter Sessions of the
Justices of the Peace for Linlithgow, to be held there on 27th
October, 1747, for a final and conclusive judgment in terms of
the Act.
Intimation of the appeal was sent to the
trustees. The notice ran—"Whereas we the Brewers within the Town
of Borness & libertys thereof judging ourselves to be
egregiously leised & prejudged by the trustees for the two
pennies on the pint of ale or beer brewed or vended by us within
the said bounds by them & their clerks daylie distressing us
with charges of horning & in consequence thereof threatning us
with poinding or imprisonment; & as by Act of Parliament
proposing the said impost we are entitled to appeal to the
Justices of his MajIe' Peace at their next Quarter
Sessions for redress of our grivances :
"Therefor we Alexander Taylor and William Dick,
Brewers in Borness, for ourselves and in name of the whole
Brewers within the town and priveleges of Bo'ness, doe hereby
intimate to you William Anderson, Clerk for the said trustees
and collector of the said impost that we have appealled and do
hereby appeal to the Justices of the Peace for redress of our
grivances to be timeously given unto you and them befor their
next Quarter Sessions the 27th curt: and protests you may
pretend no ignorance thereof nor insist any further dilligence
against us."
They took instruments in the hands of James
Clelland, notary public, and the document was dated 9th October,
1747, and signed before George Wood, merchant in Bo'ness, and
James Baird, indweller there.
Fully two years before this appeal the trustees,
to ease the situation with the brewers, agreed to compromise by
offering to take eightpence for each barrel of ale consisting of
twelve Scots gallons, and to take bills for the duty. The
overseers concurred in the proposal, but it is not very clear
whether the brewers accepted. It rather appears that they
resented anything whatever in the way of impost, and did all
they could, by blank refusal to pay in some cases, and tiresome
delay in others, to annoy the trustees. The above appeal seems
another instance of their methods. The minutes contain no record
of the result, but as we find a continuance of requests to the "deficients"
to make up their arrears we may take it that the justices
dismissed the appeal. As time wore on the brewers and vintners
became reconciled to the tax, and during the last ten years of
the Act there was little trouble. The business promptitude of
the trustees all through this difficult matter is commendable.
VII.
On 20th September, 1762, the trustees filled
three vacancies by the appointment of Dr. John Roebuck, lessee
of the coal and salt works at Bo'ness, and John and Robert
Cowan, merchants there. All three accepted office, and served
the town for many years. The minutes disclose that the doctor,
whose character and wonderful career we deal with in another
chapter, had given the trustees cause for alarm a year or two
before his appointment. On his becoming the Duke's lessee his
enterprising energy made itself manifest by his at once
commencing operations at the harbour in connection with the
north dyke of his proposed "coalfold." The trustees hastily
summoned a notary, and protested against such procedure. Despite
the protest, the work went on. A deputation of three then called
for him, but found he was from home. These gentlemen, however,
solemnly warned his manager that if the north dyke was persisted
in without giving the trustees an opportunity of talking with
Dr. Roebuck they would apply to the Lords of Session for
interdict. The threat was not carried out, although the work
appears to have proceeded as usual. Two years later we find the
doctor interviewing some of the trustees at his house. He then
pointed out that he wanted to do the town good; explained that
as soon as he got his mine set agoing he would be shipping coal
extensively; and that he would help to enlarge the quays and
make a basin at the harbour to keep it from silting up. The
following letter was received by the trustees a few days after:
—
"Gentlemen,—Being
extremely willing to cultivate and maintain a good
correspondence with the inhabitants of Bo'ness, and as far as in
my power to promote their interest and accommodation, I take
this opportunity to communicate to such of your members, whom I
had not the pleasure of seeing at my house on Saturday, that I
propose to carry down a waggon road on the west side of the west
key and on the east side of the east key for the greater
dispatch of vessels coming here to load coals and salt. As in
the execution of my design it may be necessary to remove some of
the polls on the key for my own accommodation and for the
convenience of carts passing up and down the key with merchants'
goods, I propose to erect new ones in place of those removed and
to plant iron rings by the side of the key in such manner as
shall not endanger the key and at the same time secure ships
moored thereto. And for the more speedy shipping of coal, and to
prevent the same from being a nuisance to the pier, I propose to
erect two cranes, but in such a manner as shall be no injury to
the pier or inconvenience to the merchants or shipmasters, but
occasionally may be used for their benefit.
