INFORMATION For Alexander Dunbar of Westfield heritable Sheriff of Elgin and Forres. Against The Laird of Grant.  
THe Laird of Grant having lately obtained from his Majesty a Signature erecting his Lands in a Regality, and a part of his Lands lying locally within the Shire of Elgin, when this Signature was presented to be past the Exchequer, Dunbar of Westfield heritable Sheriff of the said Shire opposed and protested against it, as hurtful and prejudicial to his heritable Sheriff-ship, and Grant having now past Infeftment of the said Signature, the Sheriff for vindicating of his heritable Office, and the bounds thereof from such a manifest encroachment, hath raised a Reduction and Declarator to hear and see it found and declared, that Grants Signature of a Regality, cannot be extended to, nor comprehend●●● of the Land●●●●●●ging to 〈…〉 in prejudice of the said Sheriffs heritable Office, but the samen ought in so far to be declared and reduced.  
This Action being called in the Inner house, it was alleged, that the Laird of Grant had also raised a Reduction and Declarator against the Sheriff for taken away of his heritable Office of Sheriff-ship, but the Production not being satisfied by the Sheriff, in so far as was requisite for debating of Grants Reduction and Declarator, and on the other hand, the Sheriffs Reduction, and declaim against Grant being ready to be debated, the Sheriff insisted in his Action and some little Qustion having been moved about his Title, as if his Seasin on his Retour as Heir to his Father were not sufficient; The Lords allowed him to produce father eum processu, which is also done, the Sheriffs heritable Sheriffship being indeed uncontestable, and founded in a clear Progress of more than a hundreth Years with an interrupted Possession.  
It was therefore alleged for the Sheriff, that the Ground and Reason of his Reduction and Declarator, was in itself so clear and so clearly founded in one of the first Maxims of Law, viz. quod meum est sine facto meo aufferri non potest, or that no mans property can be taken from him without his own consent, or the force of Law which is equivalent, that it was not capable either of father Probation or Illustration; But ita est that the foresaid heritable Office within the whole bounds teereof is the Sheriffs undoubted Right and Property, and therefore cannot be taken away or diminished by the Laird of Grant either in whole or in part, without the Sheriffs own consent, or the dead of Law which is equivalent.  
To this there were several Answers and Exceptions made by the Laird of Grant, which for shunning of Repetition shall be notised and taken off by the Sheriff in order as they were proponed, and are now resumed. 1. It was Answered for Grant, that there was a Distinction to be made betwixt an Office tho' heritable, and other Rights of Property, in as far as an Office was in effect but only a Power and Commission flowing from the King, who still retained the sovereign Power, and by virtue thereof might erect other Offices, as that of Regality within the bounds of any Shire, albeit it should be found restrictive or prejudicial to the heritable Office of Sheriff-ship, whereas other Rights of Property as of Lands and Tenements were full and absolute, and by the Law secured from all Diminutions and encroachments; And father, that a bare Office was not to be judged in patrimonio, and could never hinder the King to erect Regalities which were Praedial and Feudal Jurisdictions, which the King in all time might give with the Feu of the Lands at his pleasure.  
To which it was replied for the Sheriff, that this Answer and Distinction was neither founded in Law nor Reason, but in effect did militat as well against the Defenders Regality, as the Sheriffs Sheriff-ship; The Defenders Procurators in proponing this Allegiance, acting clearly Sampsons Part, who to destroy the Philistines, pulled down the House, and involved himself in the same ruins; It being evident that if heritable Offices cannot be reckoned Property, but are still subject to be limited or restricted by the Kings sovereign Power, the same may happen as well to an heritable Regality, as an heritable Sheriff-ship, nor doth it signify any thing, that the Office of Regality is praedial or Feudal, and annexed to Lands, because the Question here is, not concerning the nature of Regalities, but precisely this, whether the heritable Office of Sheriff-ship being lawfully constitute, can be diminished by the erecting of a Regality within the same bounds, seing whether the Regality be annexed to Lands or not, it is not material to this Question whereof the precise point is, whether a prior Right of the Office of Sheriff ship can be taken from the Sheriff without his own dead or Law, by erecting another Office within the same bounds, manifestly privative of the Sheriff-ship, whether that other Office be called a Regality or not, or whether this Office of Regality be annexed to Lands or not? And without controversy, if the King should grant a Feu of certain Lands within a Shire, with an Office of Bailliary, or of any other Designation, but still privative of the Sheriffs Jurisdiction, the heritable Sheriff might still reclaim, notwithstanding of its being annexed to Lands, which plainly makes no material difference in this case.  
