At Edinburgh 8 December 1692
A1692/12/7
Decreet
Decreet and Act for Dean of Gild McLurg and others against Provost Hall and others
Concerning the two libels raised before the lords of their majesties’ privy council at the instance of James McLurg, late dean of guild of Edinburgh, George Clerk, Robert Blackwood and William Paton, late bailies of Edinburgh, Duncan MacIntosh, late bailie of Leith, Robert Inglis, late deacon convener of Edinburgh, James Penman, late deacon of the goldsmiths thereof, William Scot, present deacon of the wrights there, Andrew Paterson, late deacon of the wrights there, with concourse of Sir William Lockhart their majesties’ solicitor for their highnesses’ interest in the matter underwritten, making mention that, albeit the laws of this and all other well-governed nations most vigorously oppose the perpetuating of magistrates within burghs and the enhancing thereof in the hands of a few who might either continue themselves constantly or by turns in the government and thereby have opportunity to appropriate and embezzle the common good at their pleasure, and several constitutions have been made in most of the royal burghs of this kingdom for preventing of such factious projects of enhancing the government and as faction and private advantage is most likely to take place in this metropolitan city so there has been a very special care and regard had by the set or decreet arbitral pronounced by King James VI for deciding differences in the government thereof which specially regulates not only the manner of election but also the time that magistrates and councillors can remain and continue in the government and subjoins a most severe certification as the punishment of all transgressors thereof (page 31), and provides that whoever contravenes the same shall be reputed and held as troublers of the quiet estate of the common weal, incur the note of infamy and forfeit and lose their freedom for ever and be otherwise pursued and punished as seditious persons according to the laws of the realm with all rigour and extremity, which set and decreet arbitral was afterwards ratified and approved in parliament and the rules and constitutions thereof always looked upon as a fundamental settlement establishing a peaceful and orderly government, the contravention whereof is severely punishable according to the foresaid certification and the laws of this kingdom. Nevertheless, it is true that the present set and faction of the magistracy, having come in to the government of the city in 1689, some designing persons among them set up the project of perpetuating the magistracy in their hands by terms, and fell upon methods and practices which had been utterly unknown to all that preceded them in the magistracy for the common good of the town of Edinburgh having been increased by the bountiful donations of their majesties’ royal predecessors from time to time according to the exigency of their expenses and burdens. In relation whereof, the magistrates of this city were always dutiful and obsequious, ready to promote and advance their majesties’ royal interest in parliament and in every capacity that they were employed, yet these magistrates were so little cautious and prudent in their management that it faired the worse with the concerns of the town for their cause, and if they were not the occasion, at least they had the misfortune to see the most considerable part of the revenue whereof their predecessors had been in possession cut off by an act of parliament in their own time. Yet they did not cease to prosecute their first design and to that effect Sir Archibald Muir, late provost, got himself advanced to be provost in June 1691 upon a vacancy by the demission of Sir John Hall by most illegal and factious methods and manifest violation of the set and decreet arbitral of the city, and did continue more and more to infringe the same at the following election at Michaelmas 1691, most of all at the last election at Michaelmas 1692 by which stretches, all the clogs and weights that lay upon them before are now thrown off and Sir Archibald Muir, who succeeded Sir John Hall, has restored Sir John again and the rules and constitutions of the city being so invaded, the magistracy and council are now in such a channel as that Sir John Hall is enabled to put Sir Archibald Muir back in office with less stretch and so the government of the town perpetuated in those two by turns, and the common good will become in their power as a property to be applied either to their private use or for supporting of their faction by liberal gratifications at their pleasure, and the illegalities of the foresaid three last elections will appear by a true relation of what is past compared with the set and decreet arbitral and the town council books as follows: After Sir John Hall’s demission there was a party in the town council of Edinburgh determined by right or wrong to advance Sir Archibald Muir to the vacant office, and albeit these who were opposed to Sir Archibald Muir were satisfied to agree with them in the election of any indifferent, substantial person yet no other was found fit to answer their designs; the set requires thirty persons to be present at the leeting of magistrates and the provost who presides having two votes, there is always a vote above the number of persons both at leeting and electing, and in absence of the provost, the next magistrate precedes and votes first and consequently must give the last vote in case of equality. The first step towards the leeting is to supply the want of any absent magistrate or councillor and the making up of thirty persons, and those who are then elected are called proxies. At this time there happened to be but 22 present in council, whereby eight proxies were to be chosen, most of whom were elected by an uncontroverted plurality, such persons as were opposed to the advance divided equally 11 to 11. As to the rest of the proxies, the eldest bailie who presided have the casting vote contrary to those that were offered by Sir Archibald Muir’s faction. Sir Archibald and his faction finding they had lost all the eight proxies and by consequence the election, they first protested against the odd vote of which all who ever presided in the town council were in possession, agreeable to the set, and then did withdraw in a most irregular and mutinous manner. Yet those who remained, desiring to prevent division in the council did not think fit to supply the places of those who had withdrawn by calling in new proxies and making of leets, but adjourned to another diet, and to justify the legality of their procedure, they exhibited an information to the duke of Hamilton, president of the council, which his grace communicated to the board. Their majesties’ privy council having called both parties, it was made to appear beyond all controversy or debate that the president for the time had right