"Being much concerned for the present state of
the harbour, which in a little time must injure, if not ruin,
the trade of the town, and understanding from the gentlemen with
me on Saturday that the public funds of the town are such as
will not allow instantly to remedy the growing evil, I offered
to them to advance in the name of the company any sum not
exceeding four hundred pounds, free of interest, for executing
this laudable and desirable purpose, desiring only to be repaid
by receipt of the harbour's revenue after payment of the present
debts due thereon, which proposal or promise I still adhere to
and oblige myself to perform in case you signify your
concurrence therewith.
"I hope, gentlemen, you will consider what I have
said as flowing solely from a desire to live in peace and
harmony with the gentlemen of Bo'ness, and to contribute as much
as in my power to the prosperity of the trade of the town.
"If the whole proposals are agreeable to you I
shall be obliged to you if you will enter them in your sederunt
book; and, if not, that you would favour me with your answer.—I
am, gentlemen, your most humble servant, (signed) John
Roebuck, for
self, and coal company. Kinneil, 14th September, 1762."
All the proposals were agreed to by the trustees,
and the worthy doctor, as we have seen, was made a trustee a few
days afterwards.
VIII.
We must now refer to one other aspect of a vexed
question. Who was liable to pay the duty under the Act? It is
disclosed in a law plea of a somewhat trifling character which
dragged on for at least six years, and was ultimately settled by
arbitration. The process was at the instance of John Crawfurd,
tide surveyor here, and John M'Laren, vintner at New Halls,2Queensferry,
against the trustees. The trustees had seized, because of
failure to pay the impost, some small beer and strong ale,
which, so far as we can judge, came from M'Laren to Crawfurd for
his private consumption. The summons, the trustees said, " seems
to insinuate that everybody has free liberty to bring in what
quantity of ale or beer they please for the use of private
families without being liable to the duty of two pennies in the
pint." They considered this clearly against the express words of
their Act, and unanimously resolved to defend. Some years later
we find the process before the Lords of Session, who had ordered
proof to be led as to the practice of other burghs levying a
similar impost. Between the time of serving the action and the
time we are now speaking of the composition of the local board
had considerably changed, and there was now a strong desire,
especially among the new members, to have the case settled
either by amicable arrangements or arbitration. After a great
deal of trouble the latter course was adopted. The methods taken
by the trustees to obtain this were somewhat diplomatic, though
rather clumsily executed. It was a common custom with the
trustees in the conduct of their business to remit
correspondence and interviews, not to their clerk, but to those
of their number who, by reason of some special aptitude, were
regarded as likely to bring the matter in hand to a successful
issue. We find, then, that on 19th April, 1763, the trustees
resolved to have this "vexacious, tedious, expensive, and
troublesome" process: brought to a submission, and that two of
their number, Messrs.
John and Robert Cowan, were desired to write to
Mr. M'Laren, in name of the trustees, to see if he would agree
to this. They were further instructed to send the letter by
express messenger in order to have it safely delivered and to
bring back an immediate answer.
IX.
The tenor of the letter is as follows: —
"Bo'ness, 13th April, 1763.—Sir,—At a meeting
here yesterday of the trustees for managing the harbour and
collecting the impost appropriate for that purpose, they, after
conversing with Mr. Crawfurd in the meeting and with his desire
and approbation, recommended it to us to write you that they and
Mr. Crawfurd will be glad to see you at this place on Saturday
first, the 16th curt., to dine with them at the house of Mr.
John Bain (Bain was a vintner or spirit merchant, and the
trustees had a room or office there at 30s. per annum) at 2
o'clock in order to attempt, by entering into a submission or
otherways, the doing away with that tedious, troublesome, and
expensive law plea still depending before the Lords, as it has
been for many years. It's but very lately that we were called
upon to take share of the public business and burden as
trustees, but it is much our opinion that if Mr. Crawfurd and
the trustees can do this—either away at once among themselves or
to submit it—it must save money to the fund here, and also to
you and Mr. Crawfurd, as well as much trouble, as we hear it has
already been so expensive and vexatious a plea, and tedious,
that it has lasled since the commencement of our late war, which
is truly shameful, especially when it's considered it may yet
last as long. You'll please write us in course that if you
decline giving the trustees the meeting they may take their
measures accordingly.
