inhabitants, and observed, that even some members of the committee had not been so zealous as at first. He informed the meeting, that a compromise had been offered by the Lord Provost and Magistrates, which was, that the two north houses remain as they are -the others to be reduced one story --and the one now erecting to be only two stories above the level of the bridge, in place of the former, as originally intended. This the learned gentleman contended was a very material concession, and would hereafter appear as a proud monument of what had been effected by the public spirit of the inhabitants of Edinburgh. The compromise had been agreed to by a great majority of the committee. He knew there were gentlemen present who were confident as to the ultimate success of the cause, if proceeded in, but for his own part, his hopes were not now so sanguine as they had been. The learned gentleman alluded to an intention on the part of the magistra cy, at no distant period, of erecting a corresponding pile on the east side of the Bridge, where, as he understood no servitude existed, they might build as high as they pleased. In investigatting the question legally he dwelt on the uncertainty of the law, and submitted, whether, in this doubtful warfare, it were not better for the inhabitants to make a drawn battle, while one point of victory remained in their favour a triumph over official mismanagement-or to proceed to obtain a final decision, the ultimate success of which was so uncertain. Mr Jeffrey conceived the labours of the committee were finished, and concluded an able speech, of which we have given but an imperfect outline, by moving, That the compromise offered by the Lord Provost and Magistrates, of reducing the buildings, agreeable to the plan exhibited, be agreed to.

The motion was seconded by Mr Horne.

Mr Stuart said, that his learned friend had correctly stated, that the resolution of the committee, recommending a compromise, had been adopted by a great majority of the committee. He had the honour to be one of the minority when that resolution was adopted, and it was, therefore, his duty to state the grounds on which he had differed from the majority. Mr Stu art contended, that the eminent counsel, by whose advice the former meeting had been guided, still thought the legal point was in favour of the feuars, and he could not therefore understand how his learned friend entertained those doubts he had expressed of the result of the law-suit, unless it were on account of the notorious uncertainty attending all legal proceedings. He should not now repeat the grounds stated to counsel, and on which the former meeting had agreed to have recourse to legal proceedings, with a view to abate the intolerable nuisance complained of; but he would put this plain question to his learned friend, whether, if ten or a dozen years ago he had purchased a house in Charlotte-square, and had paid a very high price for it, because his charter from the Magistrates contained a declaration, that the ground mentioned in the square should in all time coming be kept as pleasure-ground; and whether, if during his absence from the country, the Magistrates had obtained an Act of Parliament professedly for erecting a chapel at the east end of Prince's-street, suppose on old St Ann's-street, but containing an enactment, by virtue of which he found on his return houses erected on his pleasure-ground in the square, would he tamely submit to such a violent deterioration of his property? If he would not have done so in such a case, then

he did not understand on what the doubts now expressed were founded; for not only had the feuars in Prince's street declarations in their charters that the ground between Prince's street and the North Loch should be kept as pleasure-ground in all time coming, but the Magistrates were bound to dress it up as such at their own expence; and the feuars had other strong grounds for opposing this encroachment, which had been fully explained at the former meeting. It was no doubt true that two of the Judges had delivered opinions unfavourable to their plea, but they had founded their opinions on the acquiescence of the feuars for a considerable time in the operations carried on, a plea which, after the decision, it had been found was lately over-ruled by the Court in an important case, (to which Mr Stuart referred,) and which at any rate did not attach to the south most and most objectionable tenement, because that tenement was not commenced until after the legal proceedings had begun. Mr Stuart maintained, that if there was the same reason as before to look for success in a law.suit, there was no reason to consider the compromise as expedient, be cause the great object, viz. to regain the views, from the Calton Hill, of Prince's-street and the New Town; and from Prince's-street, of the Calton Hill, Arthur's Seat, Salisbury Craigs, &c. would not be attained. It was never his wish, nor that of the committee, in case of success, to carry matters all lengths; they were always ready, on account of the expence incurred, as their correspondence with the Magistrates proved, to allow the shops, the most valuable part of the buildings, although on many accounts objectionable, to remain, but it did not appear to him that much would be gained by the compromise offered, by

which, at very great expense, part of the spires at the west end of the town would be visible from the Calton Hill, and a little less of the unseemly wall would be seen from Prince's-street. But it was obvious, even if the meeting agreed with him in the views he had laid before them, that nothing could be done without a new subscription of large amount. He would not desert the cause, if they afforded him the means.

Mr Colin Mackenzie agreed with Mr Jeffrey to a certain extent. Although he had already subscribed, he said he was willing to do so again if it was the opinion of the meeting to pro

ceed.

Dr Yule said he had not seen a plan of the intended alteration in the buildings, but he understood they would then present the appearance of a wedge, and that among all the improvements in architecture, he had never before heard the beauty of the wedge enumerated.

Mr Joseph Gordon ridiculed the idea on the part of the Magistracy of building on the east side of the bridge, where, so far from raising an erection as high as the third heaven, he defied them to lay one stone.