to the first and last vote, in case of equality, but those who adhered to Sir Archibald, sticking at nothing that could carry their point, boldly and falsely asserted that there was no place for choosing the eight proxies, but that two or three of the old merchant council who had gone off at Michaelmas preceding had a proper right to be present and vote without election, and that they were not called and consequently the procedure was null whereby they threw dirt in their own faces who had voted for eight proxies, and such a notion had never entered in the head of any man at that or any other election of the like nature. Yet the privy council took notice of that bold assertion which was not in the least regarded or thought worthy of an answer in the debate and found that the two old councillors ought to have been called to an extraordinary election being on the place and no proxies should have been chosen for them unless they refused when called, and that any election made without their being called was informal and irregular, and thereby ordained the magistrates and council to begin a formal election of new, Sir Archibald and his faction having the advantage of this unexpected interlocutor (which the privy council hoped would be the means of peace and unity). They knew that their affection would not bide a second view and therefore did peremptorily resolve to precipitate the election before the privy council should sit again, and to this effect the interlocutor being pronounced upon Thursday 4 June 1691, the youngest bailie, Patrick Halyburtoun who was the first magistrate that adhered to Sir Archibald, took upon him to call a council on Monday an extraordinary diet, and the leets and elections were both made on Monday, in which election the following gross nullities were remarkable, viz: Firstly, the privy council had annulled the former election of proxies because two or three of the old merchant councillors were not warned and admitted to vote by their proper right, yet Sir Archibald and his faction took off the mask and were not ashamed by their practice to own and acknowledge to the world how impudently they had affected that falsehood to the privy council, for they chose the same number of proxies as had been formerly elected and did not call or admit the old merchant councillors to vote as of proper right because it had indeed been inconsonant to the set and former practice, so that if the first election of proxies was null, the second was much more null, being made in the same individual form, and if the first was good as truly it was, there was no place for the second; Secondly, the proxies at first elected, having as good right to sit and vote in making of leets and elections as the magistrates or council had to their offices, they raised a declarator of their right and gave in a petition to the lords, desiring that the same might be summarily discussed which the lords appointed to be seen and answered, and this deliverance was duly intimated, which they did not regard; Thirdly, the set pages 15 and 16 appoints the leeting to be on one and the election on another, yet here both were performed on one day because upon Tuesday thereafter, both the council and session were to sit, which would have put a stop to their procedure; Fourthly, this method of procedure was so displeasing to the town that scarce could they find voters to make up the number required in all Edinburgh, but to this end emissaries were sent out with liberal distributions of threats and promises as best might suit, and all this could not make up the complete number without employing the town’s servants and pensioners who by act of this meeting of the estates were excluded from voting in the election that was then made by the poll, and yet this limited number of 30 persons could not be made up in all Edinburgh without Sir Archibald being advanced by such illegal and factious methods. The same have been continued at the various elections since, and now there is a plain way laid down to perpetuate the magistracy between Sir John Hall and him, Sir Archibald being elected in June 1691. At the ensuing election at Michaelmas thereafter, he made the following invasion upon the set, viz: Firstly, it is provided by the set (page 10) that none should be bailies, dean of gild or treasurer unless they have been a year or two upon the council, but Bailie Patrick Johnston, one of Sir Archibald’s partisans, was advanced to be a bailie albeit he had never been upon the council but about 14 or 20 days at most at the time of the election at Michaelmas 1690; Secondly, by the tenth page of the said set it is provided that none shall be upon the council above two years together unless they are office men or by virtue of their office they are on the council, yet George Stirling, Sir Archibald’s deacon convener, was no office man nor upon the council by virtue of his office, nor was he capable to bear office as a tradesman, was continued upon the council though he had already been two complete years upon it and a protestation taken against his being continued upon the same; Thirdly, the set appoints 38 persons to be present at elections and at borrowing of money and all acts of importance. Yet Sir Archibald thought fit to abridge this number by causing to elect […] Carse an extraordinary deacon to be also a trade councillor and so to personate two places, by which method once sustained, the council might be abridged at pleasure, and consequently more easily managed by a projecting provost, and thereby it was necessary to choose a proxy for Deacon Carse at the election, albeit Deacon Carse was personally present because the election cannot proceed without the full number by person or proxy, Sir Archibald being continued at Michaelmas 1691 he caused his predecessor Sir John Hall to be chosen at Michaelmas 1692, a practice never formerly known in Edinburgh, and if not crushed in the bud may be carried far on to the discouragement of other deserving persons and enhancing of the common good, this election being very displeasing to the inhabitants were not carried without a great struggle and many illegalities as, firstly Deacon Carse who had been chosen the year preceding in a double capacity was present at the election both in person and by proxy, Secondly, notwithstanding of all this art, the plurality having elected proxies contrary to expectation such as were not favourable to Sir Archibald’s design, he to cause those proxies to be removed and others chosen in their place without any shadow of cause of pretence except that the council thought fit to vote them out of doors on the day of the election and to put others in their place, which is contrary to the immemorial practice of this place, and whereupon protestations and instruments were taken that no vote should pass for changing of them more than any other of the council yet Sir Archibald pressed the