THe Complainers designing to get themselves in to the Magistracy of Edin­burgh, and to get Mr. David Dalrymple made Conjunct-Clerk with Aenea' M ^cleod, have raised a Reduction before your Lordships, of the three last successive Elections, upon several pretended Violations of the Set, and concluding further, that the Defenders may be punished in their Persons and Goods; The which Complaint being given in, and read before your Lordships, It was alledged for the Defenders, that there could be no Process for annulling the last Election, because all Parties therein concerned were not called, viz. Baillie Chartres, Baillie Baird, Michael Allan, George Warrander, Andrew Bruce, John Robertson, Hugh Blair, Mr. Henry Ferguson, Samuel M ^clellan, Archibald Rule, A­lexander Thomson, John Pringle, James Crafurd, William Livingstoun, William Mel­drum, George Dalgleish, Members of the Counsel of twenty five, whose Election cannot stand, if the Defenders Election be annulled.

To which it was Replyed for the Complainers, that the Defenders who are cal­led, are the principal Parties concerned in the Irregularities lybelled, so that there was no necessity to call any others.

To which it was Duplyed for the Defenders, that these of the Magistrats and Council who are not called, tho they cannot be prejudged by any punishment, concluded against the Defenders in their Persons or Goods, because it is possible they have been less active in the late Elections than some of the Defenders have been, yet it is impossible that the Defenders Election can be reduced, and the E­lection [Page 2] of the other Magistrats and Members of Council stand in force, tho less guilty of Irregularities, since all the Informalities lybelled against the Election of any of the Defenders, strike likeways at the Election of these who are not called, and it is inauditum, that parties Rights were ever annulled by a Process to which they were not called, and therefore there can be no Process sustained on the first Member of the Conclusion, viz. to annul the Defenders Election, till the rest be called, unless the Complainers design, that the Election should fall quoad these who will not vote for them, and should stand good quoad these from whom they expect Friendship; And as there can be no process quoad the first Conclusion against the Defenders till the last be called, neither can there be any Process quoad the second Conclusion of punishing the Defenders in their Persons and Goods, for that is consequent from, and dependent on the first Conclusion, for as long as the Elections are not annulled, the Defenders cannot be punished for their accession thereto.

Upon this Debate, your Lordships before Answer thereto, Ordained the hail Cause to be debate before your Lordships. Ʋpon which, the Defenders An­swers to the whole pretended Violations lybelled, were read in your Lordships presence.

After which the Pursuers insisted on this head, That albeit your Lordships had appointed the two Merchant-Counsellors to vote proprio jure, upon a bold and impudent Assertion made by the Defenders Advocats, yet these two Counsellors were only allowed to Vote as Proxies, so that Sir Archibald Muir's first Election to be Provost was unwarrantable, being contrair to your Lordships Command, and if these two old Counsellors had no Right to Vote proprio jure, then the former Election of eight Proxies could not be quarreled by the Defenders on that ground.

To which it was answered for the Defenders, That they opponed their former Answers, viz. that quoad the two first Elections which are now past, and the persons thereby chosen gone out of their Office by course, there can be no Pro­cess for annulling these Elections, or turning the Magistrats out thereof, but the Complainers, if they design to prevent any of these Informalities in time to come, ought to insist in their Declarator before the Judge competent, which they raised an year and a half ago, since all the Complainers mistakes arises from their Mis-interpretation of some obscure passages in the Set, which are competent to be explained by the Lords of the Session. 2. Any pretended Informalities in the two last Elections, cannot be insisted on as grounds to annul the last Ele­ction, otherways the Magistracies of Burghs would be very unsecure for fourty years space, if there were any Errour in the preceeding Elections during that time. 3. As to the pretence insisted on, as to the two old Counsellors, which is the Complainers Achilleum Argumentum, chosen out by them of the many Informali­ties lybelled against Sir Archibald Muir's two Elections.

