INFORMATION FOR THE LAIRD OF GRANT Against The Laird of WESTFIELD.  
THE Laird of Grant having obtained his Lands to be erected in a Regality, the said Laird of Westfield, as pretending Right to the Hererable Sheriffship of Murran, within which some of the Lands ly, did raise a Process before the Lords of Session, for Reducing of the Signature in favours of Grant, and declaring that his Regality could not extend to any Lands lying within the bounds of the heritable Sheriffship. And Grant did likewise raise Reduction and Declarator of the said Alexander Dumbar of Westfield's Right to the Sheriffship.  
The Question in these mutual Processes being not only in relation to Civil Right, but having extended to the consideration of His Majesty's Royal Prerogative, and the Extent of the Jurisdiction and Interest of the Regalities and Sheriffships in general. The Case was Remitted to be considered by the Parliament.  
Westfield's Ground of Reduction and Declarator is founded upon the common Brocard, Quod meum est fine facto meo auferri non potest: And he did subsume, That his heritable Office of Sheriffship within the bounds of his Right, was his undoubted Property; and therefore could neither be diminished nor taken away, in whole nor in part, but by his Consent, or Order of Law.  
On the other Hand Grant did repeat his Reduction of the Sheriff's Right, with a Declarator of the Right and privilege of his Regality: And the mutual Reasons of Reduction did result in Defences.  
It was alleged for Grant. That his Right of Regality was validly founded upon the Kings prerogative. 1mo. Because the King is not so denuded by granting a Sheriffship, as that he may not grant other Jurisdictions within the Sheriffdom; seing the Right of Sheriffship is but a naked Office appointed for the execution of the laws, & the King to whom the execution of the Laws does belong jure majestatis has essentially, notwithstanding of whatsomever Commissions granted for executing of these Laws, power to grant new Commissions also often as it shall seem expedient or useful: And the Sheriffship and Regalitys, are of quiter different Natures, the Office of a Sheriff being nudum ministerium, whereas the jurisdiction of Regalitys is not only a teritorial Jurisdiction over the Lord of Regality's own Vassals and tenants, but has several other privileges which do unquestionably belong to His Majesty to dispose of, as being inter regalia, 2do. The King has been in constant use to 〈◇〉 Regality's within the bounds of Shireffships, and there are almost innumberable instances of His Majesty and His Prodecessors having granted, both Ancient and Recent Regalities, such as the Regalities in favours of the Marques of Douglas, in favours of the Duke of Hamiltoun and many others that may be name. 3tio Besides the Kings Right and custom of granting Regalities, there concurs here an universal and constant acquiescence; So that the Sheriff of Murray is the first that ever has drawn His Majesty's Prerogative as to that matter in question. 4to. Besides, the Kings Right, Custom, and the long acquiescence of all having interest, the Kings power is likewise fortified by the Opinion of lawyers and particularly Mckenzies Criminals Part: 2. Tit: 9: N. 4. Where he Cites Hope who observes the same to have been decided, and instances a particular Case in his own time 5t●. The Kings right & power is further established by the daily custom of erecting baronies. Burghs Royal, and Stewartrys within heritable Sheriffships; and albeit the Jurisdiction of the Barons be only cumulative; yet still it lessons and diminishes the Jurisdiction of the Sheriff and prejudges him, and consequently it is an undeniable evidence that the King by granting of a Sheriffship, is not excluded from erecting other fewdal Jurisdictions within that bounds, whereby the Sheriffs Jurisdiction may be impaired and diminished, and that the Rights by which the Sheriffs enjoy their Offices are not considered as other Rights of Property; but only as nuda officia & ministeria. 6to. Et separatim by the 44 Act of Parliament 11. Ja: 2. It is statute, That no Office in time coming be given in fie and heritage, which Act is the foundation of all the Revocations made by our Kings since: So that unless Westfield's Right of Sheriffship were instructed to be more Ancient than the foresaid Act; it is against Law, and can be no pretence to quarrel His Majesty's Right, and this is objected not only as a Nullity against the Sheriffs Title, but as a Reason of Reduction.  