vote and thrust them out of doors, choosing others in their place which is contrary to the set pages 16 and 17 where after 30 persons are appointed to be present at the making of leets, it is appointed that the said 30 persons and with them eight craftsmen shall elect, whereby it is clear that the same persons who vote in the leeting have right to vote at the election, Thirdly, Sir Archibald knew very well that if all who were present at the election were admitted to vote, these proxies would have been returned by plurality of votes, therefore he suffered not the extraordinary deacons to vote who by the set are appointed to be present and vote at elections, and yet he suffered the proxies elected to make up the number of 30 to vote though they were not of the extraordinary council because these proxies were for his purpose another novelty never formerly practised, which was necessary to carry the point, Fourthly, the set being careful to obviate such factions’ practices, provides (page 16) that the persons appointed for leeting shall solemnly protest before God that they shall choose whom they think most meet without favour, hatred or any kind of collusion, and then they shall begin and choose the leets and this Chapter is annually read at the leeting of the magistrates, whereupon one of the council requiring that, according to it, every member shall protest before God that he acted without fear or favour it was expressly rejected and refused and instruments taken thereupon, Fifthly, George Stirling appearing at last sensible that he had sufficiently transgressed the set by continuing the former year, he at first refused to be continued this year also and acknowledged that his continuing was contrary to the set, that there was a protestation against him, that it was against interest and prejudicial to his health and therefore desired for the Lord’s sake to be excused, which other members having heartily closed with and prayed with more sincerity than he that the excuse might be admitted, yet Sir Archibald declared he would not want so useful a member, and George was prevailed with to make bold with the set yet another year, and having taken his place was very active in what followed in the election, Sixthly, James Bowden was brought to be bailie who was incapable because he had never been a year upon the council but was brought in at Sir Archibald’s first election as a councillor to serve his designs, in which office he continued only four months, viz from July to October, whereas the set (page 10) requires that no bailie shall be elected who has not been one year or two upon the council, Seventhly, William Menzies has also been continued upon the council above two years without being in any office, besides two years that he was treasurer, which is not only contrary to the set (page 10) as above mentioned, but likewise his case is of pernicious consequence for he was two years treasurer and greatly indebted to the town. And albeit he has been a great ring-leader of the faction that promoted the illegal magistracy yet he has never hitherto got his accounts cleared and allowed, and it is against the constant custom and interest of the burgh that an old treasurer who has not cleared his accounts be continued upon the council so much as one year except as old treasurer by course, much less that he should continue three, by which means he will certainly at last obtain a discharge of his accounts, having already got a gratification of £100 sterling for his good service which in plain language is his factious procedure in the former illegal elections, and to show the design of the said George Stirling to enhance the magistracy for this year, albeit he was a trades councillor the last year, he was chosen a new trades councillor this year, by which he claimed two offices at the election of the magistrates at last straitened the number of the electors, because one behoved to be chosen proxy for him as an old councillor albeit he was present himself contrary to sense and reason and the set of the burgh, and persisted in overturning the set of the burgh and a free election by causing William Livingston, deacon of the glovers, James Crawford, deacon of the surgeons,[…] Meldrum, deacon of the furriers, William Scott, deacon of the baxters, Alexander Thomson, saddler and trades councillor and several others to combine and enter in a conspiracy with him by signing a paper under their hands to adhere to Sir John Hall, and seeing it is manifest that the set and constitution of this burgh is infringed, violated and invaded by Sir John Hall, Sir Archibald Muir, Patrick Halyburton, late bailie, Patrick Johnston late bailie, William Menzies, late treasurer and George Stirling, late deacon convener, who have the present influence of the magistracy and their partisans. Therefore the forenamed persons and all other members of the town council ought to exhibit and produce the town council books containing the procedure at the various diets for leeting and elections, and the foresaid illegal elections, at the least the last election, should be annulled and declared void and all the persons foresaid ought to be turned out of the town council and otherwise punished in their persons and goods to the terror of others to commit the like in time coming. And concerning given to the present magistrates and council of Edinburgh and all the forenamed persons particularly above complained upon be virtue thereof to have appeared before the said lords of there majesties’ privy council at and upon a certain day bygone to answer to the grounds of the above complaint and to hear and see such order and course taken concerning that, as the said lords shall think fit, under the pain of rebellion and putting of them to the horn, with certification to them if they fail, their majesties’ other letters should be directed for denouncing them as their majesties’ rebels and putting them to the horn summarily as the said libel and executions thereof at more length bears. And the other of the said libels at the instance of the said Sir John Hall, present provost of Edinburgh, Sir Archibald Muir, late provost of the said burgh, Patrick Johnston, late bailie of the said burgh, William Menzies, late treasurer and George Stirling, late deacon convener there, and Sir William Lockhart their majesties’ solicitor for their highnesses’ interest in the matter underwritten, making mention that, whereas by the common law and the laws of all well-governed nations and the laws and practice of this kingdom, the traducing and defaming of any person by the injurious and opprobrious expressions is a high crime and severely punishable, especially when done by burgesses against their magistrates in the exercise of their office whom by their burgess oath they swear they shall obey, fortify, maintain and defend in the execution of their offices and by the 104th act of the fifth parliament