But 2. The Defenders material Error is, that he would have a heritable Office to be no Property nor Right, and in effect it cannot well be said what he would make it, or how he would distinguish it from any precarious Commission, but setting aside these dark Notions, it is granted that a heritable Office is neither Lands nor Tenements, but quid incorporium, is it therefore not capable of Right or Property, when it is certain it hath all Marks, Characters and Uses of any other Right, in so far as it may be transmitted to Heirs, it may be Gifted or Sold, or Apprysed, and even as to the sovereign Power whence it flows, it is so far a Right of Property, that the King hath himself bought back heritable Sheriff-ship by a considerable Price, and the Defender contends that they are still redeemable, seing therefore that a heritable Office is a mans Property as well as a heritable Right of Land, the Defenders distinction is wholly groundless, and father it is certain that an heritable Office hath not only Emoluments and perquisites, which even the Defender cannot deny to be in patrimonio, but also that the heritable Office itself, seing it may be Bought and Sold is patrimonial.  
3. The Absurdity and Impertinency of the foresaid distinction as to the case in hand, is yet more manifest; If it shall be enquired, whether the King may on the ground thereof erect another Sheriff-ship within a Sheriff-ship, or if he may dismember a Shireff-ship, and no doubt both will be denied; If then he may not erect another Shireff-ship within the Bounds of an heritable Sheriff-ship, or dismember a Sheriff-ship by making two of one even albeit he should grant this new Erection with an annexation to Lands, multo minus may he erect a Regality, because a Reg●lity in effect is as privative of the Sheriff-ship, as if it were another Shire: And it is a mistake, as if the privilege of Regality were only to repledge from the Sheriff, and to have some casualties of Escheat, and the like which the Sheriff hath not, when in effect the Bounds of the Regality are so distinct from the Shireff ship that they are plainly alterum territorum, and a Sheriff by the Act of Parliament, in the Pursuit of a manslayer, or Robber, is to behave towards a neighbouring Lord of Regality, as toward a neighbouring Sheriff. It is true, that as the Lord of Regality, hath some powers of Jurisdiction as well as casualties beyond the Sheriff, so the Sheriff hath power in some Cases, even within the Regality; as to fortify his Court with Suits out of the Regality, when they are wanting out of the Shire: And to raise the Inhabitants of the Regality with the rest of the poss-comitatus, but it is as certain, that these are only measures of Policy and Government, and making nothing to the present question, which is precisely this, whether an heritable Sheriff-ship can be diminished or encroached upon by Erecting of a Regality, which is clearly privative, and if by the same Rule, the whole Sheriff-ship may not be exhausted, by erecting the like Regalities over the whole Shire, which is plainly the same, as if an old heritable Sheriff-ship were dismembered in so many New Sheriff-ships, as should leave the old Sheriff nothing but the Name, which were most absurd: But seing the heritable Office of Sheriff is truly the Sheriffs Property, for which he pays a distinct Redendo, wherein he makes his Equie every year, and that it hath all the marks of property, and is in patrimonio as said is. It is certain that in Law, and by the Kings real Intention which is never by any Gift to take away another Mans Right, it can no more be diminished in part, or destroyed in the whole, for both are the same thing, by new Regalities, than by new Bailliaries, Sheriff-ships, or other exclusive Jurisdictions, for names are but names and signify nothing.  
But here it was father urged for the pursuer, that in the late Times, viz. In the year 1681. there was an Act made for the Kings cumulative Jurisdictiction, which all men know was purposely designed, not as the Defender alleged to have some Laws more sharply execute, but really to diminish some heritable Jurisdiction, and yet this Law by an express Act of Parliament in the year 1690: was abrogat, if then the granting of cumulative Jurisdictions, in prejudice of heritable Rights, was judged a Grievance, and abrogat, how much more the granting of private Jurisdictions, which are evidently ly a far greater Nonsense. And father it is to be remembered, that even when the Parliament 1693. did make the Act for a Commission of Justiciary in the High-lands, they would not encroach upon the heritable Justiciaries of the Earl of Argle and others, without their own consent, and if any Person having Lands within the Justiciary of Argyle, or of Caithness, &c. Should obtain a Regality to be Erected, it would certainly be reprobat: How can it then be questioned, but that an heritable Sheriff may Defend his Right in like manner.  