It was Answered for Westfield, 1mo. That the Right of Sheriffship was also much a Right of Property, as the Right communicat to the Lords of Regality: And by the Defender's way of arguing, he lays the Foundation to destroy the Right of the Lords of Regality, as well as the Right of heritable Sheriffs: For if the King can notwithstandding of the Sheriffship, erect a new Regality within the same bounds, because he can never be so divested by any Commission, that he may not grant a new Commission for executing of the Laws as he sees expedient: Then by the same Reason, no Grant of a Regality can hinder him to erect a new Jurisdiction within the Regality. 2do. An heritable Office is truly a Right of Property, although it be quid incorporeum: For it hath all the Marks and Characters of any other Right, in so far as it may be transmitted to Heirs, Gifted. Sold, or apprized: And even the King's Majesty did so far consider heritable Sheriffships as Rights of Property that heritable Sheriffships have been bought by our Kings for considerable Prices: And it is certain, that the Emoluments and Profits of heritable Offices are in Patrimonio. 3tio. If the Defenders reasoning can be allowed, then the King might erect another Sheriffship within the bounds of an heritable Sheriffship: For it is certain, that a Regality being a Privative Jurisdiction, does also formally constitute a distinct Territory, as if there were a New Shireffship erected within the bounds of an Old Shireffdom. 4to. As a further evidence, that the heritable Office of Shireff is a Right of Property; it has a distin●t Reddendo and Duty payed for it every Year to the Exchequer. And 5to. To put the Matter beyond question the Act 18 Parl. 1681. having declared, That notwithstanding of the Jurisdictions and Offices bestowed by his Majesty and his Predecessors upon his well deserving Subjects; yet his Majesty might by himself, or any commissionat by him, take cognizance of any Case or Cause, as he pleaseth: That Act is rescinded is by the 28 Act Parl. 1690; whereby all pretence of Power to erect new Jurisdictions within the bounds of heritable Offices, is entirely excluded: And in Anno 1693. the King and Parliament were so tender of heritable Offices, that when the Commission for the Justiciary in the Highlands was granted, they would not encroach upon the Earl of Argile's heritable Justiciary.  
Before Grant make any duply, for clearing of this point in question, it is to be considered. 1. That regularly in conferring of Offices with jurisdiction, there is special regard had to the fitness of the person, and the jurisdiction is personal, and can neither be convoyed nor transmitted to singular successors. 2. Although this did obtain by the Principles of the Common Law; yet the Fewdal customs did introduce Territorial jurisdictions, which was the Right of Jurisdiction granted to a Proprietar or Superior over his own tenants, Vassals and Servants, which came to be a part of his property, and was a quality of his Possession, and was transmitted to his Heirs and was convoyed with the Territory, to which it was above annexed; And as to which he was constitute the Kings Vassal, and obliged to answer in his Majestys Courts. 3 Of these Barons, some had more extensive and larger privilege, and enjoyed more of the regalia and some less, as appears by our Ancient Laws, and particularly by the 9 Cap. of the Statutes of King Maicom the second. Its evident that there was a distinction by the Chartors of the privileges of barons: And it does likewise appear by the Satutes of the said King Malcom, and of King Alexander the Second, That the Jurisdiction, the Power of repledging the Right of the Escheats competent to the Ancient barons, was in effect the same Power which more lately came to be distinguished by the name of Regalities. 4. As there was Anciently Established the Territorial and Fewdal Jurisdiction of the Barons; so there were other Officers who had no such Fewdal Rights, but had Commission from the Government for the more Universal application & security of the public Laws & quiet, such as were the Chamberland Heirs, whose Jurisdiction was over the Burrows, the Justice Heirs, whose circuits took in the rest of the Kingdom the Sheriffs, whose duty consisted Chiefly in publishing the Laws, maintaining the quiet, and seeing these Laws with the sentence of the Justice Heirs put in Execution, and he had a Jurisdiction Civil and Criminal for these effects; but still it appears that that Office was but personal; and therefore by the Statutes of Robert the Third they might be removed from their Office, and another might be put in in their place, and the last day of the Justice Heir the Sheriff was to those an assize for trial, if he had used and done his office truly. 5. The Rights of the Sheriffships coming in the hands of considerable persons, by abuse were perpetuat, and at last it seems, that although there is no Precedent for such a jurisdiction, whereby a person and his Heirs comes for ever to be interposed betwixt his Majesty and his Subjects, who are no other way subject to the Sheriff either as Vassals or tenants; yet the Office insensibly came to be heritable. 6. It is probable that these encroachments did oblige the greater barons to secure themselves in their Ancient privileges and Rights by obtaining Chartors asserting these privileges, which gave the rise to formal Erection of Regalities.  
