BILL AGAINST THE CITY OF EDINBURGH.

The last disputes of this session were excited by a bill sent down from the lords for punishing the magistrates and city of Edinburgh, on account of the murder of John Porteous. In the beginning of the session, lord Carteret recapitulated the several tumults and riots which had lately happened in different parts of the kingdom. He particularly insisted upon the atrocious murder of captain Porteous, as a flagrant insult upon the government, and a violation of the public peace, so much the more dangerous, as it seemed to have been concerted and executed with deliberation and decency. He suspected that some citizens of Edinburgh had been concerned in the murder; not only from this circumstance, but likewise because, notwithstanding the reward of two hundred pounds which had been offered by proclamation for the discovery of any person who acted in that tragedy, not one individual had as yet been detected. He seemed to think that the magistrates had encouraged the riot, and that the city had forfeited its charter; and he proposed a minute inquiry into the particulars of the affair. He was seconded by the duke of Newcastle and the earl of Hay; though the last nobleman differed in opinion with him in respect to the charter of the city, which, he said, could not be justly forfeited by the fault of the magistracy. The lords resolved, That the magistrates and other persons from whom they might obtain the necessary information concerning this riot, should be ordered to attend; and that an address should be presented to his majesty, desiring that the different accounts and papers relating to the murder of captain Porteous, might be submitted to the perusal of the house. These documents being accordingly examined, and all the witnesses arrived, including three Scottish judges, a debate arose about the manner in which these last should be interrogated, whether at the bar, at the table, or on the woolsacks. Some Scottish lords asserted, that they had a right to be seated next to the judges of England; but after a long debate this claim was rejected, and the judges of Scotland appeared at the bar in their robes. A bill was brought in to disable Alexander Wilson, esquire, lord-provost of Edinburgh, from enjoying any office or place of magistracy in the city of Edinburgh, or elsewhere in Great Britain; for imprisoning the said Alexander Wilson; for abolishing the guard of that city; and for taking away the gates of the Netherbow-port, so as to open a communication between the city and the suburbs, in which the king’s troops are quartered. The duke of Argyle, in arguing against this bill, said he could not think of a proceeding more harsh or unprecedented than the present, as he believed there was no instance of the whole weight of parliamentary indignation, for such he called a proceeding by a bill ex post facto, falling upon any single person, far less upon any community, for crimes that were within the reach of the inferior courts of justice; for this reason he observed, that if the lord-provost and citizens of Edinburgh should suffer in the terms of the present bill, they would suffer by a cruel, unjust, and fantastical proceeding; a proceeding of which the worst use might be made, if ever the nation should have the misfortune to fall under a partial self-interested administration. He told them he sat in the parliament of Scotland when that part of the treaty of Union relating to the privileges of the royal burghs, was settled on the same footing as religion; that is, they were made unalterable by any subsequent parliament of Great Britain. Notwithstanding the eloquence and warmth of his remonstrance, the bill was sent down to the house of commons, where it produced a violent contest. The commons set on foot a severe scrutiny into the particular circumstances that preceded and attended the murder of Porteous; from the examination of the witnesses, it appeared that no freeman or citizen of Edinburgh was concerned in the riot, which was chiefly composed of country people, excited by the relations of some unhappy persons whom Porteous and his men had slain at the execution of the smuggler; and these were assisted by ‘prentice-boys and the lowest class of vagabonds that happened to be at Edinburgh; that the lord-provost had taken all the precautions to prevent mischief that his reflection suggested; that he even exposed his person to the rage of the multitude, in his endeavour to disperse them; and that, if he had done amiss, he erred from want of judgment rather than from want of inclination to protect the unhappy Porteous. It likewise appeared that Mr. Lindsay, member for the city of Edinburgh, had gone in person to general Moyle, commander of the forces in North Britain, informed him of the riot, implored his immediate assistance, and promised to conduct his troops into the city; and that his suit was rejected, because he could not produce a written order from the magistracy, which he neither could have obtained in such confusion, nor ventured to carry about his person through the midst of an enraged populace. The Scottish members exerted themselves with uncommon vivacity in defence of their capital. They were joined by sir John Barnard, lord Cornbury, Mr. Shippen, and Mr. Oglethorpe. Lord Polworth declared, that if any gentleman would show where one argument in the charge against the lord-provost and the city of Edinburgh had been proved, he would that instant give his vote for the commitment of the bill. He said, if gentlemen would lay their hands upon their hearts, and ask themselves, whether they would have voted in this manner had the case of Edinburgh been that of the cities of Bristol, York, or Norwich, he was persuaded they would have required that every tittle of the charge against them should have been fully and undeniably proved. Some amendments and mitigations being inserted in the bill, it passed the house, was sent back to the lords, who agreed to the alterations, and then received the royal assent.

GEORGE II. 1727-1760