To this it was Answered, That tho the Complainers, according to their wonted modesty, do say, that it was a bold and impudent assertion to affirm the old Mer­chant-counsellors had right to Vote proprio jure, yet the Defenders do still assert, that the old Merchant-counsellors are a part of the Council of 30, which Coun­cil of 30 is appointed for Leeting, and which Council of 30 consists of 18 of the new Council and 12 of the old, which 12 consists of the 7 old Magistrats, 3 old Merchant-counsellors, and 2 old Trades-counsellors, as appears by the Set pag. 5. so that in order to the Leeting, no Proxies can be chosen in place of the [Page 3] old Merchant-counsellors, unless they be absent after they are required to come, and therefore since these that were old Counsellors were received, and Proxies chosen for the rest, the Election cannot be quarrelled upon that Informality. 4. By the Books it is clear, that Captain Baillie was admitted proprio jure, he being designed an old Counsellor, & not a Proxie, & that Patrick Johnstoun was admitted as a Proxie, which was done because he had not been an old Merchant-counsellor for the year preceeding, but had been chosen a Merchant-counsellor for that current year, and shortly after his being made a Counsellor, he was chosen Baillie of Leith, whereby he became to be no Member of the Town Council, and so was capable to be chosen a Proxie.

To this it was Replyed, That the Complainers insist on the Nullities of the first two Elections, only in order to annul the last, as being done by these per­sons who had been themselves illegally elected, and that of all these Nullities in the first two Elections, they now insisted on that anent the two old Merchant-counsellors, who (the Defenders say) had right to Vote jure proprio, and which was so appointed by your Lordships, and yet one of them is admitted as a Proxie, for albeit Patrick Johnstoun (who according to the Defenders own alledgance the last year before your Lordships, was an old Counsellor) was allowed to Vote, yet it was qua Proxie, and not proprio jure, and which the Defenders did of pur­pose, that he might not have a Vote in the electing of the rest of the Proxies, which he would have had if he had voted proprio jure, & yet neither Captain Baillie, nor he did Vote in the Election of Proxies, for the Books bear no such thing.

To which it was Duplyed for the Defenders, that they Oppone their former Answers, bearing, that no informality in the two first Elections can be grounds to annul the last Election, it being legally carried on. And as to the Article now insisted on, the Defenders oppone the express words of the Set, and the uncontroverted custom of the Burgh, to the Complainers shameless clamour, in calling it a bold and impudent Assertion, for this Assertion in jure, viz. that old Counsellors jure proprio, have right to Vote in the Leeting, as being a part of the old Counsel of 12, which with the new Council of 18, makes up the number of 30, no man but the Complainers will controvert, And as to the Assertion in facto, that Captain Baillie and Patrick Johnstoun were both old Counsellors, it was a mistake in the Lawyers, without any design, for Captain Baillie's right proprio jure to Vote, had the same weight in Law to hinder the Election of Proxies for him, as both Captain Baillie and Patrick Johnstoun, being old Counsellors would have had to have hindered Proxies to be chosen for them, for one or two, does not alter the case in Law, for there is idem juris quo­ad partem, as quoad totum; and therefore Sir Archibalds Muirs Election cannot be quarrelled, because the two old Merchant-Counsellors did not Vote proprio jure, since de facto there was but one of them an old Counsellor, who is presumed to have Voted accordingly, and the other was chosen as a Proxy, because he was Elected a Counsellor only for that current year, which Counsellors place did vaick shortly thereafter, by his being made Baillie of Leith. Neither can the Complainers pretend any prejudice, by not admitting the saids two persons to Vote proprio jure, since the Complainers cannot deny but both their Votes were against them in the Leeting & Election; so that the Complainers could have no advantage by their Voting in the Proxies, like as de facto, James Baillie who was the only old Merchant-Counsellor, is presumed to have Voted in the Election of Proxies, if he came in before the Proxies were Elected, and if he came not in till [Page 4] after the Proxies were Elected, then he had no right to Vote, for Votes of Courts are not rescinded upon the Incoming of Members thereafter that were not present thereat: and it is strange to pretend that Captain Baillie did not Vote in the Election of Proxies, because the Books do not bear him to have Vo­ted thereto, and that he is not marked in the Sederunt of twenty two, since he could not be marked in the Sederunt, he not being present when they sate down, but being called in thereafter by them, and allowed to Vote as an old Counsel­lor, in Obedience to your Lordships Order, and since there is nothing marked in the Books that he desired a Vote, and was refused, it must be presumed that he did Vote to all the Votes that were Voted after he came in, for there is nothing marked expresly that the twenty two did Vote, and not he.

