To His Highness' PROTECTOR OF THE COMMONWEALTH of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and the Dominions thereunto belonging.  
The humble Address of Sir JOHN SCOT, of Scottistarvet.  
May it please your Highness,  
THe free access which you are pleased to give to all strangers, and the speedy satisfaction that you afford their grievances, emboldens me to present these papers to your Highness. My Lord I had the possession of an Office in Edinburgh called the Directory of the Chancery granted to my Ancestors, and after them to me and my Son for our lives under the great Seal of Scotland. The grounds and reasons of my being put out, I do here humbly submit to your Highness; which I have the rather done, partly that I might conceal no occasion for your Highness to show your justice, in deciding the cause of the innocent, partly out of an ambition to be employed among the rest of my Countrymen in your Highness' service, counting it the chiefest happiness of me and my family, that I have some title and claim to so great an honour.  
In the fourth clause of the Declaration of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of England, concerning the settlement of Scotland, are contained these words,  
Fourthly, the Parliament do declare, that all such persons of the Scottish Nation as are not comprehended in the former qualifications, but have kept themselves free from the guilt of those things which have compelled this war, and shall now upon the discovery of their own true interest be disposed to concur with, and promote the ends formerly and now declared by the Parliament, shall be taken into the protection of the Parliament, and shall enjoy their liberties and estates, as other the freeborn people of the Commonwealth of England.  
After this came down certain Commissioners, who continued at Dalkeith, and published a Proclamation the last day of January 1651. wherein they did declare their power and intention, given them in these words, We shall by virtue of the power given unto us by the Parliament of the Commonwealth of England forthwith appoint and authorise persons for administration of justice unto the people of Scotland, who are to be continued for some short time, until the Judicatories and Courts of Justice may be in a more lasting and solemn way established.  
Upon this act the Judges of the Session appointed Alexander Jeffray to be in the place of Director for the Chancery, and because they knew him to be ignorant in the managing the affairs of that Office, they put under him two of the Directors servants, giving them a salary of fifty pounds per Annum.  
Your Highness' petitioner then finding that he had got wrong, not so much from the large extent of the sense of the said Proclamation, as from a misinterpretation of the words, and the since appeased severity of those times, made an address to your Highness in this following petition.  

To his Highness, etc.  
The humble Petition, etc.  
Shows,  
THat whereas it pleased your Highness on the 24. of April 1655. to refer my Petition craving to be restored to his Office of Director of Chancery, in which he was established by a gift under the great Seal for his life time, and from whence he was displaced without any cause, to the determination of six of your Highness' Council, or any three of them; yet they never took trial thereof in respect of other great affairs, which hindered them from hearing the same.  
May it therefore please your Highness to remit the trial thereof either to your Council in Scotland or to the Judges of the Sessions to whom it doth properly appertain to judge in such affairs; to the end that upon their report to your Highness, You may declare your farther pleasure, as to the re-establishing your Petitioner in his just employment wherein he hopes to do your Highness and the Commonwealth acceptable service.  
Upon which your Highness referred the matter to the Judges of the Sessions that they upon hearing thereof might certify the particulars to your Highness, with their opinion concerning the same: if they thought fitting.  
This being sent home to Scotland and delivered by him to the Judges, together with his reasons for his restauration, they refused to give him any answer thereunto, but told him that they would write an answer to his Highness themselves, which they forbade their Clerks to show me; So that your petitioner was forced to make a journey to London, where he found it in the Master of the Request's hands, to this effect:  
That they did humbly Certify to your Highness, that upon the Declaration of the Commissioners of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of England for ordering and managing afiairs in Scotland, declaring all power, jurisdiction and authority in Scotland not derived from the Parliament of the Commonwealth of England void, according to the power committed to them and the trust reposed in them for filling all places of trust with fit and qualifified persons, they did by their Order the 16 of May, 164●. nominate and authorize Alexander Jeffray a person of known integrity to be Director of the Chancery, etc.  
Their Order was to this effect.  
The Commissioners for Administration of justice to the people of Scotland being careful according to the power committed to them, and the trust reposed in them, that all places of Trust subservient to the Court of Justice be filled with fit and qualified persons so as justice may be done with most ease and speed, have nominated and authorized Richard Ward Clerk of the Bills, Alexander Jeffray Director of the Chancery, etc.  
Now, may it please your Highness, I should have sat down contented, had their power extended to require my obedience. But, my Lord, my employment not being within the verge of their jurisdiction, I implore leave from your Highness to complain if I am wronged by those who never had any power granted them to do it. Which I am the more bold to do, upon the score of these Reasons, which I here submit to your Highness' perusal, wherein I shall prove that the Office of Chancery is no ways subservient to the Court of Justice, as the Judges are pleased to allege.   

Reasons why the place of Chancery is no ways subservient to the Court of Justice, as is alleged by the Judges in the Report to his Highness.  
1. NO Officer of estate, who had any Vote in Parliament, can be thought subservient to the Court of Session, seeing the Judges themselves were ever hitherto silenced from Voting therein. But so it is, that the Directors divers ages had voice in Parliament; as namely, Robert colvil of Hilton, in K. Ja. 3. time sat in the Parliament holden Decemb. 2. 1482. and in the Parliament holden June 29. 1487. Ergo it cannot be subservient to the College of Justice, which endured till the time that the Directors became Lords or Clerks of the Session; at which time they were esteemed Members, as being Judges or Clerks, but not as Directors of the Chancery.  