This being premised, it is easy to take off the Pursuers reply, and first there is a manifest Disparity betwixt the case of Regalitys and Sheriffships, for the Sheriffship is but a naked Office and Commission: which the King can never so absolutely grant, as to divest himself of the Royal and Supereminent Jurisdiction which is lodged in His Majesty for the Execution of the Laws and public Good, and of granting of Fews with the full extent of all privileges which have a Name in our Law, and are clear by constant custom, and such are Regalitys which are a part of the Fie and Property of His Majestys vassals, over their own proper Tennnets, or their S●b-vassalls, and the King can also little be divested of that Power, as he can be of the privilege of erecting barons, which is but a lesser instance of the same Authority: And hence it is evident, That though the King can erect a Regality, which is a Quality of a Mans own Property within the Sheriffship, yet he cannot erect a Jurisdiction within the Regality, because that were indeed to impair a proper Right of Fie.  
2do. From the same Reason it is evident, That all these Instances of transmitting to Heirs. Gifting, Selling, Apprising, which are now established by Custom, have been at first introduced by Abuse, and are really contrary to the Nature of a personal Office: But whatever Custom may have established as to these instances; yet there is no instance which is or can be condescended upon, wherever it was pretended, that the granting of an heritable Shireffship did hinder the King to erect a Man's own Lands with special privileges of Jurisdiction; as to that Point we have no such Custom; and all these Transmissions are always understood to be under the Burden; and but prejudice to his Majesty's Right, for the good of his other Subjects: And albeit King Charles l. did purchase the Right of several heritable Shireffships; yet that was not so directly an Acknowledgement of their Property, as it was a Measure of Government, to which his Majesty condeseended, to avoid the Discontent of Great Men.  
3tio. And as to the pretence, That the King might as well evacuat the whole Right of the Sheriffship, by erecting New Shires within Old ones, as erecting Regalities; or the King might evacuate the Sheriffs heritable Right, by erecting the whole Lands within the Bounds of the Shire into Regalities. It is Duplied, 1mo. It is a vain Supposition, which probably cannot take effect. 2do. The erecting of a Shire within a Shire, were indeed to evacuat the Sihreffs Right; but there is no consequence to be drawn from the present Case, that may infer such a Power: For it does not follow, the King may erect Regalitys within a Shire, ergo he may erect a a Shire within a Shire, for the interest and power of Sheriffs and bailies of Regalitys are of quiter different Natures, the Right of regalitys is a Right of Fie and property, as has been said, and has several other privileges in it which does not belong to a Sheriff, such as the Rights to Escheats and Replegiation with several others, all which are granted with express regaird and consideration, that the Lords of Regality are Proprietors and Superiors of the Lands contiained in the Rega●ity. 3tio. The granting of a Regality does not evacuat or exhaust the Sheriffs Jurisdiction for several other Rights and privileges both of Jurisdiction and Dignity, which belong to the Sheriffs notwithstanding the Erection of Regalities, such as, The publishing of Laws, Seeing the same put to Execution, The calling together the Shire upon certain occasions, The raising the Posse comitatus, And by the 97 Act Parl. 7. Ja: 5. in some Cases if the Officers of Regality be found negligent, being required thereto, it is Leisum for the King's Sheriff to put the Acts in Execution, even within the Regality, and if the Shireff shall attatch any party within the Regalities, the Lord of Regality cannot repledge without finding Caution to do Justice, and if he does not Justice within Year and Day, the Sheriff may proceed. Whereby it is evident, that notwithstanding the Feudal Jurisdiction of the Regality, with the privileges granted to it; yet there remains very considerable Power and Authority to the Sheriffs. And the Defender needs not pled, That the King may evacuat obsolutely the Right of heritable Sheriffships, but that the granting of heritable Offices to Shireffs, does not divest the King of erecting Fews with the privileges of less or more of the Regalia, to his other well deserving Subjects, as his Majesty sees just.  