As to what the Defender here answered, that the Act anent Cumulative Jurisdictions, was made for a warrant to give Commissions to Officers to execute the then Laws, as Sheriffs in that Part, in place of the ordinary Sheriffs. And therefore, and for no other Reason abrogat, it was reasonably replied, that as to that excess and abuse of the Cumulative Jurisdiction, it was Condemned by the Claim of Right, but the Estates and the Parliament went yet father, and found, That the very power of Erecting new Jurisdictions Cumulativè, within the Bounds of Old Jurisdictions, was a Grievance, and therefore did abrogat it, which concludes a fortiori, that the Erecting of new privative Jurisdictions within the same Bounds, are multo magis to be reprobat, and in effect are so contrary to the fundamental Rule of Right, that there is no need of a positive Constitution to discharge them.  
2. It was alleged for the Defender, that the Custom hath now been for many years, that the King hath granted several Regalities within the Bounds of heritable Sheriff-ships, and this hath been generally acquiesced to, nor hath it hitherto been disproven in Judgement, so that the old Act of Parliament, Ja. 2. Discharging the Erecting of New Regalities: without the deliverance of Parliament, is gone in desuetude, and the contrary Custom hath taken place.  
To which it was replied, for the Pursuer, that this allegiance of Custom, is most groundless and frivolous, seing that any Custom that can be condescended on, is merely consuetudo facti, which hath no binding power, or warrant in it. Because 1. It is but resent, and none of the late Erections of Regalities, hath yet so much as attained to prescription, much less can a binding Custom be thence inferred. 2. Because this Custom is not general, or universal, which is another character of a binding Custom. 3. Because no Custom contrary to Law, or private Right, can never be binding, but this Custom of Regalities is contrary to Law, viz. The foresaid express Act of Parliament, and albeit it be granted, that the said Act of Parliament is not in that fresh observance, to cry down, and reduce all contrair Reg●lities, yet it will not be doubted, but that the Act of Parliament is still of that consideration, as to hinder any Custom to prescribe against it, in prejudice of any mans private Right; And it is very observable, that the Act of Parliamenr hath not only since been made a perpetual Article of our Kings Revocations, who expressly revoke all Regalities, as contrary to Law, but hath also still had the force, that to this day it cannot be condescended on, that ever there was such a Decision establishing a Regality, by way of Regality, against any other mans Right, and that the foresaid Custom of Regality is contrary to private Right cannot be denied, even by the Defenders, since it no dobut, deminishes the Right of the heritable Sheriffs, where ever it happens: And therefore can never be judged a binding Custom. And further, it is certain, that if all Scotland should by never so long one acquiescence, much more, when the acquiescence is not yet the length of Prescription, suffer their private Rights to be diminished, yet it would never prove a Custom to bind any single man, who had stood out to depart from his Right, it being in this case absolutely necessary, that Customs prejudicial in this sort should be established by a tract of Decisions, to give them the force of a binding Law, nor doth this in the least militat against the Kings power and gift, who certainly never gives any thing to the prejudice of private Rights, but if any Gift of that kind happen to be Impetrat, it is only periculo impetrantis, but in so far as it debords from the intention of the Kings Justice and Goodness; it is to be understood as the dead of the Impetrator, rather than of His Majesty. But 4. The late Gifts of Regalities have for the most part been reclaimed against by Protests taken in Exchequer, whereof many instances can be given, and particularly the Pursuer produces the Protest, both taken and admitted in Exchequer, against the Regality of Athol by the Earls of Argile and Breadalbin, and several others: By all which it is evident, that the alleged custom of granting Regalities, is only consuetudo facti, and no binding Custom to found any defence in prejudice of the Pursuer. And father, if it were worth the inquiry, it would be found that the acquiescing of persons concerned to the foresaid new Erections, hath proceeded from private Motives and Bargains, but it is enough for the Pursuer, that this pretended Custom cannot be alleged to be a binding Custom, and that he for himself is very far from acquiescing to it.  
3. It was alleged for the Defender, that the King hath always granted, and every day grants new Baronies within heritable Sheriff-ships, and the same neither has, nor can be questioned. If then he grant Baronies, why not Regalities? Seing magis & minus non variant speciem.  