of King James V as it is provided that all judges should do true and equal justice without any partial counsel, rewards and bribes under the pain of infamy, so it is enacted that if any murmur them falsely he shall be punished in similar manner, yet notwithstanding James MacLurg, late dean of gild of Edinburgh, George Clerk, Robert Blackwood and William Paton, late bailies of Edinburgh, Duncan MacIntosh, late bailie of Leith, Robert Inglis, deacon convener of Edinburgh, James Penman, deacon of the goldsmiths, William Scott, present deacon of the wrights, and Andrew Paterson, late deacon of the wrights, have contravened the foresaid laws and acts of parliament and most unjustly traduced and defamed the complainers by injurious and opprobrious expressions and murmured against them falsely, in so far as the libel raised at the instance of the said dean of gild McLurg and the other persons complained upon against the present magistrates and the other defenders, they call the present magistrates and the other defenders they call the present magistrates and town council a set and faction of the magistracy who came in to the government of the city in 1689 which is a reflection not only upon the present magistrates and council but upon the meeting of the estates who upon the account that the burghs had generally suffered encroachments on their liberties and privileges in former elections, therefore they granted warrant for a new election by the poll and according to the act the election was duly made in 1689, and in several other places in the libel they style the present magistrates and council to be factious and to have come into the government by faction which is in itself most false and calumnious, so it is a high reflection upon them and the said dean of gild McLurg and others complained upon by no persons can dispute the preceding elections as factious, seeing they themselves were chosen magistrates and councillors at the said elections and by virtue thereof did continue to act as magistrates and councillors these years they were elected, so that the said dean of gild McLurg and the other persons complained upon may be properly said to be factious by raising the foresaid groundless and calumnious process to disturb the peace and quiet of the burgh. As also that libel mentions that Sir Archibald Muir and other magistrates and council did boldly, falsely and impudently assert that there was no place for choosing of proxies but that the old merchant councillors who had gone off at Michaelmas preceding had right to be present and to vote, which is a high reflection seeing it was both just and true and agreeable to the set that the old merchant council by their own proper right might be present and vote at elections and was so found by an act of privy council, and it is no wonder that the said dean of gild McLurg and the other persons complained upon does attack the magistrates and town council seeing they seem to make bold with the privy council itself and mentions that the privy council took notice of their bold assertion which was not in the least regarded or thought worthy to be answered by the other parties as if the privy council could be imposed by the assertion of any party and would pass an act thereupon without being satisfied and convinced both as to the verity and justice of the thing asserted. As also the said libel bears that the magistrates to fill up the number of persons required at the election sent their emissaries with liberal distribution to get persons to come in and give their votes, which is to accuse the magistrates of bribery, which falls directly under the foresaid act of parliament of King James V. As also upon the […] day of November 1691 or one or other of the days of the said month, William Paton, late bailie, accused Sir Archibald Muir, provost of the city and at that time a privy councillor, William Menzies and George Stirling by scurrilous and injurious expressions, calling them knaves, rascals and villains and endeavouring to defame them by many such opprobrious words, as also the said James MacLurg upon the […] day of September last or some few days before the election did call the said William Menzies a rogue and a cheat and other injurious expressions to that purpose, as also the said libel bears that the said William Menzies was a ringleader of the faction that promoted the said illegal magistracy and that he got a gratification of £100 sterling for his service done in promoting the same which is most false and injurious for the said William Menzies came in to be treasurer when the election was made by the poll in the year 1689 by warrant of the meeting of the estates and he never received anything from the town except at the clearing of his accounts he was to have allowance of his incident charges, which is constantly allowed to all treasurers. As also the said libel bears that albeit by the set it is provided that the magistrates and council at the making of the leets should declare that they give their votes to such as they find meet for the weal of the town according to their conscience and knowledge, without fear or favour, yet it is alleged that this was neglected to be done at the last election, though some of the council did desire it, which is a most injurious calumny, for it being desired by Robert Blackwood one of the council, Sir Archibald Muir their provost did declare that the magistrates and council by their oath de fideli were bound to give the voice of their consciences, and the said Robert Blackwood continuing to urge to get an oath imposed, the provost told them that they were to give the voice of their consciences as in the presence of God whereunto they all gave their assent, and particularly the said Robert Blackwood in face of the council acknowledged he was fully satisfied therewith as appears by the extract of the act by which the grossness of the calumny evidently appears. Of all which crimes, the forenamed persons are guilty as actors art and part and ought to be punished in their persons and goods to the terror of others to commit the like in time coming. And concerning the charge given to the said defenders in the reconvention to have appeared before the said lords of their majesties’ privy council the first day of December instant to have answered to the points and grounds of the above complaint and to have heard and seen such order and course taken therein as the said lords shall think fit under the pain of rebellion and putting of them to the horn, with certification to them that, if they failed therein, their majesties’ other letters should be directed against them for denouncing them rebels and putting them to the horn summarily, as the said libel and executions thereof more fully purports. The said principal libel being upon 29 November last called in presence of the said lords and the persons appearing personally with Sir James Ogilvie, Sir