Sir John Seton 1st of Barnes, Sir John Seton 2nd of Barnes, George Seton 3rd of Barnes, John Seton 'of Barnes', and George Seton 5th of Barnes

Sir George Seton of Hailes, Robert Seton of Hailes, and Hannibal Seton, Burgess of Haddington


The Edinburgh Register of Testaments (also John Riddell's Notes)

[' 3. Sir John Seton of Barns, Knight of the Order of St. Jago.' *] (On the margin of column 1 page 645 down to the end thereof.)

For Title Deeds of Barns when first in the Setons and downwards, see Lord Wemyss. See b. m. 132, about middle.

Sir John Seton of Barns, Kt, and William S. his brother, ag' Mr. Peter Primroiss as to Kils of Marretleis and Michills (?), 1588, b. m. 112 midd.

Sir John Seton of Barns, Kt., George Lord Seton his brother, 1590, b. m. 93 after midd.

Test, of Sir John Seton of Barnes, Feb. 20, 1662, b. m. 91 near beg. Also Charles Seton, sone to umquhile Sir John S. of Barnes, ib.



Sir John Seton, 2nd of Barnes

The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Volume 7
By Scotland. Privy Council, Evan Whyte Melville Balfour-Melville, Peter Hume Brown, Henry Paton

Edinburgh 24th September 1642

Complaint by Alexander Seton son to Sir John Seton of Barns at whose he is warded in of Edinburgh to the effect that while in ward ho cannot propare his defence Sceanle p 310

Complaint by Alexander Seatoun son to Sir John Seatoun of Barnes as follows: - Upon a charge at the instance of his said father and Lilias Seatoun his sister he has been warded in the tolbooth of Edinburgh till order be taken with him for his alleged breaking some doors of his father's house and shooting pistols thereat out of which ward he ought to be released because this charge proceeded upon the of certane witnesses who wer servants for the time to his said sister being partie at least to Sir James Ramsay knight now her and then in sute of her and so could not in law be the ground of sentence aganis him Moreover the prosecution is only made to him into greater difficulty either of horning through disobedience whereby he will debar himself from the necessary and just action maintenance he has raised against his father before their Lordships Wednesday next or of forcing him to relinquish that pursuit to utter undoing In the said action he must use his best diligence for information of their Lordships and advise with his advocates and as cannot do this while he is a prisoner he is content to find caution underlie their Lordships pleasure next Wednesday Charge been given to the said Dame Lilias Seatoun and both pursuer defender compearing personally and having been heard the Lords the pursuer finding caution in 1000 to appear upon the first of November next and for the indemnity of his father and his men tenants and servants meanwhile ordain the provost and bailies Edinburgh to liberate him in so far as he is warded for the above cause.


Decreta November 1641-October 1646, P.113 (1642)

Complaint by Sir John Seton of Barns against his son Alexander Seton for an assault on the House of Barns during the complainer's absence

Complaint by Sir Thomas Hope of Craighall his Majesty's Advocate and Sir John Seatoun of Barns and Lilias Seatoun his daughter and factor for him in his absence as follows Though the carrying of hagbuts and pistols is strictly prohibited Alexander Seatoun the unnaturall sone of the said Sir Johne having shaikin aff the feare of God and all respect to his said father by his undewtifull cariage in everie particular he hes so disobliged him as ever anie sonne And now latelie to crowne all his unnaturall miscariages knowing that his said father wes out of the countrie the said Alexander accompanied with Daniel Currie his servant Johne and George Brouns William Bald and William Stevinsoun in Hadintouu boddin with swords and pistolls came upon the 16 of July instant to the hous of Barns entered within the same cutted the chamber doore beside the upper hall with his sword and finding he could not gett entrie he layed a trayne of poulder and sent for broom and coales to have blowin the same up discharged and shott his pistolls at the glasse windowes and in this insolent behaved himselfe till the Earle of Wintoun came and removed him Quhilk is ane wicked and dangerous attempt and deserves exemplarie punishment Charge having been given to the persons named Sir Thomas Hope and Lady Lilias Setoun compearing as pursuers none of the defenders compearing the Lords after hearing witnesses find that the said Alexander Seatoun came to the said place of Barns the said chamber door with an axe laid powder to blow the same and shot pistols at the doors and glass windows and for this great insolence they ordain him to be charged to enter in ward the tolbooth of Edinburgh within six days on pain of horning further order be taken with him.


Supplication by Sir John Seaton of Barnes that Alexander Seaton may be retained in the ward in the Tolbooth of Edinburgh See ante, p 825 (1642)

Supplication by Sir John Seatoun of Barns as follows: - "This while bygane his sone Alexander Seaton hes made great bussines before the sa a Lords and brought the supplicants name in hearing as ane unkynd father unto him, whereof he is verie sorie his cariage having ever here-ofore beene without challenge or hearing; and this day being appointed for his sonnes answer for what he sail lay to his charge that it would please the saids Lords be informed that there wes no parent ever so kynd and duetifull to their children as the supplicant wes to his Sonne untill that aganis his will and the said Alexander his owne solemne oath he matched with the Ferrells of the Yrish brood in Ireland, and since that time he did thrise surprise tuo of the supplicants houses, affrighted his tennents, killed his cattell, medled with his houshold and everything belonging to him in Ireland himselfe being in kingdom so as he wes forced by order from the Lieutenent and there to caus committ him prissouner to the jayle of Dubline and wes releeved upon assurance of his better behaviour. But thereafter he seazed of new upon the supplicants houses and lands so he wes moved to sue him before the judges of assise, where he fyned and ordained never to be seene upon the supplicants land but remove aff that kingdom. Since quhilk time not onelie hes his allya the Ferrells in Ireland, seazed upon all his meanes there, declairing all sould come to Ferrells barnes and that they had sent his sone to ding out his haras and possess the remainder of his estat heir by such freinds as he assured them would doe for him ; but also his said sone hes accordinglie adventured to take his estat heir, brokin up doores, preast to raise fire within his hous and to meddle with all is there as wes cleerelie provin ; and to the supplicants farther disgrace, as if he wer a dyver, hes served inhibition upon him and send and threatenings to take his life." He craves that the Lords take notice hereof and cause his sone to re enter again in prison he be punished for "the insolence and extraordinarie ryot provin and find good cautioun under great soumes for his behaviour time comming." The parties having been heard on the 3rd instant, the Lords on that day deputed to certain of their number to bring about agreement between parties, and John Halyburtoun, merchant burgess Edinburgh, became cautioner for the said Alexander's appearance ; now parties being present and heard of new the Lords ordain the Alexander to re-enter to his ward within the tolbooth of until they are further advised in the matter.