Upon this, your Lordships appointed the Complainers to insist upon the Vi­olations of the Set Libelled, to have been made at the last Election.

After which the Pursuers insisted on this Ground, that George Stirling and Wil­liam Meinzies did Vote in the last Election, tho they had been more than two years on the Council, without being Office-men, or by vertue of their Office thereon.

To which it was Answered, that William Meinzies was chosen Thesaurer at the popular Election, in which he continued till Martinmass 1690, after which he continued on the Council as old Thesaurer till June 1691, at which time he was Elected one of the four old Baillies, in which Station he continued till Mi­chaelmass last, and was then chosen old Dean of Guild, and it cannot be denied, but that Thesaurer, old Thesaurer, old Baillie, and old Dean of Guild are Offi­ces: And for George Stirling, he was by the popular Election chosen Trades-coun­sellor, wherein he continued till Michaelmass 1689, and was then chosen Dea­con of the Chirurgions by his Trade, and Deacon-Conveener by the Magdalen Chappel, and a Counsellor by vertue of his Office, as Deacon, by the Town Coun­cil, wherein he continued till Michaelmass 1691, and then was chosen a Trades-Counsellor, whereof there is only one year yet run out; and it is clear by the Set, that a Deacon-Counsellor and a Trades-Counsellor are distinct, and that the Set forbids only a Counsellor to continue longer on the Council than two years, unless he be an Office-man, or there, by vertue of his Office, and therefore George Stirling being there two years by vertue of his Office, as Deacon, and one year as Trades-Counsellor, he has not contraveened that part of the Set, since it has been the constant Custom for Trades-men to be upon the Council two years as Trades-Counsellors, and two years as Deacon-Counsellors, as appears by the Instances given in the Answers, and may be given in several others.

To which it was Replyed, that it appears by the Set, that there is nothing understood by Offices thereby, but Provost, Baillies, Dean of Guild, and The­saurer, as appears by the 15 page of the Set, where none are named as Of­fice-men but the seven Magistrats, and the words (or by vertue of their Office) is only understood of the old Magistrats, and therefore William Meinzies & George Stirling, who were never present Magistrats, cannot continue longer than two years on the Council by vertue thereof, for a Deacon is not an Office, and an old Magistrat is not an Office, unless in the person of him who was once a present Magistrat, and no respect can be had to any former Practice which was a Violation of the Set, the Act of the Convention of States appointing all Elections after the popular Election to be according to the Set.

