ANSWERS For Sir John Hall Lord Provost of Edinburgh, the Magistrates, Town Council, and others. To The Complaint exhibited by James Mcklurg, George Clerk, Robert Blackwood, William Paton, and others, against them.  
THe Sum of the long Libel is this, that the Defenders are factious persons, designing to perpetuat the Office of Provostrie of Edinburgh in the Persons of Sir John Hall, and Sir Archibald Muir by turns, and to enhance and squander the Common-good of the Town, and that the said Sir John and George Stirling, by their imprudent Carriage in Parliament, towards the Royal Interest, occasioned a great Branch of the Towns Revenue to be cut off by an Act of Parliament; And that for these Designs of perpetuating that Magistracy, and inhancing the Common-good to themselves, they have made many Invasions on the Set and Constitutions of the Town, by the three last Elections, which the Complainers crave may be reduced, upon several pretended Violations of the Set; and the Defenders otherways punished therefore; and in order thereto, the Complainers crave, that the Books and Registers of the Town Council may be produced, and which Libel consisting of two Sheets, back and before, was execute against the Defenders upon Saturday in the afternoon, to compear before your Lordships this day.  
For although the Complainers were sufficiently picqued at the disappointment they met with, in not being advanced to places within the Town according to their expectation, a great while ago, which they themselves thought they did deserve (though the plurality of the Town Council was of another opinion) and consequently the Complainers have had a considerable time to advise and consult this their long Complaint, yet they never attempted to raise the same, till after the death of Sir James Rochead, one of the conjunct Clerks of the Town, that Mr. David Dalrymple his Son in Law, having agreed with Aeneas Mcleod, Sir James his Conjunct, to get his  of the half of that Office, the Complainers knew, that the receiving or not receiving of a Clerk, was in the power of the Defenders, and that they had grounds to believe that the Defenders would not receive Mr. David in that Office; so they would have the settled Magistracy of the Metrapolitan overturned, to make way for their own Advancement, and the Instalment of Mr. David in the foresaid Office: For within an hour after the Execution of the Libel against the Provost, Mr. David proposed to him, and thereafter to bailie chiefly, that the Town Council would enter him to his Father in Law's place, which Favour Mr. David would not have demanded from a Magistrate, which he thought was presently to fall, even though they had granted his desire, but would rather have been obliged for that Compliment to James Mclurg his Cousin, who (as the Complainers give out) is to succeed the Provost if they prevail.  
As the Factiousness of the Defenders, they humbly represent to your Lordships, in all sincerity, that they are of no Faction, neither Jacobite nor Episcopal, but are persons well affected to the present Government, both of Church and State, and that they have no intriguing with such disaffected persons, whatever Friendship the Complainers may have from such, and whatever Inclinations the Disaffected within this Town may have shown, to have the Complainers brought into the Magistracy; For as Sir John Hall and George Stirling, their Zeal and Affection for Their Majesty's Interest, did appear in their hearty and cheerful Concurrence in the late happy Revolution, as Members of the Convention of Estates, representing this good Town, so Sir Archibald Muir made his Loyalty and Zeal for this present Government, eminently appear by his inducing of the Neighbours of the Town to offer to contribute for the Maintenance of a Regiment, for Defence of the present Government, when a dreadful and present Invasion was threatened from France, and of which Offer your Lordships need not to be remembered.  
As to Sir John Hall and Sir Archibald Muir's design, to perpetuat themselves Provosts of Edinburgh by turns, though it be the great Drift and Scope of the long Libel, and many far fetched Consequences, and Repetitions used to evince and make out that Design against the Defenders; yet the Sum of all is, that Sir John was first Provost, and that Sir Archibald succeeded upon his Dimission, and that Sir John was elected at Michaelmass last, when Sir Archibald went off; Yet that Sir John was first legally Elected, the Complainers cannot contravert, and that Sir Archibald succeeded him, cannot infer the Design of perpetuating the Office betwixt them, since it is imppossible, but that one Man must succeed another; beside, Sir John had no hand in the Election of Sir Archibald, having voted both for Leeting and Electing Archibald Hamilton: So that the Design is only inferred from this single Act, that Sir John is now Elected after Sir Archibald; when James Mclurg's Friends offered to lay Wagers, that he would carry the Vote. But it is a strange Confidence to infer from one single Act, a Design of perpetuating the Office by turns; when the Complainers themselves cannot deny, but that Sir John was absent all the time that the last Election was in Agitation, and that he was very unwilling to accept of the Office, after he was voted Provost, and which Office he only accepted for the Common good, and not for his private Interest; since the Complainers dare not say, that he made, or makes any Advantage by the place; nor could Sir John gratify his Ambition thereby, having had the Honour before, of being chosen Provost by the popular Election in a critical time: and continued a second year by the ordinar way of Election.  