2. The Court of Justice not being instituted till the time of King James the 5th. and the Chancery being brought in by King James the first, from England, as testifieth Craig in his second book, De feudis; there can be no contingency betwixt them, nor the one thought any way to be subservient to the other, except some mention had been made in the said institution, which is not, but only of ordinary Clerks, Advocates, writers to the Signer and Maissers.  
3. The Directors in all Infeofments under the great Seal, these 100 years and above, have been always styled Counsellors, and so cannot be thought subservient to the Court of Justice in any manner of way; by the 40th. Act of the institution the College of Justice are called those of his great Counsel, and so they were superiors to the Sessioners or Judges; and in our time they raised the Session in time of a pestilence.  
4. If the place of the Directory of the Chancery had in any ways been subservient to the Court of Justice, than it behoved the Director as a member thereof, to have contributed some money to the out reaching of the Chancellers Troup, in Anno 1644. which he no ways yielded to do; but refused in the face of the Session, as will appear by the Raters testification hereof, which (if need be) shall be produced, declaring that he was not in that Catalogue at all.  
5. At the Institution of that Court, the half of the Judges were Kirkmen, the other half secular Gentlemen, learned in the Laws; whereas the Directors of the Chancery then and long before, were honourable Barons, Knights, and the King's Counsellors; and at that same time the College was instituted, the Director was chosen one, viz. James colvil of Eister Weymes, who albeit he was Director, yet is not so styled in the book of that days sederunt; that the places might not be confounded nor though absolutely necessary that every Director should be a Judget albeit then for his worth and learning he was chosen one; and, that the Directors continued still Judges, both before and after the institution, for 60. years together, to the effect that they might inform the rest, when questions came to be agitated among them concerning that Office, as daily occurreth in that Court, yet that will not infer any subserviency of the Chancery to the Court of Justice, especially seeing there hath been sundry Directors who had no place nor access to that Court, viz. Mungo Tennent Fosterbrother to Queen Mary, made Director by her at Orleans, 1560. Mr. George Buchanan, made Director in the year 1570. James Hamilton of Stenhous, and Sir John Scot, at his first entry to the place, until he was made a Sessioner.  
6. A clear difference may be found in that, that the Directors have their gift under the great Seal, the Judges only have their place by a Letter of the King's; the first unrevocable for their life, the other always removable at the Princes will, as was cleared to King Charles at his entry to the Crown; which he then practised, by changing a number of the said Judges, and placing others in their room.  
7. If the office of the Chancery were any ways subservient to the College of Justice, then might the Senators thereof make such Rules, Statutes, and Ordinances therein, as they should think expedient, which the King and his Successors is obliged to ratify and approve by the 43. Act of the institution; but that neither they nor the Directors themselves, may alter any form of the Chancery, is proved by the 24th. Act of K. Ja, the fourth, commanding the forms of the Chancery to be punctually kept, and no styles thereof to be altered; which Act is 46. years passed before the Court of the College of Justice wus instituted.  
8. And whereas it may be alleged that in so far as the Judges discharged Briefs, and passed Commissions, usually by some of their number, that these Acts seem to make that. Office subservient to that Court: It is answered, that that will not follow, for the said Judges ordinarily advocate causes from Sheriffs and Lords of Regality, who notwithstanding are Sovereign in their own kinds and no ways subject to the said Judges or Court of Session.  
9 The Judges appears to have had no such power given them to put in another in the Directors place, in regard of the fourth Act of Parliaments declaration, dated the 28 of October before the Commissioners coming for Scotland, which Act makes him and all others who carried themselves soberly, who were not guilty of any thing that moved the War, free of danger, and capable to enjoy their liberties and estates (whereof no doubt but any Office is a part) and his subsequent act of the Counsel freeing him from his fine, declares him capable of all favour due to all the rest of the good Subjects of England, being found thereby by his Highness to have done good service to the Communwealth.  
10. The independency of that place of the Chancery may be easily perceived by K. Ja. his 4 act parl. 20. wherein the Director and his Deputes are discharged to give out Breefs to excommunicate persons.  
11. If the Office of the Directory of the Chancery had any contingency with that of the Court of Justice, then would they have been contracters with the town of Edinburgh in the contract of mortification for maintenance of a Regent of humanity in their College, and had contributed some part of the stock for that use, and would have had voice in his election when the place was vacant, but so it is, that only the Judge's advocates, and writers have voice there not the Director all at. Ergo.  
12. That the Directors have been always distinguished from the Judges, may appear by that of K. Ja. some 40. years ago, who appointed all Members of the College of Justice, several habits as to the extraordinary black velvet gowns, to the Judges purple gowns, to the Advocates, Writers, Maissers of several forms of habit; but the Directors were never tied to any habit.  
14. Albeit it may appear that the servants of that Office, as being writers, may be thought to depend upon the Session; yet the distinction of him from his servants, is evident from the common style of all Writs, sought to be sent from the Judges to him, whereby the writer craves a Warrant to the Director, and Clerks of the Chancery; so albeit they had power to put out his servants as Clerks, but never the Director himself as they have done.  
14. To evidence who are condescended upon to be members of the College of Justice, is fully expressed in the 216. Act of the 14. Parliament of K. Ja. 6. wherein is discharged the buying of any Lands and Possessions, depending in plea by the Lords of Session, ordinary or extraordinary Advocates, Clerks, Writers, and their servants; wherein is no mention of the Director of the Chancery, which was reputed so considerable an Office, that it would not have been otherwise pretermitted, his Office being of that respect that he was employed as a privy Counsellor, as is before said.  
FINIS.