To which it was replied, 1. That the Maxim majus & minus non variant speciem, was never admitted either in Morals, politics, or Questions of Law. 2. That the difference betwixt Baronies and Regalities is vast, in as far as it is certain, that except a small Right of pretension, the Baron hath nothing that in the least prejudges the Sheriff; and the same Right of pretension is in effect rather an ease than prejudice to the Sheriff; whereas a Regality is quiter privative of the Sheriffs Jurisdiction, diminishes his Territorium, and consequently both his Jurisdiction and Imperium, and erects a new Jurisdiction, as distinct from, and Collateral with him, as a new Sheriff-ship, and all within the Sheriff-bounds, whereby in effect by a few more Regalities, the Sheriff-Shire may be quiter evacuat. But 3. Baronies as they are no ways privative of the Sheriffs Jurisdiction, so they are therewith plainly co-ordinat and subordinat thereto within the same bounds, and perpetually owned as such by all our Acts of Parliament; so that the Law arising from these Acts, doth establish Baronies; whereas on the other hand the Acts of Parliament Reprobat Regalities, unless granted in Parliament, and all our Kings have constantly revocked them, which is a most manifest disparity. And whereas it was alleged by the Defender, that Regalities and Baronies were in this equal, because the power of Regalities was as well defined by Law, as the power of Baronies, which is all the Argument imports. It was replied, that the Argument is not taken from the abstract power of Baronies, but the disparity alleged by the Pursuer lies in this, that the very co-ordination & subordination of Baronies within Shires, appears to be constantly supposed and ratified by Acts of Parliament, which can no ways be said of Regalities, which not only excludes the Sheriffs power, but are expressly condemned by several Acts of Parliament.  
But 4. The manifest disparity betwixt Baronies and Regalities, in order to Sheriff-ships, lies in this; that the Sheriff is in effect a Superior Officer to the Baron: so that the making of an heritable Sheriff doth no more hinder the making of a Baron, than the making of any other Superior Officer hinders the making of an Inferior, which as to Regalities is quiter contrary, in as much as a Regality is plainly exclusive and privative of the Sheriffs power, and so cuts off his Territory: That if all the Shire were erected in Regalities, the Sheriff and his heritable Office should become a cipher, and he obliged to pay a Reddendo for just nothing, which can never be so much as thought of Baronies. But to clear this point to full satisfaction, it is to be remembered, that Baronies are certainly the first and most ancient Feudal Dignities and Jurisdictions that are known: Likeas the Barons make the most considerable State in the Kingdom; and it is amongst the chief of His Majesties Prerogatives, that he creates Barons at his pleasure; next that Sheriffs were superinduced to Barons, for the better Government and Policy of the Kingdom, being appointed to their respective Shires and Provinces, including several Baronies, and as a Superior Officer over the Barons; and therefore the Sheriff is by our old Lawyers most fitly called and compared to the Praeses Provinciae among the Romans, and the Barons are obliged to attend as suitors in his Courts, and he may sit or appoint persons to sit with the Barons in their Courts: And father,, of old there lay an Appeal from the Baron to the Sheriff: Whence it follows, 3. That as this superinducing of Sheriffs did diminish nothing of the Barons Rights, so the Office of Sheriff being Superior, doth still imply a power to the King, to Creat Inferior Barons as formerly; and being thus co-ordinat with, and subordinat to the Sheriff within the same Bounds, and constantly approven for such by our Acts of Parliament, it is scarce possible to imagine how the making of an heritable Sheriff should hinder the after-creating of Baronies, since it plainly here includes that power as naturally reserved. But 4. As to Regalities all things ●r● contrary, For first. It may well be believed that their Original was a Church encroachment upon the Crown, and that it was in effect the prelates of the Church who alway pretending to Exemptions, restend not till they got their Prelacies erected in Regalities. 2. That it is very likely that some of the greater Barons were encouraged by their example, and got their Lands erected in Regalities, when probably there were few heritable Sheriff-ships. But 3. This is certain that there is no mention of Regalities in our old Law, until the Reign of Robert the Second, so it is manifest that the Abuse of Regalities was soon noticed, viz. In the Reign of King James the Second, and no doubt it was both for their encroachments upon the Crown, and their encroachments upon Sheriffs and other ordinary Jurisdictions, that by the Act of Pael. Ja. 2. par. 11. 43. cap. they were discharged to be granted without deliverance of the Parliament: Likeas ever since they have made an Article in our Kings Revocations, by all which it is evident, that Baronies are co-ordinat and connatural to Sheriff-ships, whereas Regalities are privative, and effect destructive of them, so that to argue from the instance of Baronies, which is most consistent with a Sheriff-ship to that of Regalities, which is utterly inconsistent, is ill and absurd logic.  