As to the Design of inhancing, and squandering the Towns Money, it is no ways evinced by any Fact or Deed done by the Defenders, in inhancing, or squandering already any part of the Towns Goods, nor in any such thing alleged to be done by the Libel, but only the Hundreth Pounds Sterling given to William Menzies (which shall get a good Answer in its proper place) And as for the inhancing of the Towns Money, the Complainers have not the Confidence to allege the Defenders have already done it, or to give any Instance thereof, but they would have them removed, because they may Enhance the same hereafter, which if it be a good Argument, all Magistrates may be removed because they may Enhance; But to redargue the Complainers Jealousies of Inhancing, they know that at the Michaelmass 1683. the Town was but in six hundreth thousand Marks of Debt, which by the Mismanagment of the Magistrates in five or six years extended it to seven hundred and sixty _____ thousand pounds when Sir John Hall entered to be Provost; for the former Magistrates were in use to Borrow Money for payment yearly of their Annualrents, and expend yearly of incident Charges, _____ thousand pounds or thereby; whereas since the Revolution there has no Money been Borrowed for payment of Annualrents; but on the contrary some Principal Sums have been paid, and the Yearly incident Charges of the Town has not extended to so many hundreds, as it did to thousands before.  
A● to that point of Sir John Hall, and George Stirling, their losing a great Branch of the Towns Revenves, by their imprudent Carriage in Parliament towards the Royal Interest. It is answered, That it is a strange Insolence in the Complainers, to quarrel Members of Parliament, for their Carriage in Parliament: for which they were not Challenged by the Parliament itself, since it is undeniable, that it is the Freedom of the Members of Parliament to be Censured by none but the Parliament for what they act therein; and the Parliament did never Censure either of them for what they did, as Members thereof, and the Town was so far from being Displeased with their Carriage therein, that even after that pretended Miscarriage in Parliament, they were continued in the Offices of Provost and Deacon-Conveener: And since the Complainers do not condescend upon the Miscarriage, the Defenders can make no distinct Answer thereto, but as they were, and are Members of this current Parliament, so they Acted and Voted in Parliament according to their Oath de fideli, and no Man would offer to Censure and Accuse Members of Parliament for their Carriage therein, but these that perhaps hereafter may take the liberty to reflect upon the Acts of Parliament, and the claim of Right, when they touch them, or their Relations: And as the Complainers cannot condescend upon any particular Miscarriage of the said Sir John and George in Parliament, though the same were to be Cognosced by the Parliament (who are the only Judge Competent thereto) yet the Complainers mistake the consequence of the pretended Miscarriage, when they say that a Branch of the Revenue was cut off by an Act of Parliament, for that Branch was the two pennies on the Pint, whereof the Town had an Arbitrary Grant from the late King, without Consent of Parliament, which was Condemned as Illegal, by the Convention of Estates, and so was not cut off by the Parliament, whose Act did not cut off the same, but did Indemnify the Town for uplifting Bygones: and granted them a Year thereof in time to come, with a New Imposition, etc. which was all that the said Sir John and George could get done for the Town, notwithstanding that they used their utmost Endeavours, to get the two pennies upon the Pint continued by Act of Parliament for a longer time: So that the saids Sir John and George their Carriage in Parliament, could not occasion the cutting off the two pennies on the Pint by Act of Parliament, which was contrary to the fundamental Laws of the Kingdom, condemned as Illegal by the claim of Right, and had been Treason in the Town to have Exacted it, without a New Act of Parliament, unless the Complainers be of Opinion, that the Late Kings absolute dispensing power asserted by his Proclamations be yet in Vigour, and that that Branch of the Revenue would have stooden in despite of the claim of Right, if the Parliament had not out of Displeasure at Sir John Hall and George Stirling, taken it away. And if the Complainers mean that Sir John and George in stead of cutting off the Gift, did hinder the Renewing thereof by the Parliament; It is Answered, that they Voted, according to their Consciences, and albeit they had had all the Freedom the Complainers would have advised them to, yet as things than stood, the plurality of the Parliament would not have concurred in Renewing of the Gift.  
The Complaint being a Reduction of three successive Elections. It is alleged by way of Defence. 1. The Conclusion for Reducing the two first Elections, cannot be sustained for Annulling the Elections, or inferring any Censure on the Persons Elected, they having served out their time, and gone off in course before the Elections were quarrelled: And the Complainers having acquiesced thereto, and concurred with them in the Council: and Sir Archibald having had the Honour to sit amongst Your Lordships, as Provost of Edinburgh, while the Provost was in the Nomination: And Your Lordships being Judges to possession, when it is unjust or Violent, if the possession be ended and passed, the unjust possessor, cannot quite the possession. And therefore these Magistrates not being now in possession of the Magistracy, cannot be put out thereof, and although there had been Streaches made at their Election, and Invasions upon the Set, yet these consisting in point of Right, depending upon the Interpretation of obscure Clauses: if the Complainers Design to prevent the like, for the time to come: they ought to insist in the Declarator, which they raised a Year and an half ago, upon the same pretences, which they have Ommitted to do ever since that time, being conscious of the Weakness of their own Cause. 2. As to the last Election, the pretended Informalities of the first and second Elections, can be no ground to Annul the same: otherways, if such Errors of Election should influence, and infect succeeding Elections, than any Elections of Magistracy might be quarrelled upon Errors done at any time within forty years. & all the Deeds done by the succeeding Magistrates, might be quarrelled upon that Ground. For albeit the Convention of Estates by their Authority, before Their Majesty's acceptation of the Crown, did appoint a popular Election thorough all the burgh's, because of the manifold Encroachments had been done by the Government upon their Privileges, yet it were hard that Errors and Informalities in Elections occasioned by the Competition of Neighbours within Burgh, should so far affect succeeding Elections, as to be grounds to annul the same when the Election quarrelled itself hath been most regular. And therefore the Election of their Defenders to the Magistracy, cannot be quarrelled upon any Informalities in the two preceding Elections. 3, Adhering to the former general defences for taking off the particular pretended Informalities of the Elections, it is answered as to the Points quarrelled in Sir Archibald Muir's first Election. 1. That where the Libelers pretend that after two and twenty of the Town-Council had Voted to fill up most part of the eight Proxies requisite to make up the number of thirty, and the Votes splitting Eleven to Eleven as to some of these Proxies, the Defenders refused bailie Graham the odd Vote which was due to him as first Magistrate for the time, and withdrew Tumultuary, though the Complainers Party stayed, whereupon the Libelers made a representation to the Council, and both Parties being heard, the Defenders did Boldly and Falsely assert that there could be no Proxies chosen for two old Counsellors who had right to Vote jure proprio, unless they had absented after they were required to come, whereupon the Council ordained both Parties to begin a new Formal Election, at which time the Defenders did choose eight Proxies over again, which if it was right, than the first Procedure was right, and there was no place for the new Election of Proxies, and if it was wrong as being contrary to the Privy Councils Order, than the Election must fall.  
To which it is shortly Answered, That the Procedure of the Town Council, prior to your Lordship's Order, was fully debate before your Lordships, where it was evinced, that only the Provost had the double Vote by the Set, and that Privileges in Law are strictissimi jur is, and that no bailie did ever claim the same, and that there was nothing disorderly in the Defenders carriage in withdrawing when the Votes splited, since one half of the Council is not subject to the other, and the Libelers party that sat still being only Eleven (which was not a Quorum, and so could not fill up Proxies) that, and not their Modesty or Discretion was the only stop of their Procedure at that time, and that by the Set pag. 15. it is clear that the thirty Leeters are eighteen of the new Council, and twelve of the old, which twelve are the old Magistrates, three Merchant Counsellors, and two Trades Counsellors, so that Patrick Johnstoun and James bailie being old Merchant Connsellors, had right to Vote proprio jure, which the Defenders do yet assert, notwithstanding of the Libelers calling it a bold and false Assertion, which the Complainers may take in better part, since the Libel bears that your Lordships took notice thereof, though it was not thought worthy to be noticed by the Libelers in their Debate; and upon which Debate, your Lordships ordained both Parties to proceed to a new formal Election, and the two old Counsellors to be called to Vote proprio jure, which appointment was obeyed in precise terms, and these two old Counsellors called, and six other Proxies chosen only to prevent a Clamour, these two Counsellors were not only called proprio jure to Leet, but further got a Vote, which was not to make them Proxies, but approving them to Vote as old Counsellors, which is the Complainers mistake, for a voting them Proxies, whereby it is clear, that the first Procedure in voting of eight Proxies was wrong, because the two old Counsellors had right to vote proprio jure, and that the choosing of six Proxies after your Lordship's Order, and allowing the two old Counsellors to vote, was legal and according to your Lordship's appointment. And for bailie Graham's pretended odd Vote, it was thought such an odd Claim by your Lordships at that time, that bailie Grahame had not the confidence to claim it, when your Lordships ordered them to proceed to a new Election. And therefore to the first Nullity, that after your Lordships had ordered a new Election, they choosed eight Proxies; It is Answered, they choosed but six, and allowed the two old Counsellors to vote conform to your Lordship's Interlocutor.  
2. As to that Point, that the Libelers had raised a Declarator before the Lords of Session, and given in a Petition, craving the same might be discussed summarily, which the Lords appointed to be seen and answered, which Deliverance was intimat, notwithstanding whereof the Defenders did proceed.  
To this it is answered, that the raising and executing of a Declarator, and Deliverances on Bills to see and answer, does not stop Execution, otherways it were in Parties power to stop Execution, by raising Declarators of course, and the Lords Ordinance to see and answer on a Bill without stoping Execution, does not hinder Parties to proceed in the Execution of their Right, especially when they are warranted thereto by the Allowance of Their Majesty's Privy Council, so that the Defenders having according to your Lordship's appointment, prefixed a day for the Election, before the Intimation of the Lords Deliverance, there was not the least ground of pretence, for delaying the Election upon that Deliverance.  
3. As to that pretence, that your Lordship's Ordinance was upon Thursday, and that upon Friday the youngest bailie called a Council to meet upon Monday, upon which day, they both Leeted and Elected, which was done to prevent the sitting of the Privy Council and Session: It is answered, that the youngest. bailie may call a Council, when the elder bailie will not do it, and that a Council met together upon the Call of any Magistrate, is a legal Council, especially when they are called together by Warrant of the Privy Council, and the youngest bailie his calling a Council upon the morrow after your Lordship's Ordinance, cannot be counted a Fault, being a ready Obedience, and the Council there appointing on Friday, Monday to be the day for Leeting, is no breach of the Set, since there is no time determined thereby for Intervals betwixt the Leeting day, and the preceding Council day: Neither is the Leeting and Electing upon one day contrair to the Set, unless the Diets were confounded at the ordinary time of the Election, for when Magistrates dimit or die, the method of Election of their Successors is not determined by the Set, neither is there the same reason for the distinguishing the days of Leeting and Electing of one Magistrate, as when the whole seven are to be chosen, and Custom has cleared the Point, for both Sir Thomas Kennedy and Sir Magnus' Prince had but one day each of them, both for their being Leeted and Elected.  
4. As to that Pretence, that Threats and Promises were used, to get the thirty persons Leeters made up to Sir Archibald Muir's Election, and that the Town Pensioners were allowed to Vote therein, who were excluded to Vote in the popular Election, by the Act of Convention of Estates. It is answered, that the Complainers deny the using of Threats or Promises upon the Account libeled, albeit the Lybellers cannot deny, that they and their Accomplices, did actually apprehend with Caption George Drummond late Theasurer, upon suspicion he would Vote for Sir Archibald (and that after they had called him out of the Council-house to the Door) whereby they actually hindered him to Vote in the Election, neither are Threats and Promises for Voting relevant to annul Elections, unless they be made or ordered by the Parties Elected; and as to the Town Pensioners voting in the Election. It is answered, the Convention of Estates debars only Beed-men and Servants to Vote in the popular Election, but Sir George Drummond and James Currie, who are two of the persons the Lybellers aim at, are no such persons, and were admitted to Vote in the popular Election, and were themselves Provosts of Edinburgh, and may be chosen yet Provosts of Edinburgh, there being no Limitation in the Set, not to choose Magistrates who have Pensions off the Town, and certainly he that may be chosen Provost of Edinburgh, may Vote in the Election of a Provost of Edinburgh; As to James bailie who is the third person, against whom the Lybellers aim, as a Servant of the Town, because he is Captain of the Towns Guards: It is answered, that James bailie is a Gentleman, and a Merchant of a competent Fortune and Trade, though he be Captain of the Towns Guard, and was an ordinar Merchant-counsellor the year preceding, when he had the same Employment, and it is absurd that he who could be an ordiner Counsellor the year preceding, while he had the same Employment, should because of that Employment, the next year be incapable of Voting as an old Counsellor in the Leeting and Electing of Magistrates. Likeas the Act of Convention expressly appoints all Elections, after the popular Election, to be according to the Set, and there is nothing therein to hinder persons that are old Counsellors the year preceding, or that are chosen Proxies, from Voting in the Leeting and Election of Magistrates, though they have Pensions from, or be Servants to the Town.  
2. As to the pretended Informalities in the second Election, viz. 1. That Patrick Johnstoun was then advanced to be bailie, though he was but twenty days a Counsellor before, which is contrair to the 10 page of the Set, which appoints that no person be chosen Magistrates, without they have been a Year or two on the Council before. It is answered, That these words of the Set (An Year or two upon the Council) are not to be understood that a Man must be a full Year upon the Council before he be a bailie, but that he must be a part of the Year upon the Council before he be bailie, and which hath been the constant custom, as particularly in the case of Thomas Hamilton, who was made a bailie within eight days after he was made a Counsellor, and Joseph Majoribanks, after he was but a Month a Counsellor; and which two were chosen Bailies for that same Year wherein they were made new Counsellors, whereas Patrick Johnstoun was a Month a Counsellor for the year preceding, and the rest of that year was bailie of Leith before he was chosen bailie of Edinburgh; Likeas James Mclurg and William Paton, two of the Libelers themselves, were Elected Bailies, when they were no longer Counsellors than Patrick Johnstoun was: And that the Paragraph Quoted by the Libelers must be understood that Annus ceptus pro completo habetur, is evident by the 15. page, where it says, If any person of the Merchants chosen upon the new Council, happen to be promoted to another Office, another shall be chosen in his room: Which clearly imports that a person of the new Merchant Council may be promoted to be a Magistrate, since there is no other Office in the Council he can be promoted to but a Magistrate. And if a person of the new Council can be promoted to be a bailie for that year he is chosen Counsellor in, it necessarily imports, that a Man needs not be a whole year a Counsellor before he be Elected bailie, since generally those of the new Council were never Counsellors before, and therefore this Article, as it is groundless, so is it shamelessly stated by the Libelers against the Defenders, since some of themselves were promoted that same way.  
3. As to that pretence, that George Stirling was continued more than two years on the Council, though the Set expressly provide, that no Man shall be upon the Council more than two Years, except he be an Office-man, which George Stirling being a Tradesman, was not capable of. It is answered, that George Stirling was Elected a Trades-Counsellor by the Popular Election, and at the Michaelmass 1689. he was chosen Deacon of the Surgeons, and Deacon-Conveener of the Trades, and was chosen as a Deacon to be Counsellor, wherein he continued till Michaelmass 1691. And at Michaelmass 1691. was chosen again to be a Trades-Counsellor, wherein he hath continued since; so that George hath not been yet two years a Trades-Counsellor; for the Libelers mistake is this, that they do not think a Deacon an Office, and that they confound a Deacon-Counsellor and a Trades-Counsellor; whereas a Trades-Counsellor and a Deacon-Counsellor are contradistinct: And the Paragraph of the Set alleged on, is immediately subjoined to the method and manner of choosing the two Crafts-Counsellors; And it cannot be denied but a Deacon is an Office, and that the six ordinary Deacons are on the Council as Deacons, and having that Office, whereas the other two Counsellors are on as Tradesmen, and are called Trade-Counsellors; so that George Stirling having been continued on the Council in two distinct Characters, he hath not contraveened that passage of the Set, nor did he ever acknowledge any such thing, and if he had, it was a mistake, and cannot hinder him to continue on the Council, when he is Elected according to the Set; which is further cleared from the constant practice, so William Hamilton Taylor continued eight years by changing his Character of Deacon, Counsellor, and Trades-Counsellor; and so Alexander Reid Goldsmith was continued six or seven years on the Council.  
3. As to the pretence anent William Carse, that he being one of the extraordinary Deacons, was chosen to be one of the ordinary Council of Twenty five, whereby the Council of Thirty eight was reduced to Thirty seven, and the Defenders forced to choose Thomas Campbel Proxy for William Carse, when he was personally present, to make up the number of Thirty eight persons at the Election. It is Answered, That there is nothing in the Set to hinder any of the eight extraordinary Deacons to be Elected one of the two Trades-Counsellors, that makes up the ordinar Council of Twenty five. And it were strange, that when any Tradesman might be Elected one of the two Trades-Counsellors, yet an extraordinary Deacon should be incapable to be on the Council of Twenty five, because he is a Member of the Council of Thirty eight, when the whole Twenty five Members of the oridinary Council, are all Members of the Council of Thirty eight, as well as the eight extraordinary Deacons; and it is a mistake to assert that Thomas Campbel was Proxy for William Carse when he was present, for he was Proxy for the Deacon of the Fleshers, whose place was vacant, as one of the fourteen Trades, because of the advancement of William Carse to be an ordinary Counsellor, who in that Character could not represent the Incorporation of the Fleshers. And this same was practised when Sir Thomas Kennedy was Provost, in the case of John Robison Litster, who being Deacon of that Trade, and so a Member of the Council of Thirty eight, was advanced to be upon the Council of Twenty five; And at the ensuing Election, another of that Corporation was brought in to Vote for that Trade, and to make up the number of Thirty eight by Persons at the Election.  
3. As to pretended Informalities in the Election of the present Magistracy at Michaelmass last, as 1. That of William Carse his Voting, both Personally and by Proxy, is answered already.  
2. That Proxies being chosen and admitted to Vote several days before, were thrown out by a Vote the day of the Election, contrair to the Set, page 16. and 17. Which appoints the thirty persons, who made the Leets, to make up with the eight extraordinary Deacons, the thirty eight Electors, and yet at this Election, these proxies were thrown out that Voted the Leeting. It is answered, that the Words of the Set, page 16. and 17. are opponed, which does not bear, that the thirty persons that Leeted, and the eight extraordinary Deacons, should make up the number of thirty eight Counsellors; but that the thirty persons of the old and new Council, etc. And the Libelers cannot subsume that any of the old or new Counsellors were excluded, and for the changing of Proxies at the Councils pleasure, there is nothing that hinders it by the Set, otherways a Proxy would be in the same Case with an ordinary Member of the old or new Council, which makes up the number of the thirty, if they could not be removed at pleasure; Likeas the Proxies that were thrown out the day of Election, were only called in, and allowed to Vote the preceding day of the Leeting, and were not called in the day of Election, and so the Council had reason to throw them out by a Vote, who officiously intruded themselves that day without an invitation.  
3. As to that pretence, that the Proxies who had Voted to the Leeting, were thrown out the day of Election, without the allowing Eight extraordinary Deacons to Vote, whether these Proxies should be continued or not: It is answered, that the Eight extraordinary Deacons are to Vote in the Election of Magistrates, and other Matters of Import mentioned in the Pag. 18. of the Set; But the Magistrates are to be Leeted by the Old and New Council consisting of Thirty (whereof the Extraordinary Deacons are no part) and if there by any of the Thirty absent, those of that Number of Thirty are to choose Proxies for the Absents: As is clear by the Set, Page 19 which provides no Proxies to be chosen for Deacons, but only the preceding Deacon to be called; and therefore since Proxies can only be chosen for the absents of the Thirty; these Proxies can only be chosen by these present of the Thirty.  
4. As to the pretence of the not reading the Set, and taking the solemn protestation accordingly. It is answered, that this pretence is False and Calumnious: For at that time the Lord Provost Replied, that they by their Oath de fideli, were bound to give the Voice of their Conscience: and the said Robert continuing to urge an Oath to be imposed: the Lord Provost told them, they were to give the Votes of their Consciences, as in the presence of GOD, whereunto they all gave their Assent, and in particular the said Robert Blackwood, in face of Council acknowledged he was fully satisfied therewith: whereupon Instruments were taken, and which can be proven by Witness thereupon.  
5. As to that pretence anent George Stirlings Declaration that he would continue no longer on the Council, and his retreating thereof. The same is answered already, for if George might be continued by the Set longer than two Years, changing his Character from Deacon Counsellor, to Trades-Counsellour, as he might for the Reason's above-written, than his own Declaration, though he had given it (which is denied) yet since he gave it by mistake, he may retreat the same.  
6. As to bailie Bowdouns being Elected, when he was not a Counsellor, a full year before; it is the same case with Patrick Johnstoun, which is answered already.  
7. As to the pretence against William Menzies, that though he could only continue two years' Thesaurer, and one year Old-Thesaurer on the Counsel; yet he has continued more without being in any other Office, than Thesaurer, which is contrair to the Set; Especially not having made his Accounts; And by the two years' Act it is provided, That no Thesaurer can be made a bailie, till he make his Accounts; and that the said William has got a Gratification of an hundred pounds Sterling from the Town, for his being Ringleader of that Faction (as they call it.) It is Answered. That William Menzies being chosen Thesaurer, at the popular Election he dimitted his Office at Martimass 1690. and so might have continued a year upon the Counsel as Old-Thesaurer; But in June 1691, when Sir Archibald Muir was chosen Provost, he was Elected youngest of the four Old Bailies; in which station he continued till▪ Michaelmass last, at which time he was Elected Old Dean of Guild; whereby it is clear, that he was never a single Merchant Counsellor since the Revolution; and so is not concerned in the continuance longer than two years, since all the time he was either present Thesaurer, Old-Thesaurer, Old-Baillie, or Old-Dean of Gilled; which four Capacities are all Offices; and any person may continue upon the Council longer than two years, when they are chosen successive to different Offices. And for his not making his Accounts, that delay is occasioned by James M●lurg, and the other Auditors, who would not clear his accounts of purpose to hinder him from being Elected a bailie, so that it is incompetent to and malicious in them to obtrude his not clearing of his accounts, he having Several times required them to audite the same, and take instruments upon their Delay, and it is most false that he is indebted any Considerable Rest to the Town, for he could make it appear that there is not four hundred pounds scots in his band; and as to the Gratification of an hundred pounds sterling allowed him, it was allowed him for his  Charges and Expenses the ninteen Months he was Thesaurer, and is less than ever was allowed to any former Thesaurer for their incident Charges.  
8. As to the pretence, that George Stirling had a Proxy Voting for him, as an old Counsellor, when he himself was present, and Voted as a present Counsellor. It is Answered, That there is nothing more rational and consistent with the Set, than to Elect an old Trades-Counsellour, who has not been two years upon the Counsel as a Trades-Counsellour: and to Vo●… him a present Trades-Counsellour before his two years run out; and his place of the O●… Trades-Counsellour not being filled, to fill up the same by a Proxy, to make up the number 〈◊〉 thirty; which Proxy was not a Proxy for George Stirling, who was present, but a Pro●● for the Old Trades-Counsellour, which was vacant by George's being made present Trades-Cou●sellour.  
9 As to that pretence, that the said George Stirling, and other Deacons mentioned the Libel, did enter into a Conspiracy, and subscribe a Paper to Elect Sir John Ha●… Provost.  
It is answered; That the alledgance is altogether false, and the Defenders denies the sam●  
In respect of all which, and that the Complaint is only at the Instance of Nine Persons, wher● of five Merchants, viz. James Mclurg, George Clerk, William Paton, Rober Blac●wood and Duncan Mcintosh; and four Tradesmen. viz. James Penman, William Sco●… Wright. Robert joglis and Andrew Paterson, of which number seven of them are priv●… persons, and the other two only Deacons out of Doors, the Defenders ought to be Assoilzi●… from the malicious and scandalons Complaint exhibit against them by the Complainers and the Defenders Libel of Re-convention ought to be admitted to Probation.