David Thoirs, Mr Hugh Dalrymple and Mr David Cunningham their advocates, and the said defenders appearing also personally with Sir Patrick Home, Sir Robert Colt, Mr John Menzies and Mr George Alexander their advocates, and the said libel with a petition given in by the defenders being read, the said lords allowed the defenders till Thursday 1 December instant to prepare their answers, and in the mean time ordained them to produce the registers of the town of Edinburgh in relation to the last three elections of the magistrates thereof with the principal set of the said town or decreet arbitral pronounced by King James VI in the hands of the clerks of privy council before 12 o’clock tomorrow in the forenoon, and if any of these elections is not recorded, they ordain the principal warrants to be produced. And thereafter both the said libels being called in presence of the said lords upon the said first day of December instant and the pursuers in the principal libel who are defenders in the reconvention appearing with their advocates above named, and the said defenders in the principal libel who are pursuers in the reconvention appearing likewise personally with their advocates also abovenamed, at least both parties’ advocates having declared that they held the pursuers and defenders in both libels as personally present at the bar, albeit they could not come at the same for throng, the advocates for the defenders in the principal libel craved that the pursuers thereof might be ordained to sign the same in respect it is defamatory against the magistrates and town council of Edinburgh in the present office, and the pursuers’ advocates answered that several of the pursuers themselves were present at the bar who declared they were ready to own and prove the libel; and the said lords having considered the accusation proponed for the said defenders in the principal libel, viz that this process being for annulling the late election of all the magistrates and town council of Edinburgh, whereof a few are cited, no process can be sustained unless every particular magistrate and councillor were called seeing all the respective elections will fall if this libel is sustained and proven, with the answer made thereto for the pursuers that some of the council are called upon particular heads and there is a quorum of the whole cited as parties and several others of them are cited as witnesses. They repelled the said accusation and declared that they would take the same to their consideration at the time of advising the said cause. And thereafter the said lords having considered both libels with the answers given in to the principal libel and having considered the town council books produced by the defenders with the printed set of the town of Edinburgh or decreet arbitral of King James VI, and having heard both parties’ advocates debate this matter at full length in their own presence, they ordain both parties to prepare and deliver their information in this matter to the lords of privy council against Tuesday next, and the witnesses for both parties (such of them as were present as they are marked in the rolls) having made faith and the said lords appointed a committee of their own number to examine the witnesses, and reserved all objections which might be made against the witnesses to be proponed and discussed before the committee and upon 2 December instant, the said committee having reported to the council that the pursuers in the principal libel offered to prove that point concerning the combination as libelled by George Stirling, one of the defenders in the said libel his oath of verity in so far as the same may infer any guilt or accession against himself, and by the subscribers of the paper or other known witnesses, in so far as the same may concern the other defenders. The said lords of there majesties’ privy council find that the parties might prove the different points in their libels either by oath of party or by witnesses but that they cannot make use of both oath of party and witnesses for proving one and the same point of either libel, and the said lords having upon 6 December instant considered the two petitions given in to them the said day, the one by the defenders in the principal libel craving the advising of the process to be delayed till the next council day in respect that the probation in the defenders reconvention is not closed and that more persons are cited to answer this day to the principal libel then more cited at first, and the other be George Warrender, present treasurer, and John Robertson, late bailie of Edinburgh and others craving the advising for the said process to be delayed till next council day, and that the citations given to these petitioners may be declared null, in respect that they were cited upon Saturday last and the libel whereupon they were cited was not signed till the Monday after they received their citations. The said lords found that no process could be sustained upon these last citations but declared they would proceed to advise the principal libel with the answers and probation without delay And the said lords having considered the principal libel this day with the answers made thereto for the defenders together with the libel of reconvention and the depositions of such of the defenders as were taken in the principal cause with the depositions of the witnesses taken upon that point of the reconvention which relates to Bailie Blackwood’s craving that the protest in the set might have been administered at the leeting, and likewise having considered the set of the burgh of Edinburgh, they find that the turning out of the proxies elected the day of making the leets after they had voted in the leeting and before they voted in the election of the magistrates then leeted is a breach of the set of the burgh, and declared they let that point of the libel anent Bailie Patrick Johnston fall, and they find that George Stirling’s being continued more then two years together upon the council, though in different capacities is a breach of the set, and as to Bailie Blackwood’s craving that the protest in the set might have been administered before leeting, they find it was sufficient that provost Muir declared the electors were to give the voice of there consciences as in the presence of God to supply the protesting in terms of the set, and therefore absolved the defenders from that point of the libel, and they find that James Bowden’s being chosen a bailie before he had been a year or two upon the council is a breach of the set, and that William Menzies’ continuing upon the council more then two years which he was treasurer and a year thereafter by right of his office as old treasurer is a breach of the set, and that the combination libelled is not proven, and therefore absolved from that point, and that there is nothing in the libel of reconvention relevant or proven to elide any of