George Anderson v. James Stephen, Andrew Jamieson, and others — Case, 11 Dec 1766

4. A. A a n a n d b and e d i g p r n b a being preferred to your Lordships by the Complainers, against the undue and illegal practices that had been carried o n i n t h e burgh of Crail, at and preceding the Michaelmas election 1765, in order to influence the subsequent tion o f magistrates and counsellors of the said burgh; and which had produced the desired effect, according to seve- r a l instances condescended upon in the Complaint: Your Lordships granted a proof; and the Complainers having adduced sundry witnesses, they apprehend the following facts are clearly proved.- That it was pretended, on the part o f Sir John Anstru- ther, That he had influence to procure posts and places ’ to f r i A t o a A g y A b and u b L s A h f r i nA t d b C &c. pretended Baillies and Counsellors of the said burgh, R espondents. A G A I N S T ^ f * m A d s l A u b L A s t d b and others, Counsel- lors of the burgh of Crail, and constitu- ent members of the meeting for Elec­ tion of Magistrates and Counsellors of that burgh, at the election at Michaelmas 1765, Complainers; O F |r if. r. %- r. C A S E December n a, cM11, to su ch as w ou ld join his interest; and did actually pro- cure such places to some of the magistrates and counsellors of this burgh; and made offer o f places, and good deeds to others, which were rejected. Thus, Baillie Stephen got the office o f a tide-waiter P roo f, p age 18. E.- p age 6. D. R obert F a ll, p age 22. E, and Mr. Lumsdaine's deposition, page 4. E. To give a co lour to this, and that it may not appear as a b r ib e, Mr. Lumsdaine acknowleges that it was procured through the influence o f Sir John Anstru th er; but that he was only following out the recommendation o f Sir Harry Erskine, who had before engaged to procure this office for Baillie Stephen. But it is apprehended, that this pretence will not go down with the Court; because this post was procured at a time, when it must be presumed to he given to have an undue influence; and, i f such pretexts were allowed, there is no bribe whatever but might get a cover o f some sort or other. I f Sir Harry E rskine was to procure this tide-waiter’s pla c e for Stephen, it must be presumed, that the engageme n t s were reciprocal; and that, on the other hand, Stephen was to give his voice in the election for Sir Harry, had he lived: The complainers do not pretend say, that Sir John act- e d u p o n a d i f f e r e n t p l a n. It appears that Sir John Anstruther's friends, and agents, off ered to relieve Thomas Anders on, one o f the councilors o f Crail, o f the rents which he owed to the Laird of Balfour, if he would join Sir John Anstruther's party, Andrew Black, page 20. H. Andrew Johnston, page 9, H, and Andrew Black, page 21, A. It It It also appears from the deposition o f Lucy Cowan, spouse to George Hall, one o f the Respondents, page 13, C, that she endeavoured to bribe Peter and Henry Hodges with 50 l. providing they would give their votes for Colonel Scot at the ensuing elections: That her husband was present and privy to this bribe. And though the witness says that she did this of her own accord, without being desired, this was a method also well understood, and the violent parti­ sans had free scope to make these offers; and there was no doubt but they would be implemented by the persons whose interest they were engaged to promote. This is evidence that Hall, one of the Respondents, cannot object to; and it brings it directly home upon himself as a briber, as it must be presumed, the wife doing this, in his presence, was by his authority and approbation. I t also appears from the deposition of Mr. Lumsdaine, p age 8, E, and page 9, D.) That he is soliciting John An-derson and John Stark, two counsellors of Crail, for their voice at the election of magistrates and counsellors, &c. and is prom issing one the office o f comptroller, and the other a tide-Waiter's place; and is also using the same arguments at d iffe ren t times, in private, with their wives.----- Mr. Lums- daine would have it appear as if these solicitations were not like ac t u al bribes, or positive offers; only, that he would recommend them to Sir John's friendship, who, he believed, would pay regard to his recommendation.---- This is a new device to cover a bribe in a sort of a round-about way, and com es just to this, as if Mr. Lumsdain had said, Will you tak e 10 0 l. for your vote at the next elections? I will not positively promise i t; but if you will engage to vote for Sir John, I will recommend you to him, to give you the 100 l. and I have no doubt that he will pay very great regard to mv recommendation.----- This is the indirect method of bribery; but, according to the language and practice of the times, it was as well understood as the most direct promise. One One material blow given to the freedom of election in this town, was, by intimidating and corrupting the seven in­ corporations; not only the deacons themselves, but the in­ dividuals of the incorporations, by whom the deacons ap- pear to be directed in all election-matters. Thus, James Lawrie, the Convener, page 1 1, G, plainly shows, that he durst not vote according to his own mind, for "he saw very well, and had it before his eyes, that he would be turned out, if he did not engage on Sir John Anstru- ther’s side.” And Mr, Lumsdaine, particularly, threat- ned him, That if he did not adhere to that interest, he should be grazed, or turned out of his convenership. But the great bribe which seems to have brought over the whole seven trades and their deacons to a man, appears to be 150 bolls of meal, which was distributed a- mong the trades of Crail, previous to the Michaelmas e- lections, or about that time. It is proposed that this meal was sold to the trades, so Mr. Hogg, one o f the agents for Sir John Anstruther e x- pressly depones; but it appears to have been a mere s im u- late sa le; nor are we told who purchased it, or who g r a n t- ed bills for it: And indeed the taking a bill, or any o b l ig a- tion of payment at all, seems to have been discover e d a s a sort of necessary act, to give this meal the colour of a s a le and not a bribe to the trades: For though, by the deposition o f John M urray, p. 8, B, it appears, that this meal w as brought into Crail in the month of August 1765: yet, even according to the acknowledgment of Hog, page 16, G, no bill or voucher was taken for this meal till the month of January 1766, long after the Complaint was given in, and about the time that the Proof was allowed for proving the articles of bribery in the Complaint, of which this very meal was charged as one; and therefore it became necessa- ry in the Respondents to bestir themselves, and endeavour to patch up this fore; and, the taking of the bill from per­ haps