"However willing some of them are to have this
process ended in an amicable way, yet if you refuse to hearken
to reasonable measures they cannot, and must not, drop it, but
must see its issue, although at double the expense of money,
time, and trouble which it has already cost.
"If we may unasked give you our opinion, it is in
assuring you that you shd. gladly embrace this occasion of
ending matters.
"This offer is made you merely owing to a dislike
that several of our members have to law pleas in general, and
this in particular (as it runs away with the public money to pay
advocates and writers to defend a petty process in place of
masons and barrowmen to defend our harbour from the damage of
the sea, &c.), than from any bad state this particular process
is in at present as they are by their advocates, &c., encouraged
at least as much to persist in it. We say it is therefore our
private advice that you should gladly accept the present
invitation.—We are, &c.,
(Signed) "John & Robt.
Cowan."
"P.S.—In
place of sending you this by post, as we intended, we send it to
you on purpose, so you'll please to answer it p. the bearer, k let
us know if the trustees may positively expect you on Saturday or
not."
The dinner never came off, for the messenger
returned with a refusal, and the statement that Mr. M'Laren
would not move in the matter himself, having left it all in the
hands of his agent. As we have said, however, the dispute was
ultimately settled by arbitration.
X.
In the sixties of the eighteenth century the
Greenland whale fishing had been prosecuted with great briskness
by some of the enterprising local merchants, and quite a number
of whaling ships belonged to the port. When not in Greenland
these vessels lay alongside the piers. With the greatly
increased commerce, however, all the available quay space at the
harbour was required for regular traders. Therefore we find the
trustees on 21st July, 1763, declaring " That the Greenland
ships cannot be laid by the sides of the piers during the
interval of fishing without great prejudice to the trade of the
town by stopping the loading and unloading of other vessels,
therefore the trustees have resolved that they shall lie only in
the middle of the harbour at equal distances from each pier, and
do order John Kidd, havenmaster, to be served with a copy of
this their resolution."
Mr. Charles Addison, one of the trustees, and a
member of the firm of Charles Addison & Sons, merchants and
brewers, owned a Greenland ship called the "Peggy." In
September, 1764, she was reported as being "lying in the best
part of the harbor which greatly interrupts the loading and
unloading of other trading vessels through the winter," and the
shoremaster was instructed to tell Mr. Addison to remove her out
of the way. This he did, and Mr. Addison's "response" was that
he had no answer to give the trustees. They again requested the
shoremaster to ask Mr. Addison (who was not present either at
this or the previous meeting), before two creditable witnesses,
to remove the "Peggy" into the middle of the harbour, "where she
was in use to lie in former years," and to report. Mr. Addison
found that his colleagues were not to be trifled with, attended
the next meeting, and agreed to remove the vessel alongside the
"Oswald," on the trustees employing labourers to "throw a ditch"
to let her up. They consented. At same meeting Mr. Addison
promised to immediately pay up his arrears of the impost duty,
which were then considerable. It is possible that Mr. Addison's
stubborness in the matter of the "Peggy" was caused by the
urgency with which the trustees had been pressing him to clear
off his arrears of duty. Be that as it may, an explosion took
place at the succeeding sederunt. The shoremaster there reported
that he had told Mr. Addison that the ditch was in progress, and
desired that he (Addison) might remove the ship as far as he
could meantime. In reply, Mr. Addison had refused to remove her
until the ditch was completed. Then we find it minuted—"Mr.
Charles Addison himself being present at this meeting confirmed
the Report of the Shoremaster, and when he also took occasion to
treat some of the trustees in a very ungenteel manner. But the
trustees being willing to overcome evil with good do hereby
order their Shoremaster to throw the proposed ditch with all
expedition that no excuse for Mr. Addison may remain."
In the next minute we read—"Charles Addison upon
hearing the last Sederunt read, which was wrote after he left
the meeting, and finding it contains what he considers to be
hurtful to him and such facts as did not happen at said meeting,
particularly that he had used some of the trustees at said
meeting ungenteely, insisted that this should be altered and the
facts insert in the Sederunt of this meeting as they really
happened, which request was denied him by the meeting: he
therefore hereby protests that the facts be insert in ye Sedt.
of this meeting, which are as follows: —
"That he, the said Chas. Addison, in the course
of conversation called John Falconer, one of the trustees, a
Fool, to which Mr. Falconer answered by calling the said Chas.