the above points of the principal libel which are found relevant and proven to infer a violation of the set, and they find that the points proven are sufficient to annul the election of the magistrates and town council made at Michaelmas last, and therefore declared the said election of the said magistrates and council null, and ordained the magistrates and town council elected at Michaelmas last to proceed to a new election of magistrates and town council to serve in the said burgh until Michaelmas next, and in order thereto, appointed them to meet upon Thursday then next, 8 December instant, and make up their leets for the said magistrates and council, and upon Friday thereafter, being the 9th instant to meet and make their election of the persons who are to serve as magistrates and town council for the time foresaid, and declared the said George Stirling, William Menzies and James Bowden incapable to have any vote in this election, either by electing or being elected on this occasion, but that their places be supplied by proxies, and they superseded all further sentence against these three defenders as to personal punishment until their behaviour in this ensuing election is clear. And regarding the petition given in to the said lords of their majesties’ privy council by the said James McLurg, late dean of gild of Edinburgh, George Clerk, Robert Blackwood and other merchants and tradesmen of Edinburgh, showing that where the said lords have considered and determined several of the points libelled by the petitioners against the late magistrates of Edinburgh and found that the set and constitution of the burgh have been violated and invaded by introducing or retaining certain persons in the magistracy or council and by excluding proxies legally elected and received, and therefore have annulled the last election and appointed a new, regular and formal election wherein the petitioners acknowledge that the said lords have proceeded with great regard to the fundamental laws and constitutions of this metropolitan city and that few examples can be given of so clear and distinct interlocutors of the privy council in a case so full of variety of fact and wherein the debate was founded upon many different, distinct titles of the set which the said lords formerly had little opportunity to be informed of, but their lordships having bestowed a long time upon the particulars determined had no leisure at one sederunt to discuss all, and especially these articles which relate to Sir Archibald Muir, Patrick Johnston and Patrick Halyburtoun who are specially libelled against and not absolved. It is therefore humbly represented to the said lords that the great pains which their lordships have taken may in a great measure become ineffectual unless the libel is taken to consideration against those persons. For, albeit some of them were not upon the council when the libel was raised, yet by restoring the council which was before Michaelmas they will all fall to be in the council again and be in a position to turn the election which way they please. The petitioners therefore renew their former protestation that they are not moved to this process by any desire of advancing themselves or any other cause save that of restoring the privileges of the town and a free election, and desire that the said lords would yet consider the following grounds for removing Sir Archibald Muir as: Firstly, his entering into the magistracy was illegal and unjust, founded upon a bold but false assertion before the said lords, whereupon a former regular and legal election of proxies who would never have chosen him was annulled and yet the election of proxies at his advancement in the same individual manner so that the foundation of his magistracy is either an absolute falsehood or an illegal election, contrary to an act of privy council upon his assertion and so is null Secondly, the petitioners do not allege that this nullity in his election should by consequence reduce the whole magistracy that were in office with him, for he was not advanced at Michaelmas but by a single extraordinary election, so that the effect of disputing that election is only to turn out Sir Archibald who coming into the magistracy in such a manner did thereby raise a combustion in the town which continued ever since, and he has left it in a flame; Thirdly, by Sir Archibald thus entering into the magistracy by succeeding elections he has made the influence to frame the ordinary council at his pleasure, and if he should now be restored to preside and regulate a new election, the plurality of that council introduced by him will sway the election which way he pleases, and thereby leave the government of the burgh more enhanced than formerly, for the plain truth is that the petitioners had never that personal jealousy of Sir John Hall as that they would have grudged his magistracy unless he had been so absolutely influenced by others as to serve all their turns which he never failed to do if Sir Archibald and he shall yet go on to divide the magistracy, the privileges of the town are not yet fully restored and seeing he is liable to such just exception, both for the factious manner of his entry, continuation in and exit from the magistracy having presided pressed and perpetrated all the illegalities in the last election, the petitioners are humbly confident that the said lords will never think it just that he should continue to be a member, much less preside at the new election; Fourthly, as to Patrick Johnston, he falls in consequence with the interlocutor regarding Bailie Bowden, for by restoring the old council he would come in to be a present bailie at the new election, which he is incapable of, having never been a month on the council before he was elected bailie; Fifthly, Patrick Halyburtoun being accessory to the precipitation of the election of Sir Archibald by taking upon him to preside in the council when he was youngest bailie and calling extraordinary diets of council, he ought also to be excluded, by which means there will be only five of the 25 of Sir Archibald’s own council excluded, and there will still remain 20 to make choice of the new deacons and of the new trades and merchant councillors and proxies which is a greater number than is usually present at council. And therefore humbly craving that their lordships would be pleased to consider and determine the other points of the libel in relation to these three persons abovenamed, and to exclude them from having any share in the election or capacity of being elected for this ensuing year to preserve the town from the faction that has been occasioned by enhancing of the magistracy as the said petition bears. Which being read in presence of the said lords, they by their interlocutor of the seventh instant allowed the said Sir John Hall and the other defenders in the above libel to see and answer the same against this