Charge to the Magistrates of Edinburgh to release Alexander Seaton son of Sir John Barns from the Tolbooth of the said burgh. Seeante p. 338.

The Lords having heard Sir John Seaton of Barns and Alexander Seaton, his son, regarding the "insolence committed be him within fathers hous of Barns and other differences" between them, for the latter is prisoner in the tolbooth of Edinburgh, ordain the and bailies of Edinburgh to put the said Alexander to liberty. He solemnly sworn that he cannot find caution, but has bound himself the indemnity of his father and his household and servants and property, under the penalty of being apprehended and warded and then in his person and otherwise at the discretion of the Council.



Manuscript texts of Sir John Seton, 2nd of Barnes and the Irish Estate:

The Manuscripts Of The Right Honourable The Earl OF GRANARD,

at Castle Forbes, co. longford

Sir Arthur Forbes, founder of the house of Granard, was born about 1569, served under Gustavus Adolphus, and fell in a duel at Hamburgh in 1632.  His wife Jane, widow of Sir Alexander Hamilton of Killeshandra, Cavan, had previously, about 1624, erected Castle Forbes, in the county of Longford, which she defended in 1641-2 during nine months, against the uprising Irish.  Some details of this siege are given in a deposition of Lieutenant Arthur Achmuty and Martin Johnston of Castle Forbes, sworn on the 13th of September 1642, copies of which are in the present collection. 

They state that Lady Forbes, anticipating dangers, furnished her castle with arms, ammunition, victuals, and men; gathered her British tenants of Longford, and kept, strong watch and ward. The Irish of Leitrim bordering upon these parts having taken action, the whole of the British there rose in arms, and under Sir John Seaton fortified the castle of Longford, which they soon surrendered. Seaton, his lady and retainers, retired to Castle Forbes, and notwithstanding numerous sallies, effective musketry, and relief secretly given by friends among the besiegers during the dark nights, the garrison capitulated after Lady Forbes had given them all her great horses for food. We are told that they were permitted to inarch away with their wearing clothes to Trim, leaving behind their arms and ammunition, ten muskets only excepted: " So the lady Forbes, Sir John Seaton, and his lady, and all the rest of the castle, to the number of two hundred and twenty persons, all maintained at the costs of the Lady Forbes, came away upon the terms aforesaid to Trim and thence to Dublin, through many dangers and miseries."

1 November 1641, to August 1641:

Those who otherwise must have perished, when sick and they (looping to a most miserable and woeful want), were enforced to desert the castle on quarter, go to Dublin, and at their coming away, leave to the rebels, arms and ammunition, worth; so that her loss amounted to 3774. Ss. 4d- besides the future loss of her lands and means, worth 561). Ids. a year. Her ladyship's behavior during the assaults made on her house, by the rebels, deserves particular notice; and it appears by the depositions of Arthur Auchmuty of Castle Forbes, and Martin Johnston, taken before the said commissioners 13 September 1641, that her ladyship in the very beginning of the rebellion, fearing the dangers which ensued, (he endeavored to furnish her castle with arms, ammunition, provisions, and men, to resist the rebels; and gathering all her British tenants in the county of Longford, kept as strong watch and ward as possible.

And the rebels soon after robbing all her tenants, with those of the Lady Longford and Sir John Seaton, who thereupon fled to Castle-Forbes for relict, and taking the castle of Longford, murdering the garrison after quarter given, prepared to siege Castle Forbes, and being 500 strong, built cabins within musket shot, and took their cattle, but were repulsed four several times; when, Beleaguering the castle anew within pistol-shot, and making many trenches, they (shot in at the windows, and killed some in the house and some on the walls, but with the loss of about eighty by the fire from the castle. After this they took the well by surprise, and in order to deprive them of water, seized a Scottish man that endeavored to go to the castle, and hanging him ripped up his belly, and threw him into the well, the castle being near starved for want of water, dug a hole forty feet deep in the Butane, and recovered water; and when any went out privately to seek relief, the rebels, from time to time, murdered and left them to be devoured by dogs and fowls, calling the protestants of the castle, "puritan dogs and hereticks..."

The rebellion an officer of horse: and being zealously affected to the royal interest,, " was a commander in the " northern parts of Scotland for King Charles II; which," as Sir Philip Warwick writes, " some time after War" cester-fight cost the English some pains and marches, " because the commanders were choice men, such as the Lord Glencairn, Sir Arthur Forbes, and Middleton; " yet Monck at length defeated them; and the very " isles of Orkney, the Hebrides and Shetland were reduced." After this he returned to Ireland, and being comprehended within the articles, made by General Monck with the Lord of Lome, and by the fourth head thereof, to enjoy his estate in Ireland, if the same was not disposed of; the government, in consideration that it did not appear, that he ever asked, assisted, or countenanced the rebellion in Ireland, and that the levying by war by him was only in Scotland or England, ordered, 17 August 1655, that he should enjoy his estates in the counties of Leitrim and Longford. When the restoration was concerted, between the Lord Broghill and Sir Charles Coote, he was sent to Brussels by Sir Charles, to assure the King, if he would please to come into Ireland, the whole kingdom would declare for him; but the King, well knowing that Ireland must wait upon the fate of England, resolved to attend the vicissitude there, and dismissed Sir Arthur with such letters and commissions as he desired.

Upon the restoration Sir Arthur Forbes was considered, for his great abilities, as a fit person to compose the unsettled state of this kingdom, and was accordingly, 19 March, appointed one of the commissioners of 'the court of claims.  During this time, he made efforts to seize all of the lands in Longford of the Gentlemen of his home-country to add to his estate, which included those of Sir John Seaton and his family at Moneylagan, and many of those of the Ferralls.


The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland
By Scotland. Privy Council, John Hill Burton, David Masson, Peter Hume Brown, Henry Paton, Robert Kerr Hannay

5th April 1647

Supplication by John M Callow burgess of Haddington, for lawburrows against Sir  George Seton of Barnes, and others.

(comment should read: ... 'Sir John Seton of Barnes and others.')


Supplication by John M Callaw burgess of Haddington as follows: - Sir John Seattone of Barnes, knight, George and Charles Seattounes, his sons, and James Haminiltoun, his half brother, molest and trouble him and his men, tenants and servants in the possession of their lands, especially by taking away his horses and oxen when they labouring the ground and are in the ploughs or about any other kind of work, to his great loss. He therefore craves letters to be directed to messengers of arms for taking his oath that he fears bodily harm, and for charging the said persons to find caution for keeping him scathless.

