Comments by [? A./J.] Johnston to [unnamed] on the printing of acts of parliament....

Comments by [? A./J.] Johnston to [unnamed] on the printing of acts of parliament. In the interests of having the acts well 'collectioned' he raises various objections [unnumbered in M.S.]: 1. In some cases the same act has been cited under different names in two parts of the collection. 2. There is no need to print several acts, e.g. that for the visitation of 'Standrower', Edinburgh and [? Loudoun]. In any case these three commissions 'must differ both in narrative and several clauses'. 3. In at least two printed acts there are likely to be mistakes, since 'the figures are so blotted'. 4. Several acts have been omitted, including that of 26 July [? 1649] about valuation of the shires for maintenance; this also does not appear in the index of printed or unprinted acts. 5. The printed acts should be numbered, and cross-referenced under these numbers in the index, as was always formerly done. 6. The terminology of the unprinted index is loose; the acts 'must be called acts anent such a business or in favor of such a person'. 7. At least two commissions [named] should be printed. 8. The act about summonses of error in the m[? ...ll] 'is only comitted to bodyes'. 'I am drawing my [? own] act in m [? ...]'. [Signed]: Yr assured frend [? A./J.] Jhonston'. [Badly defaced].