day, and prorogued the diet appointed by their intelocutor of the sixth day of December instant for leeting and electing the magistrates and council, viz: The leeting till Friday the ninth and electing till Saturday the tenth current, and appointed them to proceed in leeting and electing according to the former interlocutor and set of the burgh the said days, and the said Sir John Hall and other defenders having, according to the above ordinance seen the foresaid bill, they gave in their answers thereto following viz: As to the preamble of the bill acknowledging their lordships’ justice done to the petitioners in reducing the last election, the defenders oppose the grounds contained in their printed information and represented in a bill given in by them whereupon they humbly expect the said lords will reconsider the whole matter and absolve the defenders instead of proceeding further to debar the petitioners from having a vote in the next election of being incapable to be elected thereby which is the desire of the pursuers’ bill wherein they plainly acknowledge that the election will still go otherwise than they would have it unless the said lords incapacitate three of the defenders besides the three already debarred from voting, which six they reckon to be five put off the ordinary council, their arithmetic being very analogous to their law, in answer to which the defenders humbly represent: Firstly, that though the last election should fall (which point it is hoped their lordships will reconsider) yet these three defenders, viz Sir Archibald Muir, Patrick Johnston and Patrick Halyburtoun being members of the town council for the preceding year, they cannot be debarred to vote as long as the election at Michaelmas 1691 is not annulled unless it were by way of punishment, and which penalty of incapacity cannot be inflicted upon them for any alleged misdemeanours because there is no such penalty libelled against them, as to which point the defenders humbly desire their lordships would consider the grounds represented in the defenders’ bill why James Bowden, William Menzies and George Stirling cannot be debarred to vote; Secondly, though incapacity were libelled (as it is not) yet there is no misdemeanour libelled and proven against Sir Archibald Muir, Patrick Johnston and Patrick Halyburtoun which deserves the least reprimand let by incapacity which is a severe censure upon a man’s fame and reputation, for as to that pretence objected against Sir Archibald Muir’s election, viz That he was elected by proxies that were illegally chosen either because there lordships had appointed the old councillors to vote or because of the casting of the former proxies if the old councillors had no right to vote, it is answered that as often as the pursuers press this point as a weighty matter with nauseous repetition as often the defenders must answer that it was a true assertion in law that the old councillors should vote to the leeting and election according to law and not by proxies and that it was just in the said lords to find so, and that it was true in fact and proven by the books that Captain Baillie was an old councillor, and in obedience to their lordships’ commands admitted to vote as such being designed an old councillor and not a proxy, and although Patrick Johnston was allowed to vote as a parity and not as an old councillor, that does not alter the case in law Captain Baillie’s right to vote by right being alone sufficient to cast the former proxies and let the petitioners clamour as long as they please, that it is a bold and impudent assertion to affirm that the old councillors have right to vote by right, the defenders still affirm it as long as the set appoints the 30 for leeting to be 18 of the new council and 12 of the old unless the complainers will make the seven old magistrates and five proxies to be chosen for the old councillors to be 12 of the old council; Thirdly, though their had been an informality in Sir Archibald’s first election as there was none yet, Sir Archibald being the second time chosen at Michaelmas 1691 (which second election is not disputed by the bill), he has right to vote as old provost to the ensuing election just as he had at Michaelmas last, neither can his election at Michaelmas 1691 fall unless the said lords annul the council for the preceding year as well as the last election. For, of Sir Archibald was illegally elected provost at Michaelmas 1691, then there was not one member of the council legally elected for the preceding year, and so unless the two last elections are totally overturned, the complainers extraordinary zeal as patriots for the good town cannot appear in their deserved character of magistracy, and as for Sir Archibald leaving the town in a flame, he appeals to the said lords their knowledge, how careful and zealous he was to preserve the peace of the place during his magistracy and particularly at the critical time when the French invasion was feared, nor is there any flame in the town but what is kindled in the breast of the complainers because they were disappointed of their expectations to get James McLurg chosen provost; Fourthly, as to the pretence that Patrick Johnston was but a month a councillor and so should be removed to vote as an old bailie as James Bowden is being a present bailie, it is answered, Primo that the said lords have by their interlocutor distinguished between the case of Bowden and Johnston, in respect that Johnston completed his full year as a bailie, whereas Bowden had only been two months of this current year; Secondly, the defenders oppose the grounds contained in their information as to that point that a bailie needs not be a full year a councillor before he is chosen; Thirdly, albeit it were an escape in the electors to choose a bailie of one that had been but a month a councillor yet there is no fault in the person elected to accept the same, at least that fault cannot be disputed after his office of bailiary is expired to preclude him from a vote in the next election which he would have had if he had continued as an ordinary councillor; Fifthly, as to the claim against Patrick Halyburton that he was accessory to the precipitate election of Sir Archibald Muir by presiding in council when he was youngest bailie and calling of extraordinary diets of council, it is answered that Sir Archibald’s election is not precipitate, there having been four days intervened between the order of council and his election, which is as long a time as uses to be taken in leeting and electing a single provost, and which the said lords will judge sufficient for a single provost since their lordships have appointed the leeting and electing of the whole council to be within two days, and it was most warrantable for Patrick Halyburton when he was youngest to preside when the elder bailies were absent, which was not upon the day of leeting and electing, at