[On the back] "Apud Edinburgh quinto Aprilis 1647.  Fiat petitur.  The within nameit Sir Johne Barnes [sic] complenit upone under the pane of three thousand merks and ilk ane of the remanent persounes under the pane of ane thousand merks Scots money".



George Seton of Barnes

Notices of George Seton of Barnes



 By Scotland. Court of Session, Lord Alexander Fraser Tytler Woodhouselee, William Maxwell Morison, Esq. Vol. IV.


Reserved Faculties whether reducible upon Death bed.

1662 June 28 Dame Margaret Hay against George Seaton of Barnes (Sect 9, Entry No 61)

A man disponed his estate to his heir with a reserved faculty to burden it with a certain sum. The burden was sustained against the heir, though the faculty was exercised upon deathbed.

Umquhile Sir John Seaton of Barnes having provided George Seaton his son by his contract of marriage to his lands of Barnes some differences rose amongst them upon fulfilling of some conditions in the contract. For settling thereof there was a minute extended by a decreet of the Judges in anno 1658 by which the said Dame Margaret Hay second wife to the said Sir John was provided to L. 900 Sterling in liferent and it was provided that Sir John might burden the estate with 10,000 merks to any person he pleased to which George his son did consent and obliged himself to be a principal disponer. Sir John assigned that clause and destinated that provision for Henry Seaton his son in fee and for the said Dame Margaret Hay in liferent whereupon she obtained decreet before the Lords the last session. George suspends the decreet and raises reduction on this reason that the foresaid clause gave only power to Sir John to burden the estate with 10,000 merks in which case George was to consent and dispone which can only be understood of a valid legal and effectual burden thereof but this assignation is no such burden because it is done in lecto cegritudinis and so cannot prejudge George who is heir at least apparent heir to his father. The charger answered, "That the reason was no way relevant 1st because this provision was in favours of the defunct's wife and children and so is not a voluntary deed but an implement of the natural obligation of providing these idly. This provision as to the substance of it is made in the minute and extended contract in the father's health and there is nothing done on death-bed but the designation of the person which is nothing else than if a parent should in his lifetime give out sums payable to his bairns leaving their names blank and should on death-bed fill up their names". The suspender answered, "That he opponed the clause not bearing de presenti a burden of the land but a power to his father to burden neither having ing any mention of death-bed or in articulo mortis or at any time during his life and though the deed on death-bed be in favours of wife and children it hath never been sustained by the Lords in no time though some have thought it the most favourable case." The Lords sustained the provision and repelled the reason of reduction assoilzied therefrom and found the letters orderly proceeded.

Fol Dic. v.i.p. 215.  Stair, v. 1. p. 116.


Court Records for George Seton of Barnes and the Seton's Irish Estate:

Supplement to the Dictionary of the decisions of the Court of Session, Volume 3

 By Scotland. Court of Session, Mungo Ponton Brown, William Maxwell Morison

1680. June 22.
Dame Lilias Seton, and Sir James Ramsay of Logie, her Husband, against George Seton of Barns.
Dame Lilias Seton, and Sir James Ramsay of Logie, her husband, pursue George Seton of Barns, her brother, for L. 900 Sterling, promised to her by her father, Sir John Seton, in a letter to her. Alleged, The letter is conditional, as shall appear by a writ under his hand, which is not produced, and non creditur referenti nisi constet de relato; 2do, It bears, " In case I die before you be married, and your tocher paid;" but ita est, she was married in her father's lifetime, and he gave 10,000 merks of tocher with her, and got a discharge of it. This being reported, " the Lords find, the father having after the date of the letter met with his daughter, and married her, and provided her to a competent tocher, the letter does not oblige; and therefore assoilzied."

1680. July 1.—In the action Dame Lilias Seton against Barns, (22d June 1680.) being beaten from the letter, they recurred to a new claim, viz. the 5000 merks contained in her infeftment, which albeit it carried that same quality of the missive, viz. that it should be void and null when she was married and her tocher paid, yet it behoved to remain as a debt, because, by an agreement betwixt this Barns and his father, he did take his father expressly obliged to purge and obtain her renunciation of that infeftment, which he never would have done, if he had looked upon it as a right satisfied and extinct.— Answered, That infeftment is res hactenus judicata, and out of doors by a decreet absolvitor inforo, obtained by Barns against it in 1663; and this new allegeance on the contract betwixt his father and him was competent then, and being omitted, cannot be proponed now; and cannot be said to be emergent, or noviter veniens notitiam; see an express and solemn decision on this, 20th January 1631, Gordon, voce Process. 2do, Esto the allegeance were receivable, (as it is not) nullo modo relevat ; for there is nothing more ordinary.
Vol. XXVII. 63 R


8 Martii 1681.

The Privy Councell refused a warrand or licence to No 584 p 192 George Seton of Barnes to import horses or cows from Ireland whither he was going tho in his bill he offered caution and bond to sell none of them and thereby wrong the native product but he was only to use them for his own labouring and stocking the ground and they would not dispenss with ther oune Act of Councell


2. March 14. George Seaton of Barns against The Lady Bearford, his Sister.

In George Seaton of Barns his petition against the Lady Bearford, his sister, the Lords, after a debate in praesentia, refused to give an act declaring the validity of their own extracts under the clerk-register's hand; in regard it was not craved by any warrant from the Irish judges, where the affair was depending, but only by a private party. Yet the noble senatusconsullum, or Act of Sederunt, in Latin, made on the 31st day of July 1596, (which is not recorded till the 17th of November 1599,) is very positive that such extracts are as probative as the principal writs, except in case of falsehood and improbation.

Yet Barns' Irish counsel-at-law Alleged,—That Act was only a desire of the Lords of the Session to foreign judicatures, to esteem our extracts as probative ; but they saw no answer from other courts granting the same. But they mistake it ; for, Imo, It is declaratory what is the import and strength of these extracts in our law and custom; and, 2do, It is petitory, that they may pay them the same deference and respect; else they will not repute what shall come from the clerks of these sovereign courts as authentic. Which was all the certification the Lords could give against coordinate independent courts.

Vol. I. Page 178.

1683. George Seton of Barns against The Lady Bearford, &c.

February 7-—Sir Arthur Forbes, Viscount Granard, Lady Margaret Hay, and the Lady Bearford, gave in a bill against George Seton of Barns, complaining he had vitiated a principal agreement, or decreet-arbitral, passed betwixt his father and him in 1658, by making eighteen hundred sixteen hundred, and his estate this estate, and adding the word rents, which corrupted the sense.

