was merely provided, that the Craftsmen should have a voice in choosing the Magistrates. This order further alluded to some restitution of their privileges, which had been made to the Trades in 1556. What the nature of this act of restitution was, or by whom passed, does not appear; but in all probability it some way or other related to the office of deacon, as, from the order now sent, notwithstanding its total abolition by Parlia ment in 1555, we still find that office to be in existence. The Council behaved upon this occasion with great spirit and firmness: they first desired the deacons who presented the letter to withdraw, until they had deliberated upon its import, and having recalled them, gave for answer, "That the Council could yield no obedience to the order, for it was contrary to Act of Par"liament." In 1582, however, little more than twenty years after this transaction, the Trades had obtained such footing in the Council, that the mutual squabbles between them and the Merchants filled the city with tumults, till at length both parties, with a view to obtain a decisive settlement, referred their various claims and differences to King James VI. by whose decision or Decreet Arbitral, the Municipal Constitution or Sett of the town was established upon nearly the same footing which it still retains, notwithstanding the continued struggle the Trades have now maintained for upwards of two hundred years since that period, with the view of augmenting their weight and influence in the administration of civic affairs. By this decreet, the Town Council was appointed to consist of the same number of persons, Merchants and Trades, that it does at present; the only important advantage that the

o Council Reg. v. 3. p. 24.

Trades have since acquired is; that by this decreet, the ordinary Council of twenty-five, after taking the opinion of the deacons of the different incorporations upon the character of the members of their respective bodies, made out a list or leet of three persons in every incorporation, out of which the deacon for the ensuing year was to be chosen; whereas now, each incorporation gives in a list or leet of six; from these the council strike off three; this leet, so shortened, is then returned to each incorporation, and the deacon must be chosen out of the remaining three.

Having stated these general facts, we may now proceed in our narrative of the various contests which have occurred between the Merchants and Trades, and other occurrences, from the date of King James's decreet to the present time.

During the life of that monarch, neither party could with any decency challenge the decreet of their Sovereign, which they had sworn to observe; and the reign of his successor, followed by the commonwealth, was a period too violently agitated by the more important disputes of contending factions in the state, to admit of much attention being paid to burgh politics, with the exception, however, that the rulers of the time occasionally exercised their arbitrary power, either to influence the elections, or set them aside altogether, as might best suit their views; for in 1634, we find the provost, bailies, dean of guild, and treasurer, were elected in compliance with a mandate from King Charles I. In 1648, the elections were greatly influenced by the change of government. In 1650, there was no election of either Magistrates or Council, in consequence of the English army under the command of Cromwell having entered Scotland in July; but a

committee was chosen from among such as remained in the town; who managed affairs until the 4th of March 1652, when, a charter being sent from the Commissioners then at Dalkeith, impowering them to make a new election, but without specially directing in what manner, after some debate thereon, the vacant places were filled up either by the acclamation, or a poll of the Burgesses; and a short time prior to Michaelmas 1653, directions were sent from the Council of state to Colonel Lilburn, then commander in chief, to intimate to all shires, burghs, &c. that no change was to be made, the persons then in office being directed to continue so, until farther orders. The City of Edinburgh having complied with this mandate, no new election occurred from Michaelmas 1652, until Michaelmas 1655.

Notwithstanding by the Act of Parliament 1469, and the decreet arbitral in 1583, all the magistrates are prohibited from continuing in office longer than one, or at most two years together, a different practice seems to have prevailed almost from the very commencement of the set, as thereby established, with regard to the office of Provost, and subsequently asto those of dean of guild and treasurer. To remedy this abuse, an act of Council was passed in 1668, whereby these officers are restricted from continuing longer than one, or at most two years. The bailies are appointed to be one year in office, one year in Council as old bailies, and one year free of office, previous to their being again placed upon the leets for bailies. The dean of guild may be the next year chosen bailie, and the treasurer is not to be eligible for that office, until his accounts are passed, but Sir Andrew Ramsay, who had been provost for three years previous to the passing of that act, and against whom it appears to have been more particularly pointed, having been again elected in 1662, procur

ed its rescinsion Oct. 4. 1664, and continued provost for several years successively.

No sooner, however, was peace established by the restoration of King Charles II. than the contest between the Merchants and the Trades was again revived. The objects of complaint then were, that the provost, instead of sitting at the Council board, and giving his suffrage viva voce, withdrew and voted by proxy. The Trades claimed as a privilege, that the extraordinary deacons should vote in the election of the baron bailies, which was denied them, and protested against the election as illegal, the provost and treasurer having been elected for several years successively. This protest was laid before the Lords of the Privy Council, by whom the election was sustained, and the conduct of the Trades condemned as dangerous, and tending to sedition. March 4. 1673, a majority of the Town Council seem to have restored the act, prohibiting the provost, &c. from remaining in office longer than two years together, notwithstanding which, Sir A. Ramsay was again re-elected at the Michaelmas following; but proceedings having been either then or previously instituted against him by Mr F. Kinloch, and others, old Magistrates, before the convention of Royal Burghs; so loud and well founded a clamour was raised thereby, that in concordance with the advice of his great friend the Earl of Lauderdale, he shortly thereafter demitted both his offices of Lord Provost and Lord of Session. A process of declarator of privileges having been raised in the Court of Session, and a decreet obtained, an act of Council was passed, Oct. 1. 1678, in compliance therewith, whereq Council Reg. 1664.

r Council Reg. v. 21. p. 53. Rec. of Privy Council. Nov. 1. p. 58. In all steps of the Election, the whole parties entitled to vote must be present; either personally or by proxy, these proxies being chosen by the members who happen to be present.

by the rescinded prohibitory act of 1658 was again enforced, and its contraveners subjected to heavy penalties, the electors to be reputed infamous as invaders of the liberties and privileges of the burgh, and fined one thousand merks Scots each, and the elected, provided they accept or attempt to execute any office to which they may be thus illegally appointed, to be fined five thousand merks Scots, all elections contrary thereto being declared null and void; and amongst other provisions for the better observance of this act, every member of the Council, ordinary and extraordinary, is required to take an oath previous to each annual election, that he will do nothing prejudicial thereto, directly nor indirectly. At Michaelmas 1674, there

was no election of magistrates; Tuesday the 29th September, being Michaelmas day, having been fixed upon, as was supposed with some sinister design, in place of the Tuesday following, which is appointed by the set for the day of election, the business was countermanded by a mandate from King Charles II. and the persons then in office continued so until the 27th August 1675, when, by a second mandate from the Crown, four new bailies were appointed previous to the election of that year. Six weeks after the Michaelmas election 1678, three of the new bailies refusing to take the oath of supremacy and allegiance, then first tendered, resigned their office, and others less scrupulous were elected in their place.

The peculiar privileges of the guildry having become common to all classes of the community who chose to purchase their freedom thereof, as declared in the decreet arbitral of 1583, a separate incorporation was erected by a royal charter from King Charles II. dated October 29. 1681, by the stile and title of The