which time Michael Allan presided and the said Patrick only presided upon the Friday being the day after their lordships appointed them to proceed to the election when the older bailies withdrew for reasons best known to themselves, and it is false that the said Patrick called extraordinary diets of council, he having only adjourned with consent of the council and therefore the said Patrick cannot be excluded from having his vote as an old councillor and in case there is any insinuation made to any of the said lords further than what is contained in the complainers’ libel and bills, it is humbly craved that before the said lords proceed to any sentence that the said lords allow the said defenders to be heard, in respect of all which and of the grounds represented in the defenders’ bill, the defenders ought to be absolved from the conclusion of the petitioners’ bill, and concerning another petition given in to the said [Lords] of [their] majesties’ privy council by Sir John Hall, Robert Cheeslie, James Bowden, William Menzies and George Stirling showing that where the complaint given in against the petitioners by James McLurg and others being debated on Thursday last the said lords appointed a committee for examining the witnesses adduced by pursuers and by the petitioners in their reconvention and ordered the petitioners to give in information on Tuesday last that the said lords might then advise the debate which the petitioners could not get drawn and ready for that time in regard that the depositions were not taken till Tuesday at 12 o’clock, before which the information could not be concluded, and that upon Tuesday last their lordships proceeded to advise the debate and thereupon annulled the last election as to the whole council of 25 and appointed a new election on Friday next, discharging James Bowden, William Menzies and George Stirling, three of the petitioners to have vote in the said election, as to which the petitioners humbly represent: Firstly, as to the annulling of the whole last election that they repeat the grounds contained in their information given in with the said petition why the same cannot be annulled which they hope their lordships will consider since they could not get the same ready on Tuesday for the reason abovementioned, being fully convinced that upon perusal thereof, the said lords will either absolve the petitioners or remit the same summarily to be discussed before the lords of session or else apply to his majesty to know his pleasure therein; Secondly, the petitioners’ election cannot fall unless the whole election falls, and the whole election cannot be annulled because there are 16 of the town council not legally called as to whom their lordships have sustained the process in regard that though they were cited upon Saturday yet the warrant was not signed till Monday; Thirdly, the petitioners presume the said lords’ ground for reducing the election of the ordinary council was the turning out of the proxies the day of the election of the magistrates that had voted on the day of leeting as to which it is humbly represented that there was no proxy turned out but Alexander Baird and that whatever influence that might have had as to illegal election of magistrates yet it had no relation to the election of the rest of the members of the council who were legally chosen some days before and therefore the election of those other members cannot be disputed as a consequence of that informality whatever might be claimed thereupon against the election of the magistrates; Fourthly, as to the discharging of three of the petitioners abovenamed to vote in the next election it is humbly represented that this is a punishment not concluded against them, there being nothing concluded but the annulling of the last election turning the petitioners out of the council and punishing them in their persons and goods, and in all libels before the said lords which conclude arbitrary pain, however their lordships lessen the pain ordinarily less than what is concluded, yet their lordships never inflict that which is not concluded and certainly the punishment of person and goods can not comprehend infamy nor incapacity and therefore can never import discharging the petitioners to vote in the new election, and as for the words (turning out of the council) that is only a consequence of annulling the election and not a penalty, so where the former election is not annulled, the petitioners cannot be turned out of the office they had thereby, and therefore the three petitioners abovenamed having uncontroverted right to vote to the election at Michaelmas last (there election at Michaelmas 1691 not being annulled) cannot be hindered to vote at the ensuing election but by way of punishment to incapacitate them for a delinquency done by them in their office and which pain not being concluded in the complainers’ libel, the petitioners cannot be hindered from voting in this election unless their election at Michaelmas 1691 were annulled, in which case the turning them out of the council for the year preceding would necessarily import that they should not vote at the ensuing election and therefore since their election of the year preceding is not annulled and that there is no incapacity concluded against them they ought to have a vote at the next election and therefore craving that the said lords would consider the premises with the grounds contained in the petitioners’ information, and thereupon either to absolve the petitioners or remit the same to the lords of session or to advise with his majesty thereon as the said petition bears. And the said lords having this day considered the said petition given in to them by James McLurg and others with the answers made thereto and having also considered the other petition given in by the said Sir John Hall and others and having heard their own interlocutor of the sixth current read in their presence, they adhere to the same, and having likewise considered the libel and answers and the book of the proceedings of the town council of Edinburgh concerning the last election, the lords find the points libelled against the said Sir Archibald Muir relevant and proven to infer a break of the set and therefor they declare him incapable to have any vote in this election by electing or being elected on this occasion and appoints his place to be supplied by a proxy, and as to Patrick Johnston, adheres to their former interlocutor, and as to Patrick Halyburton they declare the process to fall, and they appoint the eldest bailie elected at Michaelmas 1691 to intimate the meeting of the town council to be on Friday next for leeting and Saturday thereafter for electing the council and magistrates to serve this year in manner foresaid, and they appoint the eldest magistrate who shall be present of the said leets and election according to the foresaid interlocutor and sett of the burgh.