Answered,—They were not vitiations, but amendments, inserted in it at the very beginning by the arbiters.

The Lords, having considered the bill and answers, recommend to my Lord Register and Redfoord to hear the parties anent the vitiation of the said decreet-arbitral, and upon the haill points controverted ; and, for that effect, grant warrant to the Commissary-clerk of Edinburgh to exhibit and produce the principal decreet-arbitral in question ; and to the Clerks of Session, and Keepers of the registers and records, to exhibit and produce, before the said Lords, any grounds or warrants, and books, that can clear the whole matter.. And ordain the Lords to make report. Vide 13th March 1683.

Vol. I. Page 216.

March 13.—George Seton of Barns, in the affair between him and the Lady Bearford, &c. (mentioned 7th Feb. 1683,) on a bill gets a deliverance and warrant to examine the Commissary-clerk arid his. servants on the said minute and its extracts ; as also a commission to examine Mr Robert Hodge, the arbiter, and writer of it, &c,— Vide 30th current. Vol. I. Page 225.

March 30.—The Viscount Granard, Lady Logie, and Lady Bearford, against George Seaton of Barns, (mentioned 13th current,) being advised; the Lords found, by the writs produced, the deposition of Mr Robert Hodge of Westgladsmuir, the arbiter, and writer of the minute of the decreet-arbitral, and the Commissaries their clerks and servants, and particularly by the oaths of Home and Sandy, that the said decreet at the beginning has borne his estate, and is since made this ejtate, by adding the letter T to his in two places of it, where Sir John Seaton, his father, is empowered to dispose upon the rest of his estate; and that it has no other vitiation in it ; and that it appears that Barns, neither by himself nor others, had any accession thereto.

Barns, in this process, to blunt Lady Margaret Hay his stepmother's process, by the popish priests, agreed with her. Yet the enemies he left behind prevailed thus far, as we have seen ; which they sought to counterbalance and enervate Barns's suit he had commenced in Ireland, for some lands there belonging to his father, where they made use of the foresaid decreet-arbitral as a renunciation of all he had to crave, save the lands of Barns.. Vol. /. Page 23U



Court Records for George Seton of Barnes and Disputes with the Seton's of Garleton

Supplement to the Dictionary of the decisions of the Court of Session


1676, 1677, and 1678. Sir John Seton of Gairleton against George Seton of Barns.

1676. July. Sir John Seaton of Gairleton convenes George Seaton of Barns before the Secret Council, for oppression and riot, in casting down a dry-stone dyke Gairleton was building on the march betwixt them, for taking in a park.

Barnes Alleged he had done no wrong; because he had encroached upon his land, and was going to enhance, appropriate, and inclose a well, which not only served his beasts, but also made a mill he had to go, with some derived help. 2cfo,—He had used civil and legal interruptions, per novi operis nuntiationem super damno infecto, quod nondum quidem factum est, sed fieri timetur ; (see these titles D. and C.;) and they not desisting nor finding caution, he might stop per viam facti. Yet see Joannes Vandus, libra 2, Qucestio SO; who says; it must be authore prcetore. Vide supra, in the case of Kirknes, No. 475, \_June 1676.]

And whereas he pretends he had power, by the 17th Act of Parliament 1669, to keep his dyke straight, to take somewhat of the adjacent neighbour's lands,

It is Answered, Imo,—That is for encouragement of parking ; but this cannot be called a park. Ado,—Since he has appealed to that Act of Parliament he must stand to it. It appoints the same to be done at the sight of the sheriff and not privata authoritate. See the rest in the Informations.

The difference was settled by the mediation of my Lord Dundonald ; and it was but reason it should be so : for as Abraham said, in a like contest about a well, to Lot,—" Why should we contend together, for we are brethren."

Advocates' MS. No. 485, folio 250.

1677. February.—In the declarator pursued by Seton of Barnes against Seton of Garleton, anent his right to the aqueduct of his well, &c. Garleton

offering to prove it was in his ground, a visitation act and commission was appointed by Colinton, before whom it was debated. Then, upon a bill given in by Barnes, the Lords named Newbyth and Gosfoord to perambulate and take inspection of the ground, and receive the depositions of witnesses to be adduced by either party, anent the property, and possession past memory, &c. (See the information.) Who met, upon the ground, on the 9th of May, and considered, from point to point, if my Lord Uundonald's Hecreet-arbitral betwixt them was fulfilled ; then examined four witnesses for either party, anent the property of the strand and aqueduct, and Barnes his use of casting the same, &c. Advocates' MS. No. 553, folio 278.

1677. November 14.—Sir John Seton of Garmilton having charged George Seton of Barnes, upon a decreet of the Sheriff of Hadington, finding that some of Barnes his cattle had come upon an inclosure in Garleton's ground, and therefore fining him in £5 Scots for each beast, conform to the Act, in the Parliament iGGl : Of this decreet Barnes raised suspension and reduction, upon iniquity, that the sheriff had refused a visitation, and found it to be an inclosure, upon the testimonies of some of Garmilton's own servants; and that it truly had none of the qualifications required, by the foresaid Act of Parliament, to a privileged inclosure.

The suspension coming first to be cal!ed,-^Newton repelled the reasons, as not instantly verified, and found the letters orderly proceeded ; superseding extract for a month, in which time Barnes might insist in the discussing of his reduction. Before the elapsing of this time, on the 21st of November, we gave in a bill to the Lords, representing, that our reduction was now ready ; and, for the speedier dispatch, to verify our reasons, the process led before the sheriff, and the principal depositions of the witnesses would be necessary ; therefore craved a warrant against the sheriff-clerk, to send them in.

The desire of this bill the Lords granted. And Barnes having charged him with horning, he transmitted the haill process to Mr Thomas Hay ; after which, upon a new bill, we got it remitted to Newton, to compare the probation with the decreet, and with the reasons libelled against it, and, after perusal, to report:

Which he having done on the 2Gth of February 1678, the Lords found the said decreet unjust; and therefore reduced and suspended simpliciter.

We were not expecting so much ; but only that the Lords should have turned it to a libel, and appointed a visitation and perambulation on the ground, for cognoscing if it was truly such an inclosure as was meant by the foresaid Act of Parliament. See the copy of the decreet, and reasons against it, apud me. Anent the evoking and transmitting processes in inferior courts, see an instance, supra, num. 623, Sir A. Ramsay, [26th July 1677.]

Advocates' MS. No. 655, folio 307.