[Page 5]To which it was duplyed, that it is a gross mistake to alledge that by the Set the present Magistracy is only called an Office, for albeit in the 15 page of the Set the words are (to proceed to the Choosing of the Leets to the Magistrats and Of­fice-men, such as Provost, Baillies, Dean of Gild, and Treasurer) yet that does not inferr that a Deacon-ship is not an Office, for the subject treated there is not all Office-men, but Magistrats and Office-men who are taxatively exprest to be by the subjoyned Exegesis, Provost, Baillies, Dean of Gild, and Treasurer; and the Defenders acknowledge that there is a difference betwixt Office-men Simply, and them that are Magistrats and Office-men Joyntly: But to take off this Quible as the 10 page of the Set appoints none to be more than two years on the Council, except they be Office-men, or by Vertue of their Office; So the 11 page, in that same Chapter, appoints that none be continued in their Office of Dea­conship above two years together, so that it is undenyable that by the Set, a Dea­conship is reckoned an Office, in opposition to a simple Counsellor, and in Contra­distinction to a Magistrat; who is both a Magistrat and an Office-man Complex­ly, unless the Complainers would have a priviledge to expound the word Office other wayes in the 10 page, then in the 11 page; Because it serves their Turn: Likeas their Fancy in expounding (Office to be present Magistracy, and be vertue of their Office to be old Magistracies) is extravagant, for these words are exegetick and sig­nifie the same thing, since an Office-man is on the Council be vertue of his Office, and he that is on the Council by vertue of his Office, must be an Office-man; and it is certain that these words comprehend the Old and New Magistrats, and the Six ordinary Deacons, and excludes only the members of Council New and Old, who are there only as single Counsellors; and it is ridiculous to pretend that one Chosen in place of an old Baillie, or an old Dean of Gild, is not als much an Office-man, as he who served the year preceeding in whose place he is chosen, an evident in­stance whereof is, that a Person chosen to be old Dean of Gild, who was never present Dean of Gild, Judges in the Dean of Gild Court, in absence of the present Dean of Gild, which he could not do, if the old Dean of Gild, as such, were not an Office-man, and therefore William Meinzies, his continuing more then three years under four distinct successive Characters, and George Stirling his continuing that Space under two distinct Characters, can be constructed no violation of the Set, it having been practised in the cases of William Hamiltoun, Alexander Reid, Thomas Sandilands, John Cunningham, Thomas Kinkaid, James Borthwick, John Miln; Thomas Somervel; Alexander Thomson, James Cockburn, Michael Gibson, John Scot, and others. And which instances are adduced to instruct a constant Custom not contrair to the Set▪ but agreeable thereunto, and which Custom ought to expound the Set, if there were any Ambiguity therein as to this point as there is none; nei­ther does the Act of Convention cut off all former Immemorial Customs, incon­sistent with the Set; and far less these Customs that do Explain and Interpret the meaning threof: for the Act of Convention of Estates, was only to regulat the Po­pular Election at that time, which was Judged the only Remedy against encroach­ments, made by the late Governments upon the priviledge of this Burgh, but no wayes designed to Regulat subsequent Elections, which the Convention left to be according to Law, without the least thought of Rectifying any Immemorial Customs, prior to the Incroachments made by the late Governments, which Customs are indeed a part of the Sett, and constitution of the Burgh.

2. The pursuers insisted on that pretence that William Carss, who was one of the eight extraordinary Deacons, was chosen to be one of the Council of Twenty Five, whereby the number of Thirtie Eight Electors, was Abridged, which forc­ed [Page 6] the Defenders to this absurdity, that they behoved to Elect Thomas Campbel as a Proxie to Vote for William Carse (who was present) to make up the Num­ber of Thirtie Eight.

To this it was Answered. That the Defenders admire how the Complainers In­genuity allows them to insist on so frivolous a Pretence, which is so fully taken taken off by the Defenders Answers, for the Set putting no Limitation on the Council, to chuse any free Trades-man to be a Trades-Counsellor, to make up the ordinary Council of twenty five, that a present Deacon without doors should be incapable to be advanced from one of the extraordinary Deacons, to be one of the ordinary Council, passes the Defenders understanding: for since all the twenty five of the ordinar Council are constituent Members of the Council of thirty eight, what can hinder one of the thirty eight to be advanced to be one of the twenty five; for albeit thereby there be a Vacancy quoad one of the thirty eight, that Vacancy has easily and frequently been supplied, by calling him who was formerly Deacon to Vote in his place, conform to the 19. page of the Set; for it cannot be denied, but that a Person who is a Member of a Court by his Of­fice as a Deacon, when he gets an higher Character in that Court, to wit, to be a Trades-Counsellor, his place is Vacant, and he as in the first Character of a Deacon is absent, so that his Room must be supplied, but there is no Proxie to to be chosen for a Deacon Absent or Dead, only by the Set, the preceeding Dea­con supplies the room that was his, and therefore Thomas Campbel did not Vote as Proxie for William Carse, who was present, but did supply the room of the Deacon of the Fleshers in the Council of thirty eight, which was Vacant through William Carse his promotion to be a Trades-Counsellor, in the Council of twen-five; and as there is no shadow of reason to complain of this as a Breach of the Set, which is so agreeable thereunto, and has been the constant practice hitherto, so it is most malitious in the Complainers to urge the same as a prejudice done to them, since both William Carse and Thomas Campbel Voted their way against the Defenders. And it is admired how the Complainers justifie some practises, [...]ho contrair to the Set, because of a long Custom, and yet quarrel these practices of the Town Council, which are agreeable both to the Set and Custom: because they fear that they may Obstruct their present Design.