As to the Pretence, That the Sheriff has a particular Reddendo in his Chartor for his Office with a particular duty for which he counts yearly, and consequently that his Right is of Fie and not of naked office. It is Duplied, That the Sheriff and his Predecessors might have obtained their Chartors expede in what form they pleased periculo petentium: But that can never change the Nature of the thing, & there can never be a Fie without a Tenement either in Property or Superiority, or which does not in some manner affect Lands and Heretages: And therefore the Office of Sheriff is a naked Office, as has been said: Nor can the Sheriff by any constitution of Fie, be interposed betwixthis Majesty and his other Vassals.  
5to. As to the pretence. That the Act of Parliament 1681, asserting the Kings cumulative jurisdiction and power by himself, or any Commissionat by him to take cognizance of whatsomever case or Causes, notwithstanding of heritable Offices being reschinded by the Act 1690. It does exclude his Majesties power of erecting Regalities within the bounds of Heritable Sheriffships.  
It is Duplyed, that the recission of the foresaid Act 1681, does not at all concern this Case; for the reason why that Act was declared a grievance, and afterward rescinded, is explained by the Eight Article of the claim of Right, whereby it is declared, that the employing the Officers of the Army as Judges thorough the Kingdom, or the imposing of them, where there were Heritable Offices and jurisdictions, and the putting the revenges to death summarily, and without legal trial, Jury or Record, are contrary to Law. Whence it is evident, that as that Act was calculate to serve the design of granting Commissions to Officers of the Army, with powers which had no determined name of Office or jurisdiction in Law, but was to be exercised against all Law, and the common Principles of Humanity; so it was only a grievance, and was rescinded upon that account; but the jurisdiction of Regalities has a name, and certain limits and form of procedor prescrived and to be found in our law, and they have been granted since also well as before, and did neither arise nor depend upon that Law; and consequently neither the Regalities themselves, nor the Power to grant them can fall with it.  
It was further Replied for Westfield, That whereas it is pretended, That the King has been in use to erect Regalities within heritable Sheriffships; The said Use and Power is Consuetudo facti, which has no binding Power or warrant in it; because, First, these Erections are but recent, and have not as yet attained to Prescription. 2do. The Custom is not General or Universal, which is another Character of a Binding Custom. 3tio. Such a Custom can never be a Rule; because it is both contrary to Law, viz. the 43 Act Par. 11. Ja. ll. and private Right; which though it were not a sufficient Reason to reduce all the Regalities that are granted long since, yet it is sufficient to hinder such an encroachment to be established by a Custom and Rule; especially seing no such Grant has ever been confirmed by a Sentence in judicio contradictorio. 4to. Such Regalities have not been acquiesced in, but there has Protestations been taken at their passing in Exchequer; as particularly at the passing of the Regality in Athole, Protestations were taken by the E. of Argile and Broadalbin: And if it were necessar, it would be found, that these Erections owe their firmest Establishments to particular Transactions.  
It is duplyed, that the Establishment of a Custom, does neither require that length of time which is necessary for Prescription nor Universality of Acts: Nay, nor judicial Sentences for Custom is defined to be diuturni mores consensu utentium comprobati, and is also sufficiently established by a frequency of Acts, whether Judicial or extra-judicial in Ten Years as in Forty, provided that these Acts be not Clandistine and of small moment, but be so public, so frequent, and so importent as to infer a Presumption of the Knowledge and Approbation of the People and supreme Authority, and it will not be controverted, that in the matter of erecting of Regalitys, all these have concurred in the most eminent degree, not for the course of 10, 20, or 40 Years, but in every Kings Reign also far we have records, not in one corner of the country, but thorough the whole Kingdom, and particularly in the Shire of Murray, in favours of the Duke of Gordon and the Earl of Murray, nor in smaller and inconsiderable cases, great Lordships and Baronys have been erected and endued with these privileges, nor Clandestinly, being granted by His Majesty and his Predecessors past in the Courts of Thesaury and Exchequer, ratified in the high Court of Parliaments; and the Sentences of the bailies of the Regality have, and are daily brought under Consideration of the Lor●s of Session in processes, in the same manner as the Sentences of other ordinary Judges, besides many other instances which might be given for clearing how publictly and constantly such erections are granted and exerced: So that to deny custom, in this Case is against all Reason, and plain Conviction.  