1678. February 2.—In the declarator of property, or cognition and perambulation of molestation of the meiths and marches, between Seton of Barns and Seton of Garmilton, (of which vide supra, No. 553,)—the probation and report of the commission being this day advised, and the Lords having considered the report made by the Lords Newbyth and Gosfuird, visitors, adhere to the said report, in so far as they have determined the matter in question. And siclike, having considered Garmilton's oath and deposition, and the testimony of the witnesses adduced, they find, by Garmilton's deposition, That the stone dyke of the park is rightly situated, according to the Earl of Dundonald's decreet-arbitral; and find that Garmilton should make a stone pent! in the park-dyke, sufficient to let the water go out, not being of that wideness to let ,in or out beasts. And find that the water-gang, from the parkdyke to Barnes his mill, ought to continue in the old channel; and that the channel wherein it now runs is the old channel ; and that the said water-gang, from the ston park, is the march betwixt Barnes* and Garmil-. ton's lands; and that the water running therein can suffer no division; and the diversion made by Garilton ought to be restored, so that the water may run entire in the old channel. And find that Garilton's feal-dyke, at the east end thereof, is built, by the space of a pair of boots, on Barnes his land; andthat therefore the same ought to be demolished, by the said space of a pair of boots. And find that both Barnes and Garmilton may, at their pleasure, cast the foresaid aqueduct and water-gang ; and that, in their casting, they ought to. do no prejudice, either of them, to other's lands, or to the feal-dyke built by Garmilton, except in so far as the same is ordained to be demolished;. and that the mud and earth, to be cast out by either party, when they dight the aqueduct, ought to be casten, the one half thereof on Barnes his side of the aqueduct, and the other half on Garmilton's side : and decerned accordingly.

On the 6th of June 1678, Garmilton having given in a bill to the Lords, com* plaining of this decreet, (for it was not then extracted,) and craving the Lords. would readvise the probation; and answers being made to it,—-The Lords refused the bill, and adhered to their interlocutor.

Advocates' MS. No. 719i folio 318.


The Decisions of the Lords of Council and Session, from June 6th, 1678, to July 30th, 1712:

 Collected by the Honourable Sir John Lauder of Fountainhall

Supplement to the Dictionary of the decisions of the Court of Session

1702. December 18. The Earl of Errol against George Seton of Barns.
Sir John Seton, father to the said George, being married to Lady Margaret Hay, and provided her to a liferent-annuity of 2400 merks; and she having assigned the bygones of it to the Earl of Errol, he pursues a poinding of the ground; against which Barns craved compensation on a bond of 10,000 merks, due by Errol's predecessors, as her tocher; and Errol alleging that Sir John had assigned his lady to that sum, and from whom he derived right thereto:
Answered by Barns,—That the assignation was given to her by his father when in lecto, only five days before his decease, and that he had raised reduction thereof upon that head.
Errol Contended,—His action of reduction was prescribed by the negative prescription; the assignation being in February 1659, and not quarrelled till the forty years were run.
Alleged for Barns, lmo, His action would not prescribe, because he was non valens agere during the lady's lifetime, in regard she was liferenter of the sum, and it was wholly unnecessary for him to quarrel her right of fee till the liferent expired; as was found, the last of February 1666, Earl of Lauderdale against the Viscount of Oxford; and 5th February 1680, Brown against Hepburn. 2do, This assignation was a latent deed, so Barns, morally speaking, could not quarrel it till he knew it; which is of the nature of an exception, quce non nascitur till the right be some way made use of or produced. And what if a deed done in lecto, or posterior to an inhibition, be kept quiet for forty years, and then insisted in; will it be a good defence to say, Your action of reduction, ex capite inhibitionis, or that it was on death-bed, is prescribed, because not intented within forty years of the date of the bond? I think it would not; and as little here. Stio, The bond given by Barns to Lady Margaret, for her annuity in 1683, reserves, per expressum, Barns's reduction of her fee of the said 10,000 merks, which is a clear and plain interruption within the forty years; and as this prescription is odious, so the Lords have found interruptions favourable, 26th July, 1637, L. of Lawers against Dunbar; and 25th November 1665, White against Horn.
Answered for Errol to the first,—That Barns was valens agere, even cum effectu, from the very moment of his father's death; and though she liferented the sum, yet nihil impediebat but he might, in a reduction and declarator, have annulled her right to the fee; and the decisions cited are only in the case of a positive prescription, and so are misapplied here. To the second, Latency is no defence against the long prescription of forty years; neither does law presume an heir to be ignorant of his father's debts, but on the contrary to know them. 3/io, Barns's obligation in 1683 favours Lady Margaret as much as him; for, as it reserves his power of quarrelling, so all the lady's legal defences are as fully, and with the same breath, reserved; which makes it as broad as long.
The Lords thought her being liferenter did not make him non valens agere in this case; but found his proponing compensation against the Earl in that 10,000 merks' bond, with his reservation in 1683, &c. were sufficient interruptions; and therefore his action of reduction, ex capite lecti, was not prescribed.
Vol. II. Page 167.



John Seton, Younger of Barnes

James VII: Translation, 1685, 23 April, Edinburgh, Parliament
Parliamentary Register
At Edinburgh 13 May 1685

The estates of parliament, calling to mind the many great blessings they have and do enjoy under the protection of the royal government, and especially by the many deliverances from the rebellious insurrections and designs of fanatical traitors, from whom they could expect no less than confusion in religion, oppression in their estates and cruelty against their persons and families, and that the terror of his majesty's forces has been very instrumental for procuring our present security, but considering that not only these enemies continue their inveterate hatred against king and people, but that their frequent disappointments have heightened their malice to despair, and that the present forces may be too few to undergo all the fatigue which his majesty's service or the protection of the country does require, and to demonstrate to all seditious men that this nation is resolved to bestow all they have in the king's service rather then to be exposed to the least of their insults; do therefore, for themselves and the nation represented by them, make a hearty and dutiful offer to his majesty of £216,000 yearly, payable at two terms, namely Whitsunday [May/June] and Martinmas [11 November], each year, beginning at Whitsunday next 1685 [7 June] and so forth each term, and that over and beside the five months' cess already imposed on this kingdom by the third act of the parliament of 1681, whereby there will be four months' cess payable at each term hereafter, beginning at Whitsunday next 1685; and as a further evidence of their entire affection to the sacred person of his present majesty, they humbly and heartily offer a continuation and prorogation of the said four months' cess each term from the said term of Whitsunday 1685 inclusive, during all the terms of his majesty's lifetime (which God Almighty long preserve) that being the greatest of our earthly wishes as it is the chief of our temporal felicity and glory; and for the better and more speedy bringing in of payment of the said eight months' cess, the king's majesty, with advice and consent of the estates of parliament, nominates, appoints and ordains the persons underwritten to be commissioners within the respective shires for ordering and uplifting of the said eight months' cess.