Addison a Base Rascal, and thereupon the said Chas. Addison took
Instruments. The Trustees in answer to this protest have no
return to make to it, but adhere to Sed. 185 (where they
resolved as we saw, to overcome evil with good & instructed the
harbourmaster to carry through the ditch with all expedition)
and till called upon in another manner will enter no further
upon particulars in relation to this affair."
At the following meeting in October Mr. Addison
was not present, but at the next, which was not held until 7th
January of the following year (1765), Mr. Addison was not only
present, but presided. As nothing more appears in the minutes
concerning the disturbing but innocent "Peggy," we hope that
during the interval she had been duly moored in the middle of
the harbour beside the "Oswald," that the arrears of his dues
had been duly squared, and that the unpleasantness between
parties had been buried with the passing of the old year.
XI.
Three years prior to the expiry of the first Act
the trustees set about applying to Parliament for a renewal of
their power to
exact the duty of two pennies Scots, and this was granted about
two years before the expiry of the original Act. The new Act ran
from the 24th day of June, 1767, until the 24th day of June,
1769, and from thence during the term of twenty-five years. It
will be noted that the period between 1767 and 1769 was already
included in the first Act. The trustees, however, in their
second application had asked and received liberty to impose the
duty not only in the town and liberties thereof, but in the
whole parish. In order then to give the town the advantage of
the revenue of the extended area, the Act gave special power to
levy the impost over the whole parish between 1767 and 1769, as
the twenty-five years of the new Act did not really begin to run
until the latter year.
The new Act, while re-enacting almost the whole
of the terms of the old one, also gave the trustees some
additional powers. The sederunts of the trustees towards the
close of the first period disclose their efforts for renewal.
They found it of il great
consequence " to obtain such, the harbour being again in a
ruinous condition, and the funds on hand only sufficient to meet
the debts contracted. Dr. Roebuck was asked to immediately see
the tutors of the then Duke of Hamilton, and obtain their
"approbation and concurrence." He was also to discuss the
proposal to get powers to bring fresh water to the town for the
benefit thereof and of the shipping. The trustees soon met again
"to know what conversation Dr. Roebuck had with the tutors." The
doctor reported they were "altogether ready and willing to
contribute their utmost endeavours for obtaining the renewal."
With regard to the fresh-water proposal, the tutors "thought
that this in no respect would be improper."
XII.
At the same meeting Mr. Walkinshaw, Mr. James
Main, and Mr. Charles Addison were appointed to meet together
and draw up the petition proposed to be presented to Parliament,
and also a memorial for the member of Parliament, who was to be
charged with the delivery of the petition. Both documents were
submitted to the trustees at their next sederunt. Regarding the
petition, it is minuted, "The trustees made some little
alterations and additions thereon, and now think the same
expressed in a pretty natural way: therefore order their clerk
to get the same extended by any having a plain hand on large
paper in order to be signed:" Messrs. Charles Addison and John
Cowan were appointed to wait upon the Hon. Charles Hope Vere
with the petition and memorial when extended and signed. But
prior to waiting upon this gentleman they were also to wait upon
the Duke of Hamilton's Commissioners at Hamilton and get their
approbation. A fortnight later the delegates reported they had
been at Hamilton, where they were presented to His Grace's
tutors, Mr. Muir and Mr. Andrew Steuart. The tutors agreed to
the petition, but recommended the trustees to also pray for
liberty to apply part of their revenues towards repairing and
keeping in good repair the streets of the town and the passages
and avenues leading to it.
To this suggestion the trustees agreed. They
stipulated, however, that the then acting trustees should be
continued in the next Act, with power to name such new members
as would make up their number to fifteen, and with full power to
choose new trustees in the same way as in the old Act. And to
prevent any misunderstanding as to the naming of new trustees,
it was resolved to send a letter the next day to the Duke's
tutors, "with the names of the present trustees and one more—the
present number being only fourteen—for their approbation."
The cost of the deputation of two going to
Hamilton was £6 19s. 5d. The expenses of Mr. Hamilton, "our
Sollicitor at London" in connection with the renewal, amounted
to £278 10s. 8d.