And as to the pretence, That sometimes Protestations have been used and trasactions betwixt Lords of Regality and heritable Shireffs. It is duplyed, That these instances are very few, nor are the Reasons of these Protestations known, Regalitys have been granted sometimes irregularly, as when there are Lands contained in the Grant, which do not belong to the Lord of Regality, either in Property, or Superiority, in which case Protestations may be interposed, without weakening the general Custom; and however, a few Protestations taken sometimes officiously, and upon Reasons which we do not know now, but whereof never one was prosecut to this day, cannot overturn His Majestys prerogative so clearly established by the general Acquiescence and implyed Approbation of the whole Kingdom.  
And whereas it was further pretended, That custom could not be established contrary to Law and private Right, and that Regalitys are discharged by the 43 Act Par: 11: Ja. 2. It is answered, That heritable Sheriffships are much more against Law, as shall afterwards appear, and Regalitys are not simply discharged, but discharged without deliverance of Parliament, and the present Regality has obtained a deliverance of Parliament. Viz. A Ratification, which by constant Custom appears to be all the deliverance requisite, seing no Regality ever obtained more, and though Ratifications do fall under the Act salvo; Yet that cannot take place in this Case. 1mo. Because this Ratification is all that the Law requires, being a deliverance of the Parliament, as said is. 2do. The Sheriff can have no benefit by the Act salvo, because the Parliament could not have considered his Right, suppose he had compeared, seing his heritable Office was against Law, and therefore the Parliament could only have considered the Kings, or the public, interest, and neither the King, nor the public are here complaining of Grants Regality.  
It was further replied for Westfield, That there is no evidence either from the opinion of Lawyers or custom to fortify the Defenders allegiance of custom, and no regard ought to be had to the decision, cited from Hope, because the Parties are not mentioned, nor the ratio decidendi, nor is that Book of equal Authority with the Book called Hopes Minor Practiques. It is Duplyed, that that Decision is marked in Hope as several other Decisions are that are incontroverted, and although that work did not receive the last hand to persite it; yet what he asserts in matter of Fact, being a person of undoubted integrity, ought to be believed not only as true in Fact, but to be our practise, which seems to be the design of the Observations, and Sir George M●kenzie in the forecited place does not only give his judgement in the terms of the Defenders allegiance, but gives a practic of his time.  
It was yet further replied for the Pursuer, That whereas Grant did allege, that the Kings privilege of erecting of Baronies within heritable Shireffships was a further evidence of his Power to erect Regalities, that the difference betwixt Baronies and Regalities is vast, in also far as the Barons had nothing but a small Right of pretention, which did not prejudge the Shireff, nor diminish his Territorium, but the Right of Baronies was coordinate and subordinat to the Jurisdiction of the Sheriffs, and owned by all our Acts of Parliament as such, and in effect the Sheriff is a superior Officer to the Baron; So that the making of an heritable Shireff doth no more hinder the making of a baron, than the making of an superior Officer hinders the making of an inferior. And indeed the Barons had the most Ancient Fewdal dignitys and Jurisdiction, and the Shireffs were superinduced to them for better policy and Government of the Kingdom in their several districts, Therefore the Shireff is compared to the praeces provinciae amongst the Romans, and the Barons were the Suitors in his Court, so that the superinducing the Shireffs did not diminish the Barons Power, nor does the creating of Barons, being coordinat with and subordinat to the Shireff, diminish his Territory or jurisdiction; and therefore there can be no Argument drawn from the creating of Barons to infer a Power of Erecting Regalities within the districts of heritable Sheriffs, for in Regalities all things are just contrary, the Right of regality is privative of the Sheriffs jurisdiction. 2do. The Right of Regalities is so far from being owned by the Law, or as Co●ordinat or subordinat to the Sheriff that they are against Law, and particularly the foresaid Act Ja: 2d. and are revocked by all our Kings. 3tio. The Regalities was an encroachment upon the Shireffs, introduced first by the arogance and ambition of the Popish Clergy, who would at any rate be independent, even in matter of Jurisdiction, and whose example was probably copied by the greater Barons, nor is there any mention of Regalitys elder than the Reign of King Robert the 2d. although the Shireffs are of a much Ancienter date.  