For the shire of Haddington: [George Seton], earl of Winton, [John Hay], earl of Tweeddale, [John Hay], lord Yester, [Patrick Murray], lord Elibank, [John Hamilton], lord Belhaven, Sir John Sinclair of Lochend, Archibald Murray of Spott, Mr Robert Lauder, portioner of Belhaven, Archibald Sydserf of Ruchlaw, Sir Andrew Ramsay of Wauchton, Francis Kinloch of Gilmerton, elder, Sir William Baird of Newbyth, Patrick Brown of Colston, James Dougall of Nunland, Robert Hepburn of Bearford, John Seton of Barns, Sir Robert Sinclair of Stevenson, Sir James Stansfield of Newmills, Richard Cockburn of Clerkington, Sir James Hay of Linplum, George Swinton of Chesters, Mr George Haliburton of Eaglescarnie, Sir John Lauder of Fountainhall, George Brown, younger of Colstoun, Adam Cockburn of Ormiston, Adam Hepburn of Humbie, David Hepburn of Randerstone, John Wedderburn of Gosford, Sir John Nisbet of Dirleton, William Congalton of that ilk, Sir George Suttie of Balgonie, Sir John Ramsay of Westerfalsyde, John Seaton of St Germans, Sir William Hamilton of Preston, George Morrison of Prestongrange, John Sleigh, provost of Haddington, William MacCall, bailie there, James Forrest, bailie in Dunbar, Charles Maitland, bailie in North Berwick, the earl of Winton convener, and in his absence George Brown, younger of Colstoun.




 By Scotland. Court of Session, Lord Alexander Fraser Tytler Woodhouselee, William Maxwell Morison, Esq. Vol. IV.

1665 June 28

Robert Keill against John Seaton

No 64

Minority and lesion is not competent way of suspension or exception, but by way of action of reduction.

George Seaton as principal and the said John Seaton his cautioner having granted bond to Robert Keill, and being charged thereupon, both did suspend, and having alleged payment, they succumbed and were decerned. John suspends again, and raises reduction upon minority and lesion The charger answered 1st, That this reason was competent and omitted in the former decreet. 2ndly, That proponing payment, did homologate the debt, as if an heir proponed payment, he would not be admitted to renounce thereafter, or to deny the passive title. The suspender answered, That the former process being in a suspension, nothing was competent but what was instantly verified, and so minority and lesion was not competent. The charger answered, That the decreet of registration was turned into a libel, as being registrate at the assignee's instance, not having intimate during the cedent's life, and at that time the suspender had raised his reduction, and so it was competent. The suspender answered, That he was not obliged to insist in his reduction, and that the reasons thereof were not proper, even in an ordinary action, but only by a reduction. It was further alleged, that competent and omitted, took no place in suspensions.

The Lords had no regard to the last allegeunce, but repelled the allegeance upon homologation, and upon competent and omitted, in respect that minority and lesion is neither competent by way of suspension nor exception, but by way of action of reduction, wherein the suspender was not obliged to insist.

Fol. Dic. v. I. p. 175.   Stair, v. 1. p. 289.



Colonel Seton - Sir John Seton (?)

65 S 2 2
No 5.
What warrant requirite to make a seizure?

1667. November 23. Colonel Seatoun against The Laird of Balwhilly.
The Laird of Balwhilly having seized upon a -ship belonging to the Dutch, during the war, Colonel Seatoun, Governor of the Fort at Brassie-sound, medled with the ship and loading, brevi manu, for the use of the garrison; Balwhilly pursues a spuilzie before the Admiral: Colonel Seatoun gives in a bill of advocation on this reason, that Balwhilly having no commission, albeit he did seize upon the ship, yet it belongs to the King, and the Colonel had a warrant from the Lord Commissioner to intromit therewith, for the garrison's use; and therefore, in the cause concerning the King, his Majesty's Advocate and officers were not obliged to answer before the Admiral, nor could they attend there, and therefore the advocation ought to be past. It was answered, That the reason was in causa, and not relevant, for the advocate ought to have a depute before the Admiral, which is a supreme court; and process maritime, in the first instance, ought not to be sustained before the Lords, and that whatever they pretended in the point of right, Spoliatus est ante omnia restituendus.

The Lords having heard the parties upon the bill, in praesentia, ordained the same to be past.
It was then desired, that as, before the Admiral, the Colonel behoved to find caution, not only judicio sisti, but also judicatum sohi, that he may be ordained to do the same before the Lords.
Which the Lords refused, but-granted the advocation in common form.
Stair, v. 1. p. 487.
No 6.


Hannibal Seton

The Edinburgh Register of Testaments (also John Riddell's Notes)

Seton, Hannabill burgess of Haddington 20 Jan. 1671



Sir George Seton of Hailes

The Eagle: A Magazine Support by Members of St. John's College,

Volume 29, Notes from the College Records

The documents which follow give us a glimpse of the wish of King James to have Scotch students admitted to the full privileges of the English Universities. ... The Statutes of the Colleges at this time were full of County and other local restrictions and for long after this period St John's was much hampered in its choice of Fellows King James however did his best for his fellow countrymen He tried ineffectually to get a Scotchman elected a Fellow of King's that College appears to have been unloyally stubborn He succeeded in March 1619 20 in getting George Seaton Scotus admitted a Fellow of St John's mandato regio The fellowship was a specially created one and for some years the College had a good working grievance culminating in Seaton continuing to hold his fellowship after he was beneficed and married and then trying to pass it on to a friend He is no doubt the George Seaton who compounded for First Fruits as Vicar of Kingston upon Thames Surrey 8 November 1626 ceding this on his institution as Rector of Bushey Herts 19 December 1631 being presented to the latter by King Charles I. Seaton resigned Bushey in 1642.


St. John's College, Cambridge
By Robert Forsyth Scot

One of the special grievances at St John's was that King James directed the College to elect a Scotchman George Seaton MA to a fellowship though there was none then actually vacant.

The College obeyed informing his Majesty that they had made their statutes wink to fulfil his bidding and maintained an extra Fellow for a time.


Memorabilia Cantabrigiae: Or, An Account of the Different Colleges in Cambridge... by Joseph Wilson, Esq.

'Among the other learned men educated in this College, are George Seaton *;... ' This George Seaton was a Scotchman,and seems to have 'been very unfairly obtruded upon the college, by the royalmandate of James I.

The following is a copy of the letter:

James Rex.

