iv preceded those of 1825: but they are now complete; and, with those by Mr Shaw, form a continuous series from 1821 to 1828 inclusive. Those from 1821 to 1824, are contained in two volumes; those in 1825, form the first volume by the present Reporters; those of 1826-7, the second; and those of 1828 are given in two parts of volume third, which it is expected those of 1829 will conclude. With regard to the plan of these Reports, a very few words will be sufficient. Every case in which judgment has been pronounced is reported, and the opinions of the Judges in the Court of Session, (where they have been preserved and are not to be found in any other collec tion, or where notes of them have been laid before the House of Lords), and also those delivered in the Supreme Tribunal, are introduced. Perhaps, in some instances, it may be thought that the Reports are more ample than the nature of the cases requires; but, in general, it will be found, that if they do not involve some legal principle, they convey information which may be valuable in a practical point of view. CASES DECIDED IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS ON APPEAL FROM THE COURTS OF SCOTLAND, 1826. The Earl and Countess of STRATHMORE, Appellants.- WILLIAM LAING, Respondent. Royal Palace-Poinding.-Held ex parte (reversing the judgment of the Court of Session), That the privilege of Royal Palace protects against poinding and letters of open doors within the precincts of the Palace of Holyrood-house, although his Majesty be not residing there when the diligence is attempted to be executed, the Palace being kept up as a place of royal residence. No. 1. 1st DIVISION. Lord Alloway. THE Abbey of Holyrood-house was founded by King David the Feb. 22, 1826. First in the year 1128, and among other privileges he endowed it with that of a Sanctuary. The Charter bears, Et prohibeo 'ne aliquis capiat pandum super terram sanctæ crucis, nisi ab'bas ejusdem loci rectum et jus facere recusaverit.' In 1528, James the Fifth erected at the south-west corner of the Abbey a royal palace; and on the suppression of religious houses in 1587, the whole domain, with the privileges thereto attached, was vested absolutely in the Crown. The Palace continued to be the principal residence of the Monarch till the accession to the throne of England, and was thereafter occasionally resorted to. It was, however, always kept up as a royal residence-was made the depot of a guard of honour-was given as a royal place of abode to the Princes of the House of Bourbon-and was more recently occupied, under a royal license, by the Archdukes of Austria and Prince Leopold. In 1822, King George IV. occupied the Palace, convened his Privy Council, and held his Courts there with all the appropriate indications and insignia of royalty. A Feb. 22, 1826. In 1815, the Countess of Strathmore, who was then Lady Campbell of Ardkinglass, obtained from his late Majesty a royal warrant to occupy and possess certain apartments in the Palace, which was there designated, our Palace of Holyrood.' She accordingly, in virtue of this warrant, took possession of certain apartments in the Palace, the furniture of which belonged to his Majesty, with the exception of some valuable pictures which were the property of her Ladyship and of the Earl of Strathmore, whom she had married while residing there. In 1820, William Laing, bookseller in Edinburgh, describing himself as a creditor of the Earl and Countess of Strathmore, gave them a charge of horning for payment of his debt, and on expiry of the charge, attempted to force an entry into the Palace for the purpose of executing a poinding of the pictures, which were in the royal apartments. There being reason to suspect the validity of these proceedings, from the debtors being furth of the kingdom, and the charge having been on induciæ of only six days, a second charge on sixty days was given. On its expiry, the messenger attempted to effect a forcible entrance to execute the poinding, and being denied admittance, he returned an execution of lock-fast doors. Laing then applied for and obtained letters of open doors; and he procured the concurrence of the Baron Bailie to the poinding over effects situated ' within the Sanctuary of Holyrood-house.' A bill of suspension and interdict having been presented by the Earl and Countess of Strathmore, and also a separate bill by the Officers of State, it was contended by the former, that a poinding within the Sanctuary was unlawful, and by them and the Officers of State, that at all events it was incompetent within the Royal Palace. Lord Meadowbank refused the bill for the Earl and Countess; and Lord Gillies refused that by the Officers of State. Both of these parties having reclaimed to the Second Division, Lord Robertson observed,―The first question is, how far it is lawful to poind within the Sanctuary? There is no doubt a privilege attached to it of protecting the person when the debtor is booked-but there is no such question here. The point is, whether it be lawful to execute diligence against the goods of the debtor which are situated there? I cannot discover any authority for protecting them; and so far I am clearly of opinion that the diligence is lawful. On the second question, whether it is competent to execute a poinding within the Royal Palace, there is more difficulty. In every country the place of the King's own residence stands in a different situation from his other domains. It possesses a peculiar jurisdiction, which is vested in a special officer, and is exclusive of that of all others. This is Feb. 22, 1826. bestowed to prevent broils and disturbances, and out of respect to the Sovereign. But this privilege is limited to the place of his actual residence-It rests on the respect due to the person of the Sovereign, and does not belong to every house where he may at one time have resided. Lord Glenlee.-I am of the same opinion. At one time it was not lawful, either by the authority of this or of any other Court, to enter the Palace of the King to execute diligence. But at that time there were officers appointed by his Majesty, under whose sanction diligence might have been executed. According to the genius of our law, there is an extreme tenderness for the person of a debtor, but a great anxiety to prevent his funds being removed from the reach of his creditors. In attempting, however, to execute diligence against effects within the royal precincts, the consent of his officer must be obtained. This has been got, and so far, therefore, as regards the bill of suspension by the Earl and Countess of Strathmore, I think it unfounded, and the one by the Officers of State unnecessary, as the goods of the King cannot be attached for the debt of these parties. Lord Bannatyne.-We all know that the Sanctuary affords a protection to the person of a debtor, but to this the privilege is limited. If this were to be held a Royal Palace, I would doubt the competency of the poinding; but in the circumstances I do not think we can regard it as such. Lord Craigie.-I conceive that there is no difficulty in the case. The proceeding is sanctioned by the King's officer, which I apprehend is sufficient. Lord Justice Clerk.-There are two questions entirely separate-the first regarding the privilege of the Sanctuary—and the other that of the Palace. I agree that the Sanctuary affords no protection against the diligence of the law in relation to goods; but I have much doubt as to the competency of a poinding within the Palace. It happens to be situated within the Sanctuary, and this leads to some confusion; but let it be supposed that it were in the Castle, or at Linlithgow, the question will then be purely presented. Now, there are here almost all the usual appendages of a Royal Palace:-The domestic establishment is appointed and paid by his Majesty ;-there are also royal apartments, where the King's guests have been occasionally accommodated; and there is a guard of honour. It therefore stands very much in the situation of the Palace at Kensington, where it has been held that diligence is unlawful. The question then is, Can effects situated within this Palace be exposed to diligence, and more especially, Feb. 22, 1826. can the doors of the Palace be forced open by letters to that effect? Looking at our authorities, and at the general principles of our law, I think that diligence cannot proceed against the property of the King situated there; and if not, can you attach the effects of his subjects situated there? On this I have not formed a decided opinion, but the case of the Palace of Kensington comes extremely near to this one; and, therefore, while I throw out these observations as doubts, I think that we ought to pass the bill to try the question. The other Judges having acquiesced in this proposal, the bills were passed simpliciter. The letters of suspension by the Earl and Countess having been debated before Lord Alloway, his Lordship, on the 7th December 1821, found, that there is no precedent for the Sanctuary of Holyrood-house, or for the Palace, affording any pro'tection to the effects of debtors residing therein, so as to relieve 'them from poinding;—that the suspenders' reasoning could apply only to the Sovereign's residence in the Palace, whose 'presence ought not to be disturbed by the intrusion of persons into the Palace without his permission, or that of the keeper appointed by him ;-that the diligence in question was authorized the Baron Bailie of the Abbey, the officer appointed by the hereditary keeper of the Palace;' and therefore repelled the reasons of suspension, and found the letters orderly proceeded. To this judgment the Court, on petition and answers, adhered on the 18th February 1823, and found the Earl and Countess and their mandatory, jointly and severally, liable in expenses.* 6 Lord Hermand observed,-The answers by Laing are quite satisfactory. It is the execution of caption, and not the attachment of moveables within the Palace, which creates a violation of the privileges of the Palace. In England they merely extend to the protection of the person. Lord President.-I am of the same opinion; and the reason why a caption is not allowed to be executed is, that it is to be presumed that every one within the palace is engaged in the service of the King. - Lord Gillies. I refused the bill of suspension, and I adhere to my original opinion. Lord Succoth.-My only doubt arises from the practice in England; but in the case of the Palace of Kensington, one of the members of the royal family was residing there. * See Shaw and Dunlop's Cases, Vol. I. No. 169, and Vol. II. No. 200. |