The Defender did here take notice, that heritable Officers are likewise discharged in the very next Law to that discharging Regalities, but that is nothing to the present purpose, seing the Pursuer is not craving that the Defenders Regality may be simply discharged, but only contends that so long as heritable Offices and Regalities are both allowed, the Defenders Regality ought and should be restricted, and declared not to extend to the Pursuers prejudice.  
4. The Defender alleged, that it was incontraverted, that Stewartries might be Erected even where there are heritable Sheriffs, but to that it was shortly and plainly replied, but there was no Parity betwixt Stewartries and Regalities, in as much as Stewartries are only Erected in, and over the Kings Property, and it cannot be doubted that the granting of a heritable Sheriff-Ship does naturally imply that Exception. viz. That the King may exempt his own Property from the Sheriffs Power, unless that any man can think, that the King himself and his Court residing as they may do with in the Kings Property, should yet be subject to the Sheriffs Jurisdiction, which were absurd, but as to Regalities there is no such ground for their Erection, but they are in effect discharged by Law as Invasions both of the King and Sheriffs Rights.  
5. It was alleged for the Defender, that the King might erect Burghs Royal within heritable Sheriff ships, and therefore may also erect Regalities; To which it was replied. 1. That a Burgh-Royal as to the points of Jurisdiction differs little or nothing from the power of a Barony, and therefore is only to co ordinat and not at all exclusive of the Sheriff. 2. That the distinguishing privileges of a Burgh-Royal, are the Liberties of Trade and the Immunities thereto pertaining, which are nothing prejudicial to the Sheriff-ship. 3. That if a Burgh royal came to be Erected with the Power of Sheriff-ship, as several Burghs have it, no doubt a heritable Sheriff would have both Law and Reason to oppose it and it could not in Law be granted to his prejudice. And 4. The erecting of Burghs-royal, which makes the Third State of the Kingdom, is peculiar to his Majesties Prerogative, which must still be understood to be excepted, and untouched in the Grant of any heritable Sheriff ship; But as to Regalities they only derogat from the Kings power and casualties, & are inconsistent with and privative of the Sheriff, Jurisdiction, and therefore are by Law discharged, and every heritable Sheriff is most clearly founded in the surest Rules of Law and Right to oppose them in so far as they encroach upon, or are prjudicial to his Right and heritable Office.  
6. It was father moved by the Defender, that the Pursuer might declare whether he did insist for reducing of his Regality simpliciter as encroaching upon, and prejudicial to his Right of heritable Sheriff-ship, or if he only craved the said regality te be reduced, as to these Powers and Jurisdictions, wherein it did prejudge the ●ursuers foresaid heritable Office, for seing that a Regality did include a Jurisdiction, viz. as to the Power of Life and Death, and Crimes capital greater than was competent to the Sheriff, and did also give Right to the Escheats and other casualties, which the Sheriff had no Right to it was more reasonable that the Pursuer should only quarrel the Defenders Regality as to these points wherein it concurred with and diminished the Sheriffs Right, but not at all as to these other Powers and casualties to which the Sheriff could not pretend.  
To which it was replied for the Pursuer, that he insisted in the Conclusion of his Declarator as lybelled, viz. to hear and see it declared, that the Defenders Regality could not be extended to any part of the bounds of the Shire nor was it he to divide and distinguish the foresaid Right of Regality which he conceived to be jus individuum, and to be so granted by then Defenders signature. 2. If the Defender should offer to divide and distinguish his Regality in manner foresaid, viz. that it should only subsist within the bounds of the Shire as to these Powers and casualties that did not at all pertain to the Office of Sheriff-ship, this was not only to set up a new Office, but a manifest Impingement upon the Act of Parliament discharging the Kings casualties to be given away in great as of a Shire or country side; For albeit something might be pleaded for the generality of a Right to Escheats when only given as a consequent of the Jurisdiction of Regality, yet to pretend that the Right to the Escheats in general should subsist where the power of Jurisdiction was substracted, was plainly contrair to the foresaid Act of Parliament, and therefore the Pursuer insisted to have the Defenders Regality in so far as it encroached upon the bounds of the Shire simpliciter reduced, and that without any distinction, since the Defenders Gut contained none, and was in so far privative and exclusive of the Pursuers heritable Office, which neither the nature of his Right nor Law did allow.  
The Pursuers might father represent to the Lords, the particular inconveniencies of extending this Highland Regality as in effect it was to the bounds of the Lowlands, but seing the Pursuer was sufficiently founded in the point of Right in general, viz. that his Property and Right of heritable Sheriff could not be taken from him either in whole or in part, without his own dead or the force of a Law, and that the extending of this Regality within the Bounds of the Shire was really in so far privative and exclusive of the Sheriffs heritable Office, that therefore in so far it ought to be reduced.  
The Pursuer doth father, with all Submission offer to the Lords consideration, That albeit it may be yielded, That the giving of Regalities in general, have not these many years been quarreled upon the foresaid Act of Parliament, as granted without deliverance of Parliament, yet that may be as true upon the other hand, that hitherto no Decision of the Lords can be condescended on positively, sustaining a Gift of Regality, without deliverance of Parliament, contrairy to the said Act, much less sustaining the same in a direct Opposition to, and Competition with another heritable Office, standing unreduced.  
The Defender did also allege, That his Regality was Ratified in parliament, But 1. a Ratification in Course, and which passes salvo jure, is not at all the Deliverance of Parliament requisite by the foresaid Act, to make a Gift of Regality lawful. And 2. The Pursuer did protest against the foresaid Ratification in Parliament, as he had protested against the Gift, when it past the Exchequer, whereby it was certain, that the Pursuer did preserve his Right unprejudged by the foresaid Ratification, as the Act salvo jure expressly statute.  
By all which, it is evident, That the Defenders Right of Regality cannot subsist within the bounds of the Shire, to the manifest hurt of the Pursuers heritable Office of Sheriff-ship and that the Pursueris founded both in a common Right, and likeways, on the foresaid Acts of Parliament, That the foresaid heritable Right of Sheriff-ship, which is his Property, cannot be taken from him without his own dead, or the force of Law, which is equivalent by the Defenders inconsistent privative and exclusive Regality.  
The Defender, since the Debate, and which he may possibly insert in his Information, alleges, out of Hopes Collection, That there was an Act of Parliament in K. James the fourth's time, empowering the King to Unite, disjoin, and Erect Sheriff-ships, as he should see cause, without consent of Parliament, whence it is inferred, That the King by virtue of his sovereign Power, may erect Regalities within Sheriff-ships, and dispon on Sheriff-ships at his pleasure.  
To which it is Answered. 1. No such Act of Parliament Printed. 2. That in the same Kings Reign, in his sixth Parliament, cap. 61. The Sheriff-ships of Ross and Caithness were Erected, but by an express and public Act of Parliament; So that it is not likely, that either K. James, or any other of our Kings allow that Power by themselves, and it may also be remembered that it was by Act of Parliament in the years 1661, or 1692, that the Shires of Ross and Inverness were divided; And also by an Act of Parliament in the year 1685, that the Shire of Kinross was augmented. But 3. What ever may be of these Acts, yet it is certain, that all Acts are only to be civilly understood, that is, that the King may Unite, disjoin, or Erect by himself, where there is no heritable Office, but where there was, or is an heritable Office, the consent of the Sheriff, or else a Statute of Parliament is absolutely requisite. And 4. That the King doth not acclaim the absolute Power of disposing upon heritable Sheriff-ships, is manifest by the Acts of Parliament 1633, And the Surrender that poceeded, and the care that the King took at that time, to buy in heritable Sheriff-ships,, which had been a needless, and lost Expense, if so be the King might dispose upon heritable Sheriff-ships at his pleasure. And therefore, since the King hath always acknowledged the Right of the heritable Sheriffs, and that it could not be taken from them, without a lawful Purchase, it is impossible, that the Regalities can be Erected within their Bounds without their Consent to their prejudice.  
In respect whereof, The Regality in favours of the Laird of Grant, in sua far as the same comprehends Lands lying within the Sheriffdom of Elgin and forest, alias Sheriffdom of Murray, whereof the said Alexander Dumbar of Westfield is heritable Sheriff ought to be Reduced, and the Laird of Grant Decerned in the Expenses sustained by the Sheriff in maintaining his own Right, and reducing the said Regality, whereupon the Sheriff is willing to depone.