Trufty and well beloved we greet you well; The bearer hereof George Seaton, Mafter of Arts, intending to follow the Ftudie of Divinity, we are well pleafed to futher his honeft defign in that poynte.  And have thought good by thefe prefents to recommend him unto you, willing and requiring you to admit him to a Felowfhip in your Colledge, wherein if no place be prefently voyd, it is our pleafure that he fhall have the firft which fhall happen to be voyd hereafter, notwithftanding and Statue or Conftitution of your Colledge made to the contrarie.  Given at our Mannor of Theobalds, the 10th of March, 1619. 

To the Msfter and Fellows of St. John's College.




 By Scotland. Court of Session, William Maxwell Morison, Esq. Vol. 14.

Payment being made, who understood to have advanced the Money.
1662. January 25. Earl of Winton against Ramsay.
No 201.
The Earl of Winton being debtor to the Lady Semple, his daughter, in a sum of money, she assigns the same to umquhile Sir George Seton, who was qoiring tight one of the tutors testamentar nominated and accepting to this Earl; and Sir George transfers the said debt to Mr James Ramsay of Fawside, who pursues the Earl for payment. It was alleged by the Earl, That Sir George being one of his tutors, accepting, and acting, as tutor, having acquired right to a debt due by his pupil, law presumes, that he has acquired the same with the pupil's own means or intuitu that he was debtor to his pupil in as much; and consequently, that ab initio it was taken for his pupil's behoof; and the excipient offered to pay the sum to the pursuer, he finding caution to refund prt tun/o, if after compt and reckoning it should be found, that Sir George, being a conjunct tutor, should be found debtor to the excipient. It was answered, That though Sir George was tutor, yet he was not intromitter; the Viscount of Kingston being intromitter, against whom the Earl had action of compt and reckoning depending. It was replied, That though Sir George did not intromit, but suffered Kingston or any of the rest to intromit; yet by the law, singuli tenentnr in solidum.
The Lords ordained the pursuer to find caution to refund..
Gilmour, No 22. p. 18. *£* Stair's report of this case is No 1. p. 9977, voce Payment.
Vol. XXVIL 63 Z
No 202.
Effect of a transaction in which a tutor had t'ken an assignation to himself.


Charters of the Great Seal

Charter by the same to George, Earl of Wintoun, his heirs-male and of taillie, of the lordship and barony of Haills, with the castle and fortalice, except the portions thereof disponed to the said George principally, and to Francis, Earl of Buccleuch, in warrandice and security, as therein mentioned ; with the patronage of the church of Hauche, called the prebendary of Lintoun and chaplainry of Markle ; lands and barony of Auldhamstoks, with patronage of the church thereof and of the chaplainry of Coldbrandspeth and hospital thereof; lands of East Craig and Hoprig, and of Morhame, with tower and fortalice, mill, etc., and patronage of the kirk thereof, lying within the shire of Edinburgh and constabulary of Haddington ; lands and barony of Creichtoun, with castle and manor-place, etc., with patronage of the provostry of Creichtoun and chaplainries thereof; lands of Murehous, within the shire of Edinburgh, for the principal; the lands of Quhitsun, etc., with patronage of the kirk thereof, in the shire of Berwick; lands of Ferningtoun, with hospital of the same; lands of Langnewtoun, with tower, mill, etc., in the shire of Roxburgh ; lands and barony of Dryvisdaill and Carruthers, with patronage of the kirk of the latter place, in the stewartry of Annandale and shire of Dumfries ; lands and barony of Dunsyre, Lanarkshire, of Kirkmichael, Terraughtie, Drumlark, Mabie, and Cruiks ; lands and barony of Earlstoun, etc., in shire of Dumfries : and in like manner granting to the said George, Earl of Wintoun, and his heirs aforesaid heritably, and to the aforesaid Francis, Earl of Buccleuch, and his heirs-male, etc., in special warrandice and security, under the conditions contained in a contract between the said Francis, on one part, and Charles Stewart, son and heir of the late Francis Stewart, who was eldest son of the late Francis, Earl of Bothwell, the said George, Earl of Wintoun, and George Seton, Doctor of Divinity, and some other persons, on the other part, of date 1647 and 1648; the lands of Traprain ; lands of Nether Hailes, being parts of the said lordship and barony of Hailes, lying in the constabulary of Haddington and shire of Edinburgh: which all and sundry lands, baronies, etc., belonged before to the said Francis, Earl of Buccleuch, and were resigned by him in Exchequer at Edinburgh, for this new infeftment, with 4000 ... to the said George, Earl of Wintoun, etc., and erecting again the barony of Hailes. Dated 1st March 1648. — Lib. lviii. No. 141.


Historical Notices of Scottish Affairs: selected from the Manuscripts of Sir John Lauder of Fountaill, Bart.

Volume First. 1661-1683

Jullij 1676

Mr James Ramsay Bischop of Dumblaine havings charged Francis Kinloch of Gilmerton upon his generall letters to pay him 8 chalders and a halfe of wi&uall being ane annuity mortified by King James in 1620 1 furth of the lands of Markill wheirof the said Francy is heritor to the Deanrie of the Chappel Royall which is annexed to the Bischoprick of Dumblaine he suspended upon this reason that the said annuity was originally granted in 1587 furth of thesse lands by the then Earl of Bothuell to Mr Thomas Craig advocat redeemable upon the payment of 7000 mks and upon Bothuell's forfaulter fell to Lennox then to Buccleuch the donators Buccleuch disponed thesse lands to the Earl of Winton for the behoof of Sir George Seton which Sir George payed the 7000 mks to the King and got a grant of redemption which right is now in the suspender's persone by progresse So it being extinguished the suspender's lands are free and the King being sensible theirof wrot to his Exchequer that ane equivalent annuity in place theirof might be settled upon the said Deanry furth of his few fermes. ...


The Edinburgh Register of Testaments (also John Riddell's Notes)

Sir Geo. Settone of Hailles knighted at Perth day of Nov. 1650. Balfour, Annals, v. 4, p. 179.

The Testament Dative and Inventory of the Goods, etc., pertaining to umquhile Sir George Seattoun of Haills, knight, who died 166-, faithfully made and given up by John Ross, writer in Edinburgh, only executor-dative decerned as creditor to him.

Sum of Inventory ...... iij c lxxiij ub vj s viij d .