It is Duplied, 1mo. That the Reply does not at all answer or take off the Defence, but avoids it, and mis-leads the Mind by a pleasant account of Things, which with some Probabilities, contains some evident Mistakes. The Objection is, That the creating of a baron, who has a most Ancient and certain Fewdal Jurisdiction is to creat a new Jurisdiction within the Sheriffs Bounds, which necessarily must diminish the Sheriffs Jurisdiction in as far as he can prevent him, but the King can creat a baron, Ergo he can diminish the Sheriffs Jurisdiction; which is inconsistent with Westfield's Alledgiance of Property: For it is equally against Law to take away any part of a Man's Property, as to take away the whole, although the damage be not equal: 2do. The terms of Co-ordination and Subordination, is merely to evade in For it is certain, that the Jurisdiction competent to a Baron, is at least Cumulative; and he can prevent the Shireff in such things as are contained in his Right; & where he prevents, he is neither in Sub-ordination nor Co-ordination, but excludes: And the granting a Power to Prevent, does certainly diminish the Interest of him who could not be prevented before. 3tio. Westfield's Information given in to the Lords, does plainly aclowledge, That the Office of Sheriff was no right of Fie, but was a mere Office with Jurisdiction for better Government and Policy, like the Praeses Provinciae amongst the Romans, which was but a temporary Jurisdiction. 4to. As to the Pretence, That Regalities differ from baronies, and are not mentioned till the Reign of Robert III. and were at first introduced by Churchmen, as an encroachment upon Sheriffs. It is Duplied, That the great baronies did anciently contain all, or the far greatest part of the privileges of Regalities, as can be cleared from the Statutes of K Malcom II. and K. William, as is above mentioned: There was indeed a Distinction betwixt the Greater and Lesler barons, as they had privilege More or Less in their Chartors: And when the Sheriffs began to incroatch upon the barons, it is probable they did assertain and establish their Rights by express Chartors, which gave rise to the Name and formal Erection of Regalities: But this was not to introduce a new Right, but to assert privileges anciently belonging to the Barons, contained in our oldest Laws: And the Caput 14. of the Statutes of King Rob: which Westfield alleges is the first expressly mentioning Regalities, does not speak of Regalities as a N●w Invention, but as a Jurisdiction that was then, and had been in use: So that it is most probable, that the Sheriff in several Points of his Office, and indeed in as far as he pretends to make his Office heritage, does encroach upon the Barons, who had, as is acknowledged, the most ancient Jurisdiction, and that the Rights of Regalities is but asserting the Rights of the great Barons in the Kingdom of Scotland.  
The Kings erecting of Stewarties within the Bounds of heritable Sheriffships, is a further evidence that the granting of such heritable Offices does not prelimit the King from erecting other sewdal Jurisdictions: And it does not import, that Stewartries were anciently of the Kings Property; for it is evident that Stewartries comprehends the Kings vassals as well as Shires, and by ceasing to be in the Kings Property, they do not return to fall under the lieretable Jurisdiction of the Sheriff.  
The erecting of a Burgh Royal within the bounds of an heritable Sheriff, is a further evident proof of His Majestys power notwithstanding of such Offices; and Westfield is forced to recur to this shifting alledgance, viz The erecting a Burgh Royal, which makes the 3d. State of the Kingdom is peculiarly His Majesty's Prorogative, which must still be understood to be excepted in the Grant of any heritable Sheriffship; whereas Regalitys derogat from the Kings Power and Casualitys.  
But this is easily taken off, for Grant does allege, that it is just also evidently the Kings peculiar Prerogative, and must be understood excepted from the Grants of heritable Sheriffships, to erect Regalitys or which is the same thing, to creat Borrons with more or less of the regalia in their Chartors.  
And as to The prejudice of the Kings Casualitys. It is jus tertii to the Sheriff, nor does the King grant any Casualitys to the Lords of Regalitys, but such as are disposed of every day.  
