The Inhabitants of Leith v The Magistrates of Edinburgh.

Factual and Procedural Background

The case involves a declarator raised by the Inhabitants of the Town of Leith against the Magistrates of the Town of Edinburgh. The Inhabitants contended that although Edinburgh is their superior and has rights to feu-duties and other casualties, Leith, being a burgh of barony, ought to enjoy the same privileges of trade as other baronies in the kingdom. They argued that if Edinburgh denied them communication of trade, it was improper to tax them proportionately for trade burdens, likening such treatment to "Egyptian slavery."

The dispute was heard by the Lords in their own presence. Leith asserted a contractual right dating from a 1555 agreement with Mary Queen of Scots, which obligated the Crown to erect Leith into a royalty and grant it bailiary rights. Edinburgh countered that this contract never took effect and that their rights were established earlier by royal charters and infeftments, including a donation of the ports of Leith by King Robert and agreements with the local lairds.

Leith further claimed privileges as a burgh of barony under the Act of Parliament 1672 and the Act 1693 concerning communication of trade, and contested taxation on certain properties held as church lands. Edinburgh responded that burgh privileges are granted at the discretion of the superior (Edinburgh) and that the Acts expressly except port towns of royal burghs like Leith from trade communication rights. Edinburgh maintained that Leith must pay its share of taxation and could only challenge it if it was unequal or excessive.

The Lords considered whether the Acts of Parliament in 1672 and 1690, which enlarged trade rights to all lieges, annulled Edinburgh's prior rights as superiors and barons of Leith. They concluded these Acts did not affect Edinburgh's established rights. The Lords also addressed the extent to which Edinburgh could impose taxation ("stent") on Leith, affirming Edinburgh's authority based on several Acts, particularly the Act 1661 concerning excise.

The court further examined whether taxation applied only to land or also to buildings, deciding that buildings as well as land were subject to taxation. The Lords allowed Leith to submit a list of inhabitants it believed were over-taxed for redress but refused to establish a fixed standard for taxation, recognizing variability in cess rates and property changes. The Town of Leith appealed the decision to Parliament, and despite procedural objections, the appeal was admitted.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Acts of Parliament 1672 and 1690, which extended trade privileges to all lieges, annulled or limited the Town of Edinburgh's prior rights as superiors and barons over the Town of Leith.
2. Whether the Town of Edinburgh had the authority to impose a proportionate taxation ("stent") on the Town of Leith.
3. Whether taxation applied only to the land ("area") or also to the buildings ("œdificia") on that land within Leith.
4. The extent to which Leith could challenge the amount of taxation imposed and the method for addressing alleged over-taxation.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (Town of Leith)

• Leith claimed a contractual right from a 1555 agreement with Mary Queen of Scots to be erected into a royalty and granted bailiary rights, which should prevail over Edinburgh's claims.
• Leith argued that as a burgh of barony, it was entitled to the same privileges of trade as other baronies under the Act of Parliament 1672 and the Act 1693 concerning communication of trade.
• Leith contended it should not be taxed on houses held as church lands or on properties that did not fall under Edinburgh's stent, particularly as some of their houses were not subject to the shire's taxation.
• Leith urged that the ancient laws and Acts of Parliament restricting trade to royal burghs were rescinded or altered by Parliament in 1672, which should remove prior restraints on their trade rights.

Appellee's Arguments (Town of Edinburgh)

• The contract of 1555 was only entered into by the Queen Regent and never took effect; Edinburgh's rights were established earlier by royal charters and infeftments.
• Privileges of burghs of barony and regalities benefit the ground masters and can only be enjoyed as the superior allows; Edinburgh, as superior baron of Leith, controls the privileges.
• The 1693 Act expressly excepts port towns of royal burghs like Leith from trade communication rights granted to other burghs of barony.
• Leith must pay its share of taxation and may only challenge it if the tax is unequal or exorbitant.
• Acts extending trade rights did not prejudice private rights or barons' privileges; Leith lacks special charters or concessions to choose its own magistrates unlike other burghs of barony.
• Granting Leith more privileges would harm Edinburgh by diverting trade and economic substance from it.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the historical and legal foundations of Edinburgh's rights over Leith, focusing on the nature of Leith as a burgh of barony subordinate to Edinburgh. It analyzed the 1555 contract with Mary Queen of Scots but found it had no operative effect. The court emphasized the primacy of prior rights established by royal charters and infeftments, which predated later Acts of Parliament.

Regarding the Acts of Parliament in 1672 and 1690 that expanded trade rights to all lieges, the court held these did not abrogate Edinburgh’s established rights as superior and baron of Leith. The 1693 Act's exception for port towns of royal burghs, such as Leith, further supported Edinburgh's position.

The court confirmed Edinburgh’s authority to impose a proportionate taxation burden on Leith, relying on several Acts including that of 1661 concerning excise. It rejected Leith's contention that only land should be taxed, ruling that buildings on the land were also subject to taxation.

To address complaints of over-taxation, the court allowed Leith to submit a list of inhabitants it considered over-stented for review and redress but declined to set a fixed standard for taxation, recognizing variability in property values and cess rates.

Finally, the court accepted Leith's appeal to Parliament despite procedural delays, indicating procedural flexibility in adjudicating such disputes.

Holding and Implications

The court held that the Town of Edinburgh's prior rights and superiority over the Town of Leith were not nullified or diminished by the Acts of Parliament of 1672 and 1690, nor by the Act of 1693 concerning communication of trade.

It affirmed Edinburgh's authority to impose proportionate taxation on Leith, including on buildings as well as land, subject to review for inequality or excess.

The declarator raised by the Town of Leith against the Town of Edinburgh was therefore dismissed in respect of Leith's claims to trade privileges and taxation exemptions.

The decision maintained the status quo of Edinburgh's superiority and Leith's subordinate rights, with no new precedent expanding trade privileges for Leith. The appeal to Parliament was admitted, allowing further consideration beyond the court's ruling.