Among the debts due to him are — By the Earl of Wintoun and Lord Kingstone the um of xij m merks, conform to their bond ; by King Charles the Second, conform to his bond, xviij m merks ; ' The said defunct had in his dwelling house the tyme of his said decease ane
great four corned cabennat full of wryts wherein also were the foirsaids bands and quhilk wes seilled arreisted and secured be the toune of Edinburgh for the use of the said John Ross by ordor of the judges, yit notwithstanding thairof intromitted with be the relict of the said
umquhile Sir George and Francis Kinloch, merchant burgess of Edinburgh, pretendit donators, estimat to the sum of x m merks.'

Sum of said debts ...... xxvij m vj c lxvj lib 13 s 4 d .

Sum of Inventory with debts ..... xxvij m xl lib .

No division.
Confirmed 3rd July 1661. William Naper, tailor in Edinburgh, is cautioner. — Vol. lxx.


(Top of column 2 page 645, under)
['XVII. George, fifth Lord Seton'] : — Test. 24 Aug. 1655 of Robert Seaton, eldest lawful son to Sir Geo. S. of Haills, Knight. Ed r Com. Records, b. m. 99 x beg. Vide 30 Aug. 1665 of Robert S. of Haills, ib. middle. ...these are of Winton.

Test. 3 July 1661, of Sir Geo. Seatton of Haills, Kt., mention of E. of Winton, and Lord Kingston, b. m. 98 middle.

Test. Robert Seton of Hailes. Ed r Com. R. b. m. 43. Robert Seaton oy to the deceased Sir Geo. Seaton mentioned along with Sir Geo. Stirling of Glorat, Bart., 16 Feb. 1679, Privy Seal Rec cl vol. 3, 1675-1685, b. m. 89 middle. 2

Test. Sir Geo. Seaton of Hailes, 3 July 1661, b. m. 91 near beg. (On margin of column 2 page 645.)



Inventory of the Papers of Captain Robert Seton, Grandson of Sir George Seton of Hailes.

1. Parcel containing a very large number of receipts for money, and discharged accounts
— not arranged, and of various dates, 1688-1 705.

2. An Edinburgh Burgess and Gild Ticket — date illegible.

3. Precept under the sign-manual of Charles 1. directed to Sir John Mallarie, Kt.,
Governor of Skipton, for payment of ^200 to Sir Francis Cobb. Dated at Newarke, 28th
October 1645.

4. Band by David Litle in Tranent to Mr. George Seatoun of Hailes. 8th May 1649.

5. Band by James Dunlape, Writer, Edinburgh, to Sir George Seatton of Hailes. 4th
October 1650.

6. Gift under the sign-manual of Charles II. in favour of Sir George Seaton of Hailles
for the yearly pension of 1000 English. Dated at Perth, 26th November 1650.

7. Indenture between Dame Barbara Cobb, widow, and Sir William Cobb. 1st Decem-
ber 1677.

8. Bond by Robert Seattoun to Harie Sinclair, writer, Edinburgh. London, 19th August

9. Agreement between Robert Settoun, son to the deceased Robert Settoun of Hailes,
and James Charteris, W.S., on their departure for London (to go together). Edinburgh, 15th
March 1682.

10. Letter, the Earl of Findlater to Robert Seaton, Cullen. 29th January 1685.

11. Letter to Lieutenant Seton. 9th May 1687.

12. Letter from John Gifford. 2nd January 1688.

13. Commission under the sign-manual of James vn. to Robert Seton to be ' Captain
Lieutenant,' dated 1688. (Imperfect from decay.)

14. Commission to Robert Seaton to be Captain in Sir Edward Hale's Regiment. 27th
November 1688.

15. Attestation that Robert Seaton has received the Sacrament. 168-.

16-18. Three letters from Sir William Cobb, dated 2nd and 14th January and 2nd
February 1690-91.

19. The Testament of Dame Frances Smith, wife of Sir Edward Smith, Bart. 28th
November 1692.

20. Letter from to Robert Seaton, Esq. 28th February 1692.

21. Obligation by Rebecca Hayes. Dated 23rd March 1692-93.

22. Letter from to Captain Seaton. 29th October 1694.

23. Messenger's Copy of Privy Council Warrant for the arrest of Captain Seton for high
treason. Kensington, 23rd February 1695-96.

24. Baile for Robert Seton, Esq.

25. Draft Letter of R. S. to Sir William Cobb. August 1697.

26. Letter to Lady Cobb. 29th June 1699 [89?].

27. Memorandum of Accompts between T. W. and R. S. 1695.

28. Release by Alexander, Earl of Eglinton, to his nephew, Robert Seton. 6th February

29. Letter of Procuratory (Missive) by the Earl of Eglinton to Robert Seton. 21st
October 1700.

30. Articles of Agreement between Joseph Sanders of Legh (Leith), merchant, Thomas
Sanders of London, merchant, and Robert Seton. 3rd November 1701.

31. Letter from John Bogle, Glasfgow], to Captain Robert Seton. 8th August 1705.

32. Packet containing fifteen letters of various dates from Lady Barbara Cobb, a memo-
randum-book, and an envelope containing a lock of the hair of Sir John Fenwick, beheaded
on Tower Hill, London, 28th January 1696-7.

33. A Diploma of the University of St. Andrews to Master George Seton, with fine seal
attached. 1629.

34. Household Book of Lady Barbara Cobb from about 1660 to 1680.

35. Ane Compt of the losses of Sir George Seattoun of Hailes and his Tenants within
the parish of Prestonhaugh since the Inglisch armie came into Scotland. 1650-51.

36. Charge of the Money received by James Millar of Gurlabank belonging to Sir George
Seattoun of Hailes from 28th August 1651 to 28th September 1652.

The papers referred to in the preceding Inventory were found in an old trunk in one of the cellars below the dome of the Register House, Edinburgh, in November 1895, by Mr. M. Livingstone, Deputy Keeper of Records.

The Edinburgh Burgess Ticket (No. 2), of which the date is illegible, relates to either the Robert Seton who married Lady Anne Montgomerie, or to his son, also Robert.

The 'Attestation' (No. 15) is from the Church of St. Martin-in-the-Fields, Middlesex.

Sir William Cobb (Nos. 7 and 16) was probably son and successor of Sir Francis Cobb (No. 3) by his wife ' Dame Barbara.'

The 'Arrest' mentioned in No. 23 was in all likelihood connected with the 'Assassination Plot' against William of Orange, in which Sir John Fenwick (No. 32) was concerned.

(Note: George Seton of Cariston wrote that he had, "hitherto failed to ascertain the parentage of Sir George Seton of Hailes, who, before being knighted, appears in the Great Seal Register as ' Mr.' and ' Dr.' In the elaborate Diploma of the University of St. Andrews (No. 33 of the Inventory), he is described as a  Doctor of Theology and a Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge.)