3. The Complainers did insist on this pretence, that the Proxies who were cho­sen the day before to Leet, were thrown out the day of Election, though by the Set, these that Leet are to Elect; and as the Parties for whom they are Proxies for Leeting, could not be removed the day of Election, no more could their Proxies be removed that day.

To which the Defenders oppons their former Answers, and the Set, which does not appoint the thirty that Voted to the Leeting, to Vote at the Election with the eight extraordinarie Deacons, but appoints only the thirty of the Old and New Council to Vote with the eight extraordinarie Deacons; and it is strange to pretend, that because an ordinar Member cannot be changed, therefore his Proxie cannot be changed▪ for Proxies are only chosen to supply the absence of Persons for that Diet they are called to, and are alterable at the Councils Op­tion, as is clear by immemorial Custom: and since Leeting and Electing are different things, it is not necessarie that he who was Proxie to the first, should be Proxie to the second: for then a Person who is once a Proxie for a Man, behoved to continue as Proxie for him during all the time of his Office & Absence. So that if a Baillie should go out of the Country the first Month of his Election, and be absent all that Year, he that were then chosen Proxie for him, behoved to con­tinue [Page 7] till the end of that year, which were absurd, and inconsistent with the Im­memorial Custom of changing of Proxies every Diet, and in this particular case com­plained on, there were only three Proxies called in the day of Leeting, viz. George Home for the old Provost, Alexander Baird for Samuel M ^cclellan who was a Merchant-counsellor, and James Bowdoun for George Fullertoun another Mer­chant-counsellor, which George Fullertoun returning the night before the Electi­on, upon the the morrow he Voted jure proprio to the Election: Likewayes George Home Voted as Proxie for the old Provost, so that there were none of the Proxies altered but Alexander Baird, to whom the then Provost sent an Officer the night before the Election, to intimate to him, that he needed not come the next day to the Council; at which time the Council chused James Bowdoun Proxie for Samuel M ^cclellan, so that Alexander Baird having got intimation the night before, that he was not to be a Proxie to the Election, he could complain of no Incivility, being that day Elected a Baillie.

4. The Complainers insisted on this pretence, that the extraordinary Dea­cons were not allowed to Vote at the Election of Proxies, for making up the number of thirty eight Electors, though they were present and demand­ed it.

To which it was answered, That the Defenders oppone their former Answers and the Set, which appoints, page 19. That if any of the Provost, Baillies and Council be absent, the rest who are present, shall choose another in their room: by which word, Council, is meaned, the Council of thirty for Leeting, and not the Council of thirty eight for Electing, as appears unanswerably from this, that that Chapter concerns two distinct Points, viz. The supplying of absent Dea­cons not of the Council, and the supplying the room of the Provost, Baillies, and Council: And as to the first Point, anent a Deacon not of the Council, his being absent, it appoints the last Deacon, or he that was in the Leet with him, to supply his room; So that the Set determines who shall supply the place of an absent extraordinary Deacon, without allowing a Proxie to be chosen for him, either by the extraordinary Deacons, or by the ordinar Council, or both: And then it says, If any of the Provost, Baillies, or Council be absent, the rest who are present shall choose; which Rest, must be the rest of that number, whereof any are absent, which is of the Provost, Baillies and Council in contra-distin­ction to the extraordinary Deacons; and it were unreasonable, that when there are no Proxies to be chosen for extraordinary Deacons, (and so the or­dinary Council can have no Vote in choosing of them) that yet the extraordina­ry Deacons should have Vote in the Election of Proxies, for representing the Leeters, and which is so strange, that it was never heard of till now, that the Complainers zeal has made them find that in the Set, which was never dreamed of before.