In all this Debate Westfield does not adduce any good Reason to take off the Act 44: Par. 11. Ja: 2. Whereby Offices given in Fie and heritage are discharged, and declared voided, nor is there a Latitude that they may be granted with deliverance in Parliament, nor indeed can there be any answer given, and this being an exception of Nullity against Westfield's Title, his pretensions fall.  
It is further alleged for Grant, That his Regality cannot be simply quarreled by the Sheriff, because his Right of Regality does comprehend a greater power than is competent to the Sheriff, and likewise the benefit of the Escheats and other-Casualitys to which the Sheriff had no Right, and therefore could not be allowed to reduce Grants Right simply.  
It was Answered for Westfield, 1mo. That the right of Regality being jus individuum, he had good Right to quarrel it; nor was he bound to divide and distinguish it. 2do. If the Defender should divide his Right of Regality, and maintain it only as to such casualties and Powers as did not belong to the Sheriff; Then this Gift would not only import a New kind of Office, but be a manifest Impingement upon the Act of Parliament, discharging the Kings Casualitys to be given away in Great, as of a Shire or Countrey-side.  
It is Replied, That here again Westfield endeavours to escape in Words: For the Right of Regality is not so jus individuum, as that it has no parts, and may be quarreled in part, and sustained in part, as if there were any new privilege contained in it, not usual in Regalities, or Lands not belonging to the Lord of Erection. 2do. The pretence that the Regality would be a new Office, if it were restricted by the Sheriffs private interest, is a mere Nicety, and it is no better pretence, that the granting of such Regalities would be a disposing of the casualties in great, contrary to the Act of Parliament; seeing it is evident that, that Act of Parliament does not exclude the Erection of Regalities, but concerns only such Cases where the casualties are directly and immediately disponed, not as the Consequences of any other Right or Erection: For as such the casualties have been and are constantly disponed; and they are not the casualties in the Terms of the Act 1670. Parl: 11. Ja: VI. which Act discharges the giving away the King's casualties in great, indeed, but the Examples are a whole Countrey-side, the hail Fews of a Prelacy, or the casualties of any special Crimes, but not the casualties of any Mans own Lands in property or superiority, which is not general or in gross but special, and comform to custom.  
Westfield does urge as a considerable Argument, That this erection is of a Highland Regality, which he incinuats, is of more dangerous consequence than other Regalities.  
To which it is Answered for Grant, that this deserves no manner of regard, being an allegiance merely injurious, and to pled favour. But 2. The Highland Landlords and Superiors being more rigorously tied by the Laws of the Nation for their Vassals tenants and Servants to present them to Justice, and to repair damages done by them, it is most just and reasonable that they should have greater ties upon them, and Jurisdiction over them, and on the other hand, the putting of a whole Country too absolutely under the Power of a Shireff, and that too, such a Shireff as Nature may turn up at hazard, may not only be unfit for the Country occasion, intestine disorders, but in many events may be unsafe for the public Government, so that this Argument does rather conclude for the necessity of such Regalities.  
It is therefore humbly expected, That seeing his Majesties undoubted Prerogative to erect Regalities, notwithstanding of the Hetetable Office of Shireffship, and that the saids Grants of Regalities do by the Interpretation of our Law, contain a Fewdal Jurisdiction with several other casualties; whereas the Right of Sherriffship is a mere personal Jurisdiction, introduced not to overturn the Ancient Rights of the barons, who enjoyed several of the Regalia by the Law, and their Chartors, nor the Kings privilege to grant them, but for better Government and policy. And seeing his majesty has been in constant use to grant the same, or like Rights of baronies, Stewartries or Burghs Royal, and that the said custom has been approven by a long constant and general acquiescence, and confirmed by the opinion of our Lawyers, and decisions without contradiction, till this Process: And also seeing that the drawing of this matter would make a strange couvulsion in the Nation, by exposing the many Rights granted by his Majesty and his Predecessors of this kind, and that Westfields Tittle and Right to the heritable Office is manifestly against Law, and consequently null, To assoilzie Grant from the foresaid Process, and to reduce Westfields Tittle to the Shireffship, in so far as concerns the Lands contained in the Regality: