DUPLIES To the PETITION and REPLIES given in to the COMMISSION of PARLIAMENT For FYNES and FOREFAULTURES, By Alexander Monro of Bear Crofts.  
THIS Petition being a pretence to an Office impetrate contrare to the express Terms of an Act of Parliament, and without payment of a sixpence, and whereof the Petitioner having reaped the profit for six years together; He thereafter freely Renounced and Overgave it in favours of Haystoun, upon payment of seven Thousand Marks. It is no wonder if the grounds of it be now urged, and debated with as little Reason and Argument, as the claim itself was first intented with regard to Law and Justice, for the Printed Replies resume the Defences, and cite the Text of the Roman Law with so much disingenuity, making such gross and affected misapplications and unreasonable and illiterate inferences; First, setting up a shadow of Fear and Force, and then adduceing a nauseous volume of impertinent citations against it, that it seems the Petitioner (who could have replied much better himself) has referred them to some of his Lawyers, who had only the advantage to read more Catalogues, and profess more Law of design to embroile the case, and to teach the Lawyers employed for the Clerks no other point of Learning, then to mistake their Defence by his Example.  
It will be needless to trouble the Commission by repeating here the matter of Fact in the Answers, seeing the Answers are in the hands of the Honourable Members, nor is it  to resum the Dilator defences, already proponed, but only to add this farther, which may be considered as a Dilator, viz. That since the Petitioner has neither Consigned nor Offered the price he received, his Lybel should be cast, and the Defenders not obliged to Answer to it, as was solemnly Decided on the 6th of July 1543. the Laird of Waughtoun against Sinclair of Steinstown, and on the 26th of June 1576, Mackilvain against Crawford; And therefore the Defenders shall endeavour shortly to Duply to what is alleged in the Reply against the perremptor Defences.  
Where 1mo: It is denied, That the Government can dispose of private men's Rights, for the public Utility, upon giving the private Party a reasonable Recompense for their loss, which was never before denied by any Doctor, and is allowed by the practice of This and all other Nations, especially as to the Disposing or Regulating of public Offices; Was not the Office of Justice Deputes suppressed, and the Justiaciary turned in a Commission to five of the Ordinary Senators of the College of Justice, when Mr. William Murray, and Mr. John Preston had Gifts of the said Office of being Justice Deputes during life, without alleging any crime against them; or giving them any recompense for their loss? And twenty other instances might be given of the like cases, even when there was no pretence of any Law against the Constitution, as there is a clear and positive Act of Parliament founded on in this case, if it were not destroyed by the double Canonshot at it by the Reply, viz.  
1mo. That there is no such Act of Sederunt, nor Act of Parliament; because the Defenders acknowledge, the Record containing the Act of Sederunt is a way, and consequently the Act of Parliament must fall, being only relative to the Act of Sederunt; Et non creditur Referenti nisi constiterit de relato.  
This is a sort of reasoning unworthy of a Schoolboy, much less of a Doctor of Law, as the Replier pretends to be: For seeing the Act of Sederunt subscribed by the whole Lords is extant, the abstracting of the Record will not make it Null. 2do. Esto, That both the Record, and Act of Sederunt were abstracted, will that extinguish the force of the Act of Parliament, which does not only ratify the Act of Sederunt, but declares the same to have the Force and Authority of an Act of Parliament? and that none may pretend Ignorance; The whole Tenor of it is verbatim repeated in the Act of Parliament, and made a part of the same.  
But the Replyer finding that this would not do the Business, the Act of Parliament must be found Null, by it's not being insert in the Index of the unprinted Acts. Which 1mo. is most Irrelevant. 2do. It is most false, as any that will be at the trouble to read the Index will find.  
And as his last effort against the said Act, he will have it in desuetude, and prescrived by an Argument of a piece with the rest, viz. That on the 25 of July 1632, Mr Alexander Gibson, and John Gibson his Brother, were presented conjunct Clerks in one Office, by Sir John Hamiltoun Clerk Register, and accordingly admitted by the Lords; and upon the 1 June 1636, Mr John and Mr William Hay his Son, were presented conjunct Clerks in one Office by Sir John Hay Clerk Register, and accordingly admitted by the Lords, and that ever since there has been two Clerks in each Office.  
The matter of Fact, as appears by the Record, was, That Mr Alexander Gibson in the 1632 being sole Clerk; designed to have his Brother John Gibson joined with him, and did dimite the Office in the hands of Sir John Hamilton, to the effect he might grant a new Gift in favours of his Brother John Gibson and him, the longest liver of the two; which was accordingly done. And in the Year, 1636. Mr John Hay and Mr Alexander Hay his eldest Son being conjunct Clerks, Mr Alexander the Son died, and Mr John the Father makes a Dimission of the Office in the Hands of Sir John Hay Clerk Register, for his granting a new Gift in favours of himself, and John Hay his other Son the longest liver, which was accordingly done; Both which Gifts proceed expressly on the consent of the Incumbent, in the terms of the Act of Sederunt, and Act of Parliament; and consequently are very foolishly brought in to prove that the said's Acts were in desuetude and prescribed; And the first instance that can be given of placing two Clerks in one Office, without the consent of the Incumbent, was in june 1649. (when the English were invading the Kingdom, and all things in disorder) that Sir Archibald johnstoun of Wariston did present Mr. David and Mr. john Hayes conjunct Clerks in one Office; And to infer by that single instance, That the Act of Parliament was in desuetude, or that it did prescrive betwixt the 1649. and 1661. or 1669, argues more Confidence than Judgement; So that the great foundation of the Reply, viz. That the Act of Sederunt and the Act of Parliament were in desuetude, and prescrived, falling, all the Superstructer must fall in consequence, and the King's Letter appointing the Clerks to be regulate according to the said's Acts, will not import injustice, much less Concussion.  
The Learned Author of the Reply is in a mistake, to pretend that the Answerer alleadges, the Lord Tarbat was the first that procured a Liberty to admit more Clerks than one in each Office; For all along its acknowledged, That Sir Archibald Primroses Gift did likewise import that Liberty; But all that is contended is, That the Lord Tarbat was the first that did exercise that Liberty according to Law viz. By conjoining only upon the express consent of the Incumbents in the Office; For, if the Register might conjoin one without consent, there can no rational ground be given why he might not conjoin three or four in each Office: So that the cause of Deputing one or more in each Office, will either run too far, or must be regulate by the Act of Parliament, and the Interest and Conveniency of Liege's, of which the Lords of Session are the only proper Judges. And it is hoped it will not be pleaded, That the King could dispense with the Act of Parliament; And the reason why the Lords of Session did think it convenient, that there should be no more than one Clerk in one office, unless the other Clerk were brought in at the Desire, and with the Consent of the Incumbent, was by reason of the prejudice that the Liedges might sustain through the delay it might occasion in the dispatch of Justice, by the Debates and quarrelings that might arise betwixt two Clerks in one Office, that were not in a good understanding together, whereof the Petitioner is a living Instance.  
It is then apparent that His Majesty's Letter being conform to the standing Law of the Kingdom, neither it, nor the Act of Sederunt following thereupon, can import any injustice as to the Petitioner; But on the contrair, Mr John Hay had better ground to allege, That the Lords sentence, appointing him to pay 7000 Marks, was unjust, seeing the Petitioner was imposed upon him contrair to Law; then the Petitioner has to allege that the 7000 Marks was not a reasonable Composition, being more than ever before that time was paid for any of these Employments. And the vast difference betwixt Tarbat his bringing in of Conjuncts in each Office, and Sir Archibald Primrose his bringing them in does clearly appear, in that the one was done in the express terms of the Act of Parliamenr, and conform to Law; and the other expressly contrair to Law, which was fully considered by the Parliament 1685, wherein what Tarbat did, was approven and ratified, not in course, but by a special Act of Parliament, which is not declaratory, but is Statutory, and yet not Derogatory from the Act 1621.; for as the Act 1621., allows only one Clerk in each Office, without consent of the Incumbent; so the Act 1685, allows only of two with consent; and so secures that the Register should not be able to bring in more than two in each Office, albeit he should procure the Incumbents consent, which seemed to be unclear by the Act 1621.  
To the second Defence, on the Brocard, That in dub●● melior est causa possidentis, It is Replied, That the Petitioner in point of Right was prior tempore, and therefore potior jure; And that the possession of the present Clerks can avail them nothing, in respect of the violent way that the Petitioner desiit possidere.  
To which it is duplied, That it is true caeteris paribus qui prior est tempore potior est jure; But in this case (though there were no such thing as the Act of Parliament) the advantage of the possession would make the difference, and prefer the Clerks; And the Law does indeed provide, That qui dol● desiit possidere, cannot thereby better his own case, which may be the Petitioners; but unless it could be proven that the Clership were not in commersio, or had vitium rei furtiva, this advantage must by Law follow the possession, that in dubio it prefers the Possessor; And it is observable, that albeit by the Law of the twelve Tables rei furtivae aeterna fuit authoritas; Yet the Praetorian Law in the Edict, quod metus causa, neither did nor could extend in rebus metus causa gestis, such a vitium real, for ever nor against all singular Successors; and supposing there had been just cause of fear in this case, as there could be none, it were but an unjust wresting of the Roman Law, to the plain prejudice of the Clerks, to give the Petitioner the benefit of that Edict, the effect of which against singular Successors was at first but Annual, ending with every Pretor's Authority, and thereafter endured no longer, even in rebus immobilibus, then for the Ten years of the Roman Praescription, and to refuse the Clerks, the benefit of that Ten Years Prescription, which (considering that their Rights have been bona fide acquired; and possessed be them and their Authors for fourteen Years together, without a shadow of interruption) would settle and secure the same according to the Roman Law, beyond all possible controversy.  
The third defence founded on the recording of his Majesty's Letter, the Clerk's consent, and all these public Acts of Sederunt, and Parliament mentioned therein; and the Petitioners so long acquiescence and not quarrelling the same, meets with no other Reply then that it is a quibble on the l. gesta: cod: dear jud: to apply it to any other thing then to the Testimonies and Depositions of Parties and Witnesses, and that the recording any Transaction or Matter in itself defective cannot supply its defects.  
To which it is duplied, that it would appear the Replyers common sense in Applying of that Law goes no farther than his Gloss and Commentars' led him, otherways he could not oversee the Import of the word (Gestum) in his so much boasted Edict, Quod metus causa gestum est, etc. And the ll: 19 and 58. ff. de verb signif. Are the best Commentars' for the meaning of that word, which make it to signify any Deed that can be the foundation of a Right; and it was not reasonable to think, that the recording Depositions of Parties, and Witnesses should interess the public Faith more, or put singular Successors in greater security in Relation to the subject matter of such Depositions, than the Recording public Rescripts of Princes, and solemn Acts of Sederunt, and Acts of Parliament should do in Relation to what is defined and enacted thereby. And albeit the Discharge and Renunciation to Haystoun, on payment of so considerable a Sum, be the likest thing of any to a Transaction; yet it is hoped that the KING's Letter for executing the Law, the express and judicial consent of the three Clerks who had then the sole Right, and the several Acts of Sederunt Recorded, and whereupon the Clerks Rights are founded, will not be found matters in themselves defective; and tho' they should, the two Acts of Parliament cannot; So that without the highest Violation of the public Faith, that can be made in reference to private Rights, and most unjust Derogation, to the uncontraverted Law of the Kingdom, there can be no question of the Rights of the present Clerks to their respective Offices, which were bought as dear, and have as many clear and solemn Laws for their security, as any so much property within the Nation.  
To Elide the 4th and 5th Defences, founded upon the Homologation and Renunciation; There is a forced Bogle of a Concussion pretended, and a laborious Concession of Citations thrown in, as if the antiquated Name of Caldas were as useful in Lawyers debates to persuade the wisdom of the Nation; as the Jargon of Album Grecum, and the like; is to raise the value of that precious Drugge; But because all, or most of the Citations, do not at all serve to clear, that there was any Fear or Concussion in this Case, and only prove that Deeds extorted by Force and Fear, are reduceable in Law, which is not the question; And likeways, that the Replyer pretending to explain the true causes and effects of Fear has after his manner wandered far from these Causes of Fear, which the Law has fixed: Therefore passing these Citations which concern not the question, let the Legal Causes of that Justus Metus, which by the Roman Law, gave the Benefit of Restitution be considered, as they are defined by the Text itself, which is so clear, that it leaves no ground of debate, and plainly excludes the Petitioner's Case; For the l: 3: and what follows in the Title ff: Quod metus causa, etc. Determines concerning the just causes of Fear in these words: Continet igitur haec clausula & vim & metum, & si quis vi compulsus aliquid fecit per hoc edictum restituitur. §: 1. sed vim accipimus atrocem, & eam quae adversus bonos mores fiat, non eam quam Magistratus recte jutulit, scilicet jure licito, & jure honoris quem sustinet. (which is the very Case) Caeterum si per injuriam quid fecit populi Romani, Magistratus vel Provinciae Praeses. Pomponius scripsit hoc edictum locum habere, si forte inquit mortis vel verberum terrore pecuniam alicui extorserit. l: 4: Ego pato etiam servitutis timorem simuliumque admittendum. l: 5: Metum accipiendum Labeo dicii non quemlibet timorem, sed majoris malitatis. l: 6. Metum autem non vani hominis, sed qui merito, & in hominem constantissimum cadat ad hoc Edictum pertinere dicemus. l: 7. Nec timorem in famiae hoc Edicto contineri, Paedius dicit, neque alicujus vexationis timorem per hoc edictum restitui, proinde si quis meticulosus rem nullam frustra timuerit per hoc edictum non restituitur quoniam neque vi neque metus causa factum est, proinde si quis in furto vel adulterio deprehensus, vel in alio flagitio, vel dedit aliquid, vel se obligavit. Pomponius recte scribit, posse eum ad hoc edictam pertinere, timuit enim, vel mortem, vel vincula. l: 8: §. 2. Quod si dederit ne stuprum patiatur Vir seu Mulier, hoc edictum locum habet, cum Viris bonis iste metus major quam mortis esse debet. l: 9 Metum autem presentem accipere debemus, non suspicionem inferendi ejus (as might have been in this Case) Et ita Pompomus scribit, Ait enim metum illatum accipiendum, id est, Si illatus est timor ab aliquo denique tractat, si fundum meum dereliquero audito quod quis cum armis veniret, an huic edicte locus sit, & refert Labeonem existimare edicto locum non esse & unde vi interdictum cessare, quoniam non videor vi dejectus qui dejici non expectavi sed profugi. And Cujacius on the said L: 7: defines in so many words, Non quilibet m●●us causam dat Edicto, sed mortis aut verberum, aut vinculorum, aut servitutis, aut stupri ex qua animus consternatur; And Antonius Faber ad dictam, L: 9: is of the same opinion, if the Authority of these two may be compared with that of the Replyer, and the same Faber, ad l: all: Eod: is positive, quod facto opus est, & quidem atroci & majoris melitatis ad hoc ut vis facta vel metus illatus dici possit. By all which it is clear as Light, that the Roman Law gave Restitution against no other fear than that of Death, Scourging, Fetters, Slavery, and Ravishing; And it will be as clear, That the Petitioner could be under no just fear of any of these, if it be considered; 1mo, That albeit his Majesty's Letter had made particular mention of him, and his Office, and that he had never so good Right to it; Yet in that case, the loss of his Office was no just cause of Fear, so as to infer Restitution against the Renounciation: How much less? when in that Letter he was not so much as named. And if neither the fear of Infamy, nor of any other Vexation, fell under the Edict, as a justus metus, which is expressly defined in the above Text, it is not intelligible how the parting with an illegal pretence, to an Office that cost him nothing, and for no less than Seven Thousand Marks, can be reckoned a just cause of Fear; in the Petitioner, occasioned by a Letter, wherein there is not so much as one word of him. 2do: Albeit the Letter had contained a threatening of his Majesty's displeasure against such persons as the Lords should think fit to remove, if they should refuse either to remove, or accept of the Modification; Yet that could infer no Restitution on the Edict, quod metus causa, nam metum non ●actationibus tantum vel contestationibus, sed atrocitate facti probari convenit; l: 9: cod: de his qui vi. 3tio: As his Majesty, and the Lords in this case, shown not the least disrespect to any of these persons who were removed at that time; so it is impossible per rerum naturam, that they could have designed either by that Letter, or Act of Sederunt, any other thing than their Removal, and the observing of the Act of Parliament, there being no manner of Certification adjected, in case of their not accepting the Modification; So that no confidence short of the Petitioners, could obtrude such a groundless pretext of Fear, to which he is able to give no other foundation than his own mere conjectures anent his Majesty's displeasure, to convel so lucrative and voluntar a transaction on his part; And after fourteen years' silence to quarrel singular Successors, for most Onerous Cause, in their Rights to an Office, so solemnly secured to them, and their Authors both by the public Law, and his own private Paction.  
The first of the two Texts, which were thought fit to be cited in the Replies, is in l: 6: §, 7: ff: de acquir: vel omit: haered: eum qui metu verborum vel aliquo timore coactus fallens adierit haereditatem sive liber sit, haeredem non fieri placet sive servus sit dominum haeredem non facere.  
To this it is duplied. 1mo. That the Aditio Haereditatis, being the engaging a Person in an Affair, which of its own Nature is of the greatest import, and the most involved that is known in Law, since it is almost Impossible for any Man to know distinctly the Vniversum jus, Quod defunctus habuit, before he enter Heir, and for which cause the dies Cretionis, and Au nus Deliberandi, were introduced to lessen that danger; it is therefore most probable that the Romans were more prone and ready to allow Restitution against the Aditio Haereditatis, and upon more slender Grounds then against any other Obligation in their Law, and it is certain that in our Decisions the Lords do frequently sustain defences to Elide an Odious passive Title, which they would repel in other causes, for the whole context of the Civil Law, anent the Edict, Quod metus causa makes that paragraph altogether eccentric and Irregular. But 2do. the great Cujace; whom never Man after Justinian's time equaled in the knowledge of the Roman Law, was so conscious to the absolute inconsistency of this Text, with the whole Titles, Quod metus causa both in the digest: & Cod. That he is forced in his Comentar, ad. l: 21. §: 5. Digestis quod metus causa to correct it, and in stead of Verborum to Read it Verberum: For (says he) metus est futurorum & sic dicimus metum verberum qui justus est, metus non verborum: So that this Text being thus restored will not meet the case; seeing if the alique timore, which follows the word verberum be not likewise corrupted, it must be understood habili modo, & necessarily supposed to be always a justus timor, scilicet ex justa causa; and it is pleasant to take notice that the Replyer could not find one single grew in all the Body of the Civil Law, which could be wrested so much to favour the Petitioners case save this corrupt Text only, and yet though it were sincere, as it cannot be; He could not subsume in the terms of it, neither the King nor the Lords having by Word or Writ threatened the Petitioner to accept of the Money or to grant the Renunciation.  
The other Citation is the l: 11. Cod. de his quae vi, etc. Si per impressionem quis aliquem metueus saltem in mediocri officio constitutum rei suae in eadem provincia, vel loco ubitale officium peragit, sub venditionis titulo fecerit Cessionem quod emptum fuit reddatur. Upon which Text the Replyer most insipidly subsums, That in the Petitioners case, there was aliquis metus, for a Child would have adverted that the word aliquem in the Text, could not construe with impressionem, and did refer only to the Concustor, and he is pleased to add that the Petitioner could not have disobeyed the King's command in his Letter, without the hazard of being constructed a seditious Contemner of Authority; so that his taking the Money was an Act of necessity.  
It is Replied, That the Impression mentioned, there behoved to have been a just one from a sufficient Cause; And albeit in this Text, which is acknowledged to be sincere, the word aliquem had been written aliquam, as the Replyer would have it: Yet the Law even in that case would regulate the Extent of that general Term, and restrict it only to a just impression, the causes of which are fixed and known in Law; And as it is evident from the Causes of Just Fear defined in the Text, as well as from the l: 10: cod: hoc tit: in these words, accusationis institutae vel futurae metu alienationem seu promissionem factam rescindi postulantis improbum est desiderium. That the hazard of being constructed a seditious Contemner of Authority was no cause of fear, to which the Roman Law would allow the benefit of the Edict, unless he should thereby have run the hazard of being truly guilty of Sedition: So it is gross to allege that the King's Letter bears a command to the Petitioner for accepting of Money, or Relates to him otherwise then as the Lords of Session should find just to apply it; but in this case there is no difficulty to understand that the Petitioner was abundantly secure from the hazard of contemning Authority, by his forbearing to intrude any more upon that Office, and suffering the Act of Parliament to be put to execution, whether he had accepted of Money for so doing, or granted any such Renounciation or not.  
By all which it is plain, that none of these Citations that are adduced out of Baldus, Anchoranus, Fulgosius, Geminus, Pappon: Caldas, Natta, Alexander, Arretinus, Menochius, and Bartolus are to the purpose; And in the case the Lady Grace against the Earl of Lauderdale, the Right transmitted by the Lady, was a Legal Right consistent with Law, the Concussor was called and insisted against, and there were Acts of Force and Violence libeled and proven; such as that the Earl violently entered to the possession of these Lands, disponed before any sentence in his Favours or Right made to him be the Lady. Whereas in this Case, tho' the Petitioner's Right had not been null by the Act of Parliament; yet there was no Force or Violence done for removing him, much less was he any ways compelled to accept of Money, or give such an express Renunciation of his Right; and if he had been intimidate by the LORDS to accept of the Money, as he was not; yet a Receipt of the seven Thousand Marks, had answered the Terms of the Act of Sederunt, by which he is not at all ordained to Renunce: And he might upon offering to consign such a Receipt without the Renunciation, have obliged Haystoun to pay the Sum by a Charge on the Act of Sederunt, upon which, albeit it be plainly and positively urged, that on the other Hand no manner of Execution could have followed against the Petitioner, if he had not voluntarly both given Obedience and Renunced; yet nevertheless, there is no Reply made to this, but that in those days he durst not offer to repossess himself of his Office, as it is humbly conceived he dare not now a days, albeit he might then as well as now, refuse or accept Money, and grant Renunciations or not, as he thought fit.  
The second Allegiance against the Concussion, That the LORDS had no interest to concuss, gets no better Reply; For to say the KING concussed, especially in an Affair wherein the Petitioner's particular Interest was not considered, and which might have taken full effect without his accepting of Money, and all without his giving any such Renunciation, does not at all take it off, and therefore needs no farther Duply.  
To the third on the special Case of singular Successors. It is Replied, That the Action of Restitution competent to the Party laesed, is in Rem scripta, and follows the thing extorted, whatever Bona Fides the possessor had in the acquisition.  
It is duplied, That this Allegiance does not grant, but only suppose the Concussion; and if the Replyer had been ingenuous enough in citing the Law, it had cleared the point: For when in his Reply to the Dilators, he citys, l: 14: §: 3. ff. quoth met. causa. After the words; In hac actione non quaeritur utrum isqui convinitur au alius metum fecit, sufficit enim hoc docere metum sibi illatum esse. He industriously suppresses these which immediately follow, Et ex haere eum qui convenitur etsi crimine caret lucrum tamen sensisse. Which words do not only quite exclude this Case from falling under that edict, seeing the Clerks have their Offices for most Onerous Causes, as is notour to all concerned, and so cannot in Law be said Lucrum sensisse; But likeways these words must secure all such singular Successors from the Avarice of evil Men, whose pretences they could not possibly obviate, and what is said before to enforce the second Defence, as to the difference of res furtiva, and metu gesta, in relation to singular Successors is here repeated, tho' it be sufficiently cleared by what is already said, That the Petitioner was under no Impression whereof the Law takes notice.  
Whereas it is Replied, to the 4th: Allegiance. That the Renounciation being granted while the King who signed that Letter was in life, And the Petitioner within his reach; The Renounciation ought in Law to be looked on as an effect of the same continued Awe and Force, whereby he was removed; And the same as if Robbers had plundered him of an hundred pounds, and offered back ten on his Discharge of the whole, in which case the Discharge could not hinder Restitution.  
It is duplied, 1mo: Although the Letter had expressly commanded him, to remove from his Office, yet unless it had adjected a certification of Death, or an or other, of the above effects of the vis atrox, defined in the Text, it could import none of the Legal and fixed causes of justus metus, But it's far otherwise, and that Letter is intended and conceived in such terms, as could not possible fright any Rational Man, And it is not in the least questioned, but the Petitioner (if he had not been conscious to the nullity of his Gift, as being grounded on that dispensing clause, in express contradiction to the Act of Parliament, and constitution mentioned in that Letter) he would have refused to accept of the money, and without delay would have applied to the King, to be reponed, who as the Petitioner cannot deny, looked on him at that time as a very Loyal Subject, and wanted but such an occasion to reward the Faithful Sacrifice he constantly rendered to him during the English Usurpation. But 2do: The Letter and Act of Sederunt were sufficiently obtempered by his removing; and if he was thereby bound to give a Receipt to Haystoun on payment of the Seven Thousand Marks, which is not unquestionable, yet it is plain beyond all contradiction, that there was no necessity from that Letter, or the Act following upon it, either for his accepting of the Money; or after he had taken it for his granting so positive and ample a Renounciation in terms sufficient, both to Denude himself, and to transmit his pretence in favours of others; though the Letter and Act of Sederunt had left his pretended Right as entire as it was at the first granting of it; and as to the ungentle parallel of the Robbers, there are so many disparities, and so palpable, that it merits no more Particular answer than that the Petitioner is not in the case of the Edict, and though he were, the difference in Law betwixt Res metu gestae and res furtivae betwixt singullar successors for most onerous Causes, and Robbers need not be insisted upon.  
The Replyer ends with a Reflection on the Wrongs committed in the latter Reigns, as if the dispensing clause in Sir Archibald Primroses Gift, and be virtue whereof he appointed six Clerks of Session, in manifest contempt of the Act of Parliament, were not one of the most pregnant instances, though nor the most important, that can be observed of that Nature, since the Restoration of the Monarchy; and was a wrong done not to a single Person only, but to that entire Fraternity, & the making a preparative to break that Employment and thereby occasion the greatest disorders in the Administration of Justice in all time thereafter, if the Registers thought fit to constitut as many Clerks of Session as the Secretaries of State are in use to admit Writers to the Signet, which they might very well have done be virtue of that Clause, if the King could have thereby dispensed with the Act of Parliament, 1621. Although it be but consonant to the Modesty of the Replyer to obtrude that the King's letter for Executing the Act of Parliament was an act of Tyranny; and yet that Clause was a deed of legal Administration because it is the Foundation of the Petitioners pretended Right who does very much disparage the sufferings of these Persons in whose favours Their MAJESTY'S and the ESTATES past the Act of Parliament, for Rescinding Fynes and Forefaulturers, by so Whinning a Comparison of the merits of his cause; for though his MAJESTY'S Commissioner had not in plain Parliament Ordered the Petitioners Case to be Expunged out of that Act, it is very well known that he never suffered the least inconveniency for Conscience sake; Nor will any Man who has not darkened that Light by Self-love and Avarice, pretend to an Office; which after he enjoyed for several years without paying a Groat for it; He then Renounced upon Receipt of Seven Thousand Marks; And knows very well that the present Clerks, whom he would now Rob of it, did purchase it bona fide, for a greater Sum; And whereof (if he should prevail) they have no Action competent to them for Recovery of a Sixpence.  
In Respect whereof, The desire of the Petition ought to be Refused, and the Petitioner condemned in such Expenses as the Honourable Lords and other Members of the Commission of Parliament, shall find just.   

THE VISCOUNT OF TARBAT Being Cited INCIDENTER in the Action betwixt Alexander Monro, and the Clerks of the SESSION; Does humbly Offer what follows to be Considered by the Right Honourable COMMISSION of PARLIAMENT.  
BY The express standing Statutes, the Clerk Register's Deputes for Parliament and Session, are restricted to the number of Three. The Law prohibits the Clerk Register to commissionat any more; or to adjoine any to these Three, without express consent of the other Principal to whom any shall be adjoined.  
Some three or four times, one desires of the Principals; one has been adjoined to the Desirer before the year 1640, and this was consonant to Law. But Sir Archibald Primrose casts in a Clause in his Commission allowing him to join one or more in these Offices, as should be found conducing to the good of the lieges; and on this warrant joins one to every one of the Three Offices, ratifies their Gifts in Parliament, and they serve in Session; but without ask or getting any express consent of the other Three, as the Law does specifickly require; and amongst others, Mr Monro is adjoined to Mr John Hay Gratis.  
Anno 1764, The KING being informed, that this was against Law, and (as some said) inconvenient, He by a Royal Letter to the Session, as a just Executor of the Law, requires the Lords to reduce these Offices to their lawful Constitution and Number; But according to His Clement Nature, did also prescribe, that these who in consonancy to Law were to be removed, should have a Gratification given by the other who was to remain in each Office, at such a rate, as the supreme Judicature of the Nation should judge fit: The Session giving dutiful Obedience to the Royal Will, in reducing this matter to the Rule of the Law; They modify no less, than the full of what was by custom paid for such an Adjuncts Office at, or before that time; viz. 7000 Marks to each.  
There is no doubt these who were judged fittest to be removed, would rather have kept their illegal possession, then take this sum: But they could not but think their removal was ordered with Clemency, when as by Law, they might have been set off from their illegal Possession without the reimbursement of their inconsiderable Advance; yet to be reimbursed of it, and enjoy their gain whilst they possessed, though to the Laesion of the other Clerks, on whom they were intruded, and accordingly they went off in acquiescence.  
But if two who bought their Office did so, how well satisfied should Mr: Monro have been, who not only entered illegally, and more illegally than the other two; but also gratis? And albeit he would rather have kept the Office, yet he shown full acquiescence; 1. By using no Protestation nor interpellation to the sentence; 2. By homogating it, in receiving the Price. 3. By a Legal Disposition of all such Right & Title as he had, to another. And 4 by acquiescing for 14 years in this transaction. And 5 by a voluntar exercing another Office in that very Court, inconsistent with his being a Clerk. viz. Of an Advocate without Protestation or Insinuation, that he had so much as any pretence or an eye to the Clerkship. One who were not versed in the Novel of Mr Monro's Replies, and knew nothing but Law and Reason, would think that if there was Injury done to any in all this Affair, it was to Mr John Hay, on whose Office Mr Monro was obtruded; And when the KING restored him to his Right, that yet he behoved to pay for this Justice, and to one who had no legal Tittle to it, and who gave nothing for it, had Mr Monro so much of pretence, it had saved his Lawyers the expenses of a great deal of mistake, both in citation and application of Laws  
However Mr Hay goes from the Office, Sir Thomas Murray being Clerk Register, what should now be done? A Clerk is  for the Kingdom, and exercise of Justice; Mr Monro puts in no claim on his notable Tittle, and I dare say, Sir Thomas Murray did not guests that he could not place one in that Office, without hazard of being a Concussor, a Robber, or some other of the Replyer's Epithets. In the name of sport, the Clerk's place must vaik till Mr Monro think fit to desire it, or until he sit down in his Chair: Sir Thomas did not know this Obligation, he Commissionates another whom he and the Session judged fit, and receives a good deed for it viz. 100 Pieces more than Mr John Hay did give for the half of it to Mr Monro. He serves the lieges, but what's paid him for his Service? He must by this New Natured Logic, pay it in to Mr Monro who Served none, Interpelled none, and Exerced two other lucrative Employments at the time, inconsistent with this Service of a Clerk: And not only so, but to the as good, he must remove and yield his Place to Mr Monro, I hope under the pain of Quadruple: For so the Edict prescribes against the unwilling Restorer; and no doubt, the now Clerks are not frank to Restore hastily.  
Well, Tarbat as the Replyer doth shortly call him, comes thereafter to be Clerk Register, and in his time Actions were multiplied, and it was judged by many not unfit that there should be two in every Office. Tarbat advises it, and finds the Judges of this Opinion, He Represents it to the King, who gives his Consent, but so as by a Letter, to lay it before the supreme Judicature, who found that because of the standing Law this could not be done without the consent of the Three who were in Office, and they consenting, Three were adjoined.  
Tarbat did not by Virtue of a Clause contrait to a standing Act of Parliament, take a Liberty to add one or more in these Offices; But Tarbat according to the Law, did add one to each, with the consent of him, to whom he was added; And whereas the Clause crept in to the Clerk Registers Commissions was no narrower than to allow him to add one or more; Tarbat did take care in the Act of Parliament 1685, That the power of Adding, though with consent, should not exceed one of Addition; And all this while Tarbat can Declare, he never heard or thought of Mr. Monro as pretending to be a Principal or Adjunct.  
Now, How comes Tarbat to be called or concerned in this Process? if it be for Restitution of what was paid to him, in case of Eviction; he protests to be heard against that in time convenient, since on hitherto uncontraverted grounds of Law, he will make it evident, that non tenetur de evictione, of what he got, quatenus in officio; and that against the Repetition when urged.  
But he presumes it Legally impossible, That Deputes can be in the least hazard from so wild a Claim, not only not founded but opposite to all Law, Justice, and Reason. And is far from doubting, That the Right Honourable Court of Parliament, will take severe Animadversion of so scandalous and calumnious Plea's; which indeed as much as in the Pretender lies, reflects as far on the Justice of that Court, as can possibly be done, by bringing ridiculous Claims to vex the Liege's; As if that High Court could not soon discern what every Person of common sense, cannot but discern; As to which Lybel and Replies so full of the darkest mistakes of Law, and Lawyers, and so stuffed with Paralogisms in Law, and Solaecisms in Grammar; He will make no Answer, that being with far more Learning, nor is proportionable, fully made by the Clerks in their Answers, and Duplies to the Petition and Replies. And albeit he knows himself not reachable in the particular; yet your Lordship's will, I hope, allow him to expostulat for redress against such Injuries, to Subjects, to Laws, and to our Sovereigns; For as to ourselves perhaps Record cannot instance so calumnious a Plea. Sometimes the Adversaries gives their Action the name of Concussion, another time of Quod metus causa; and sofurth. I may say with Cato in salust. Jam pridem equidem nos vera rerum vocabula amisimus, If there was Concussion? will the Possessor sine crimine be discerned against before a Concussion be proved? And can a Concussion be proved Judicially, without so much as citing a Concussor? For they are not yet so ridiculous, as to allege that the now Clerks were the Concussors: Well, if they miss of a Concussion, it must be found reduceable ex capite metus; But where is the Violence? not so much as one threat alleged to dimit the Office, no, not a Legal Execution, nor possibility of one to force an Homologation: And yet both Dimission, Disposition, and Homologation, so voluntarly granted without a shadow of Coaction, must be reduced ex capite metus: Is not this unparelleled calumny, and ridiculing of our Laws, intolerably! But to make up all, Concussion, Violence, Robbery; And all the Black Names is summed up at last, by the Replyer, in this. It was done by the Letter of a King, who because he writes to his Senate, to Reduce Enormities and illegal Invasions of Rights, to, and according to the Standing Laws, and that by no extrajudicial Edict, nor new erected Court, nor extraordinary Commission, but by the Ordinar Supreme, and best loved Court of the Nation: So far from showing Anger at the Persons; that in Rectifying the wrong, he gratifies them by Reward, rather than Punishment; And so far from Threats, that Gentler Expressions could not be Adapted, to excuse the faults of a Child, than was used by this Father of the Country to these transgressors of his Law; But this is treated with no more Civil Name, than Concussion; And in plain Terms a KING! for so Just, so Clement, so moderate, so beneficial execution of the Just Laws, is branded with the express Character of a Concussor, a Robber, a Tyrant! which touching so rudely on the lawful exercise of the Sovereign Power, as not only to Defame a late Glorious King, Uncle to both Their MAJESTY'S; But with a most Criminal Insolence, to Panel Kingship! And to Attack the Monarchy in its most Eminent Rights. Therefore to conclude, The Viscount of Tarbat, Does Humbly Entreat Your Lordships, to consider this Invasion of the Royal Honour and Power, as a matter worthy of Your Notice; And Desires that no Progress be made in this matter, which wholly depends on the King's Sovereign Power; And the Execution thereof until His Majesty be informed of the nature of this pursuit, wherein His Honour, and the Right of the Crown is so deeply concerned. And Humbly Offers, and Proposes as a Subject, a Peer, and a Member of Parliament, That His Majesty's Advocate, Solicitor, or their Substitutes, may be consulted in so high a Point; And that inquiry be made for the Authors of this scandalous, Criminal Libel; And further, Humbly Offers to Yours Lordship's Consideration, if the Cause do not require, that the Authors and Spreaders be secured, until His Majesty's Pleasure be known herein.