5. The Complainers insisted on this Ground, that albeit by the Set it be pro­vided, that before they proceed to Elect, there shall be an Oath Administrat to the Electors, that they shall choose the persons most meet, without Favour, Ha­tred, or Collusion, yet that was refused, though it was demanded by Robert Black­wood, and Instruments taken thereon.

To this it was answered, That the Defenders oppone their former Answers, viz. That the pretence is false and calumnious, for upon Robert Blackwoods making, and insisting in that motion, the then Provost told the Council, that by their Oath de fideli, they were bound to give the Votes of their Consciences, and that they were to give the saids Votes as in the presence of God; to which they [Page 8] all gave their assent, and in particular Robert Blackwood, who acknowledged, that he was satisfied therewith, which is sufficient to satisfie the Set, unless there were a difference betwixt assenting to give their Votes of their Consciences in the presence of God, and solemnly protesting before God; which difference is a niceity more suitable to Jesuitical Philosophy, than to solid Divinity and Law, and that they did assent to give the Votes of their Consciences, as in the presence of God, it is hoped, is sufficiently proven by the Instrument, and Depositions of the Witnesses adduced.

6. The Complainers insisted on this Ground, That George Stirling, and the other persons mentioned in that Article of the Libel, did enter into a Conspira­cy, by signing a Paper under their hand, to adhere to Sir John Hall.

To which the Defenders repeated their former Answer, viz. That the same was false and calumnious.

After this Debate the Complainers pretending with a great deal of confidence, that all the matters of Fact asserted by them, were sufficiently proven by the Books and Registers produced, did Judicially pass from all Probation by Wit­nesses; But there being a Committee appointed by your Lordships, for Exa­mining the Defenders Witnesses, adduced for proving their Libel of Reconven­tion, the Complainers did refile, and pressed to have Witnesses examined upon several Points of their Libel, and among the rest, they urged before the Lords of the Committee, that Witnesses might be received for proving the pre­tended Conspiracy for adhering to Sir John Hall, and contended that the same was probable prout de jure, by Writ, Witnesses, or Oath of Party.

To which it was answered, for the Defenders before the Committee, 1. That the Libel being a Combination in Writ, by the Defenders alledged signing a Paper to adhere to Sir John Hall, is only probable scripto, because such a Combination without Writ to that purpose is no Crime, it being ordinary in the Magdalen Chappel, for the Lesser Part to be concluded by the Major, and to promise to Vote in the Council as the Pluralitie did in the Chappel; especially seing if any such Paper were produced, it might be a null Paper not probative a­gainst the Defenders. 2. That the Combination libelled, was not probable ju­ramento partis, because it is a contravention of the 78. Act of the 14. Parliament King James the second, discharging any Leagues or Bonds to be made within Burgh, but at the Commandment of the Head-officer, under the pain of Con­fiscation of their Goods, and their Lives to be at the Kings Will: So that the Com­bination libelled, being a Capital Crime, or at least Infamie, the Defenders are not holden to Depone thereupon. To which it being Replied before the Committee, 1. That Crimes are probable prout de jure especiallie done before many Witnesses, as this which was done in the Magdalen Chappel before the whole Deacons. 2. The Complainers not insisting for the Defenders Life and Limb, they are oblig'd to Depone upon the Combination, especiallie Their Majesties Privy Council restricting the same to an Arbitrary Punishment.

To which it was duplied for the Defenders, to the first, That a Crime whereof the Nature is to be in Writ, and without which it will not be a Crime, it can­not be proven but by the Writ, against the Nullities whereof the Defenders might object, if it were produced. 2. Persons by the Claim of Right are not oblig'd to Depone against themselves in Capital Crimes, howsoever the Punish­ment be restricted; besides, that Their Majesties Privy Council have no ways restricted the Punishment here, nor would their Declaration prejudge His Maje­sties Interest, but that his Advocat might thereafter insist before the Justices for the same Crime.

[Page 9]This Debate being reported to your Lordships by the Lords of the Committee, your Lordships found it probable by Witnesses. Writ, or Oath of Party, in the Complainers option, whereupon the Complainers past from any Probation by Witnesses of the pretended Combination, and offered to prove the same scri­pto, vel juramento partis; and in order to get the same proven scripto, by production of the pretended Paper, they urged six or seven of the Defenders, to depone a­nent the having of the Writ, and fraud fully away-puting the same, and these Defenders having deponed Negatively, the Complainers urged that they might depone upon the Tenor and Import of the Paper lybelled on, and it being al­ledged for them before the Lords of the Committee, that the Complainers could not make use of two manners of Probation, viz. scripto, & juramento partis; And therefore since they had taken themselves to Probation scripto, by production of the Paper it self, and in order thereto had forced the Defenders to depone anent their having the same, or knowing where it was, they could not now make use of the Defenders Oaths for proving of the Tenor of the Paper, which was to prove that Article juramento partis, after they had attempted to prove the same scripto, And the Complainers Replying, that this Combination was pessimi exempli, and therefore it should be narrowly lookt into, and should not go uncensured, tho the Paper cannot be produced, and therefore the Defenders could not refuse to depone upon the Tenor, since every one of their Oaths can only be probative against themselves.

Upon this the Lords of the Committee appointed the saids Defenders to depone upon the Tenor and Import of the Paper libelled. And it being alledged that they were content to depone in the precise terms of the Libel, viz. that they had sub­scribed no Paper obliging them to adhere to Sir John Hall, and the complainers replying that they ought to depone upon the whole Tenor and Import of the fore­said Paper, what it was, if it was not oblidgment to adhere to Sir John Hall, that the Lords might thereupon Judge what the Paper imported, whereupon the Lords of the Committee appointed several of the Defenders to depone anent the whole Matter, relating to the said pretended Combination; by whose Depositions it clear­ly appears, that there was no Paper subscribed by them obliging them, or promising that they should adhere to Sir John Hall, which they deny in formal terms; but all they depone is, that the Magdalen-Chappel having split Votes, the major part being for James M ^clurg, the Deponers having voted for Sir John Hall were prest by some of the Complainers not to break the Unity of the Chappel, but to be concluded with the Plurality, and to Vote for James M ^clurg, whereupon the Deponers then declared, that they had voted according to their Consciences, and that they were not to blame for the breaking the Unity of the Chappel, because the Deacon-Conveener occasioned the same, by his declaring to them some days before, that he would Vote for Sir John Hall, encouraging them thereto, by declaring that the Chappel would be equal, and he would give his cast­ing Vote, which Answer did not satisfie some of the Complainers, but they still prest that the Deponers might either be concluded by the Vote of the Plurality, or else that they should be extruded the Chappel, which forced the Depones to sign a Declaration in their own Vindication, be [...]ring, that the Deacon-Conveener decla­red to them he would be for Sir John Hall, and that he himself had altered his mind, and now blamed them for Voting for Sir John, in which Paper there was no engagement on them to adhere to Sir John Hall, nor so much as a Declaration of their design for whom they would Vote, except their design were inferred [Page 10] from this, that they had already Voted for Sir John Hall: so that it is evident and undenyable, that this calumnious Article of the Bond of Combination was libelled on, of design to get some Shadow and Pretence to make this a Council Process before your Lordships, there being no other Article, but what was com­petent to have been pursued before the Judge ordinar:

In Respect of all which, the Defenders ought to be assoilzied from this groundless and calumnious Pursuit: and if the least Scruple there anent remain with your Lordships, (as is hoped there can be none,) It is humbly desired, that your Lordships would remit the same to be discust summarly before the Lords of Session, as was done by your Lordships Predecessors in the like case pursued by some of the Neighbours against Sir Andrew Ramsay, and that in respect that a­ny Difficulties arising here, are occasioned by the Complainers Nice­ties and Quiblings upon some Passages of the Set, for detorting the true meaning thereof, and which being Debates anent the point of Right will easily be cleared by the Lords of Session. Or other­ways, it is humbly desired, that your Lordships would be pleased to advise with his Majesty what is proper to be done in this Process, in Respect it is of great Import to the Government of the King­dom, and will be a Preparative either for Settling or Unsecuring generally the Magistrats of the whole Royal Burrows.