Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	robert_n	sir_n	william_n	59,764	5	8.6810	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
B03783	Information, for Sir John, Hall Lord Provost of Edinburgh, Robert Chiesly and James Bowdoun baillies, Sir Archibald Muir, Patrick Halyburtoun, William Meinzies, William Hutcheson, and George Stirling. Against James McLurg, George Clerk, Robert Blackwood, William Paton and others.	Hall, John, Sir, fl. 1692.	1692 (1692)	Wing I164K; ESTC R178654	11,483	12

INFORMATION For Sir John Hall Lord Provost of Edinburgh Robert Chiefly and James Bowdoun Baillies Sir Archibald Muir Patrick Halyburtoun William Meinzies VVilliam Hutcheson and George Stirling Against James M clurg George Clerk Robert Blackwood VVilliam Paton and others THe Complainers designing to get themselves in to the Magistracy of Edinburgh and to get Mr. David Dalrymple made Conjunct-Clerk with Aenea ' M cleod have raised a Reduction before your Lordships of the three last successive Elections upon several pretended Violations of the Set and concluding further that the Defenders may be punished in their Persons and Goods The which Complaint being given in and read before your Lordships It was alledged for the Defenders that there could be no Process for annulling the last Election because all Parties therein concerned were not called viz. Baillie Chartres Baillie Baird Michael Allan George Warrander Andrew Bruce John Robertson Hugh Blair Mr. Henry Ferguson Samuel M clellan Archibald Rule Alexander Thomson John Pringle James Crafurd William Livingstoun William Meldrum George Dalgleish Members of the Counsel of twenty five whose Election cannot stand if the Defenders Election be annulled To which it was Replyed for the Complainers that the Defenders who are called are the principal Parties concerned in the Irregularities lybelled so that there was no necessity to call any others To which it was Duplyed for the Defenders that these of the Magistrats and Council who are not called tho they cannot be prejudged by any punishment concluded against the Defenders in their Persons or Goods because it is possible they have been less active in the late Elections than some of the Defenders have been yet it is impossible that the Defenders Election can be reduced and the Election of the other Magistrats and Members of Council stand in force tho less guilty of Irregularities since all the Informalities lybelled against the Election of any of the Defenders strike likeways at the Election of these who are not called and it is inauditum that parties Rights were ever annulled by a Process to which they were not called and therefore there can be no Process sustained on the first Member of the Conclusion viz. to annul the Defenders Election till the rest be called unless the Complainers design that the Election should fall quoad these who will not vote for them and should stand good quoad these from whom they expect Friendship And as there can be no process quoad the first Conclusion against the Defenders till the last be called neither can there be any Process quoad the second Conclusion of punishing the Defenders in their Persons and Goods for that is consequent from and dependent on the first Conclusion for as long as the Elections are not annulled the Defenders cannot be punished for their accession thereto Upon this Debate your Lordships before Answer thereto Ordained the hail Cause to be debate before your Lordships Vpon which the Defenders Answers to the whole pretended Violations lybelled were read in your Lordships presence After which the Pursuers insisted on this head That albeit your Lordships had appointed the two Merchant-Counsellors to vote proprio jure upon a bold and impudent Assertion made by the Defenders Advocats yet these two Counsellors were only allowed to Vote as Proxies so that Sir Archibald Muir's first Election to be Provost was unwarrantable being contrair to your Lordships Command and if these two old Counsellors had no Right to Vote proprio jure then the former Election of eight Proxies could not be quarreled by the Defenders on that ground To which it was answered for the Defenders That they opponed their former Answers viz. that quoad the two first Elections which are now past and the persons thereby chosen gone out of their Office by course there can be no Process for annulling these Elections or turning the Magistrats out thereof but the Complainers if they design to prevent any of these Informalities in time to come ought to insist in their Declarator before the Judge competent which they raised an year and a half ago since all the Complainers mistakes arises from their Mis-interpretation of some obscure passages in the Set which are competent to be explained by the Lords of the Session 2. Any pretended Informalities in the two last Elections cannot be insisted on as grounds to annul the last Election otherways the Magistracies of Burghs would be very unsecure for fourty years space if there were any Errour in the preceeding Elections during that time 3. As to the pretence insisted on as to the two old Counsellors which is the Complainers Achilleum Argumentum chosen out by them of the many Informalities lybelled against Sir Archibald Muir's two Elections To this it was Answered That tho the Complainers according to their wonted modesty do say that it was a bold and impudent assertion to affirm the old Merchant-counsellors had right to Vote proprio jure yet the Defenders do still assert that the old Merchant-counsellors are a part of the Council of 30 which Council of 30 is appointed for Leeting and which Council of 30 consists of 18 of the new Council and 12 of the old which 12 consists of the 7 old Magistrats 3 old Merchant-counsellors and 2 old Trades-counsellors as appears by the Set pag. 5. so that in order to the Leeting no Proxies can be chosen in place of the old Merchant-counsellors unless they be absent after they are required to come and therefore since these that were old Counsellors were received and Proxies chosen for the rest the Election cannot be quarrelled upon that Informality 4. By the Books it is clear that Captain Baillie was admitted proprio jure he being designed an old Counsellor not a Proxie that Patrick Johnstoun was admitted as a Proxie which was done because he had not been an old Merchant-counsellor for the year preceeding but had been chosen a Merchant-counsellor for that current year and shortly after his being made a Counsellor he was chosen Baillie of Leith whereby he became to be no Member of the Town Council and so was capable to be chosen a Proxie To this it was Replyed That the Complainers insist on the Nullities of the first two Elections only in order to annul the last as being done by these persons who had been themselves illegally elected and that of all these Nullities in the first two Elections they now insisted on that anent the two old Merchant-counsellors who the Defenders say had right to Vote jure proprio and which was so appointed by your Lordships and yet one of them is admitted as a Proxie for albeit Patrick Johnstoun who according to the Defenders own alledgance the last year before your Lordships was an old Counsellor was allowed to Vote yet it was qua Proxie and not proprio jure and which the Defenders did of purpose that he might not have a Vote in the electing of the rest of the Proxies which he would have had if he had voted proprio