Selected quad for the lemma: day_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
day_n	friday_n	lord_n	thursday_n	4,699	5	13.2887	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A75451	Answers for Sir John Hall lord provost of Edinburgh, the magistrats, town council, and others. To the complaint exhibited by James McKlurg, George Clerk, Robert Blackwood, VVilliam Paton, and others, against them.		1694 (1694)	Wing A3465; ESTC R234722	12,007	10

was wrong as being contrary to the Privy Councils Order then the Election must fall To which it is shortly Answered That the Procedure of the Town Council prior to your Lordships Order was fully debate before your Lordships where it was evinced that only the Provost had the double Vote by the Set and that Priviledges in Law are strictissimi jur is and that no Baillie 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 Libellers 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 Magistrats three Merchant Counsellors and two Trades Counsellors so that Patrick Johnstoun and James Baillie being old Merchant Connsellors had right to Vote proprio jure which the Defenders do yet assert notwithstanding of the Libellers 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 Libellers 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 Procedour in voting of eight Proxies was wrong because the two old Counsellors had right to vote proprio jure and that the chusing of six Proxies after your Lordships Order and allowing the two old Counsellors to vote was legal and according to your Lordships appointment And for Baillie Graham's pretended odd Vote it was thought such an odd Claim by your Lordships at that time that Baillie 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 chused eight Proxies It is Answered they chused but six and allowed the two old Counsellors to vote conform to your Lordships Interlocutor 2. As to that Point that the Libellers had raised a Declarator before the Lords of Session and given in a Petition craving the same might be discust summarly 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 Majesties Privy Council so that the Defenders having according to your Lordships appointment prefixt 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 Lordships Ordinance was upon Thursday and that upon Friday the youngest Baillie called a Council to meet upon Munday 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 Baillie may call a Council when the elder Baillie will not do it and that a Council met together upon the Call of any Magistrat is a legal Council especially when they are called together by Warrand of the Privy Council and the youngest Baillie his calling a Council upon the morrow after your Lordships Ordinance cannot be counted a Fault being a ready Obedience and the Council there appointing on Fryday Munday 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 preceeding Council day Neither is the Leeting and Electing upon one day contrair to the Set unless the Dyets were confounded at the ordinary time of the Election for when Magistrats 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 Magistrat 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 Accompt lybelled albeit the Lybellers cannot deny that they and their Accomplices did actually apprehend with Caption George Drummond late Theasurer upon suspition he would Vote for Sir Archibald and that after they had called him out of the Council-house to the Door whereby they actually hindred 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 chuse Magistrats 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 Baillie 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 Baillie is a Gentleman and a Merchant of a competent Fortune and Trade tho he be Captain of the Towns Guard and was an ordinar Merchant-counsellor the year preceeding when he had the