Mr Henry Cockburn, in an animated speech, coincided with Mr Jeffrey's motion. He said, that although Mr Cranstoun's opinion on the legal point remained unchanged, yet he knew that that gentleman strenuously advised that the compromise offered should be agreed to. The learned gentleman wished to know what would be gained, after an expense of 1500%. or 2000l., supposing the present buildings to be removed, if within twenty yards another might be erected subject to no controul. If, said Mr C., it is the opinion of the meeting that the legal proceedings should be continued, let me see each gentleman, while he gives

his vote and support for continuing the litigation, put his hand in his pocket and extract five guineas.-(A laugh.) Mr Stuart explained, that there was no inconsistency in Mr Cockburn's and his statements of the opinion and advice given by Mr Cranstoun. All, however, that could be gathered from this advice and that given by the other learned gentleman was, that the uncertainty of legal proceedings in this country was such, that even with a good cause no one should go to law a doctrine very dangerous for the learn ed gentlemen themselves.

Mr Jeffrey's motion was put from the chair, and carried without a dissenting voice.

The committee was reappointed, to see the compromise carried into effect, N. B. The builders, encouraged by the confessions of poverty, and by the cessation of interest in the public on the subject, declined completing the compromise, and raised the whole of the houses to the height originally intended.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE ELECTION OF THE MAGISTRATEs of Edinburgh.

DEACON LAWRIE AND OTHERS v. THE MAGISTRATES OF Edinburgh. Court of Session, Second Division, March 11.

This case had been before the Court on Tuesday the 3d instant, when the Court took into consideration the petition and complaint against the Magistrates, with answers, replies, and duplies. On that occasion, the Court were of opinion,-upon the objection, that the election was null, in conse quence of one of the Bailies elected not being resident within the burgh,

that, by Act of Parliament, residence of the Baillies was necessary. Two of the Judges were of opinion, that the fact of non-residence, as made out by the complainers, ought to have the effect of setting aside the election; but the other two thought it necessary to institute a farther inquiry as to the usage of the burgh in this respect. The Court, therefore, being equally divided on this point, it was determined that Lord Reston, as Lord Ordinary, should be called in to give his opinion with regard to it. Another of the ob jections was, that, in consequence of one of the old Bailies having been, on the day of election, chosen Dean of Guild, and of there being no person, on that day, chosen to supply his place, the election was not completed on the day appointed by the set of the burgh.. It was alleged, on behalf of the Ma gistrates, that, by the usage of the burgh, it was not necessary to fill up the vacancy thus occasioned on that day, but that this might be done afterwards; and on this point, also, the Court considered farther inquiry necessary, and accordingly ordered a condescendence as to the custom of the burgh in this particular. On some of the other objections the Court considered farther pleading necessary.

In these circumstances, the case was taken up, in order that Lord Reston might deliver his opinion on the point remitted to him; and this opinion was expected with much anxiety; because, if his Lordship should think along with two of the Judges, that the election of the non-resident Bailie was illegal, and that, therefore, the whole election should be set aside, then the question would be decided, without the necessity of any further discussion on the other objections.

Lord Reston's opinion was, in substance, as follows:

He began by saying, that he delivered his opinion with great diffidence,

arising from his want of experience in cases of this nature, in not one of which he had ever been engaged, either during his practice at the bar, or since he became a member of Court. He proceeded to observe, that it was admitted that Mr Anderson (the Bailie in question) did not reside within the burgh, his residence being in Broughton Place. The Magistrates, however, had attempted to obviate this objection, by alleging that Mr Ander son carried on trade within the burgh, but in this attempt they had completely failed. They had represented him as a proprietor of the Commercial Bank, and of the Hercules Insurance Company, but neither of these circumstances formed any connection between him and the city; and, as to their allegation of his having been a director of the Commercial Bank, it did not appear that he possessed this character at the period of the election. The fact, therefore, was, that this gentleman neither lived, nor had any place of business, within the burgh. His Lordship then stated, that, independently of any considerations drawn from usage, resi dence was made necessary for a Bailie, by two Acts of Parliament, by which it is declared, that the Provost and Bailies, or Aldermen, shall be resident within the burgh. These statutes were found to be in observance with respect to the election of Bailies, in the case of the Magistrates of Wick, in 1749, where it was found that none but those who were resident in the burgh could be elected as Bailies, although this qualification was not necessary in the case of the Provost, or of Counsellors. Similar decisions had been pronounced in other cases, particularly that of Nairn, and that of Anstruther-Easter. His Lordship was of opinion, how ever, that the averment of the Magistrates respecting the usage of the burgh was quite relevant. It had been averred in their pleadings, that, accor

ding to the usage of the burgh, residence was not necessary; a condescendence of these averments had been offered; and he thought a proof of them should be allowed. There could be no doubt, that statutes might go into desuetude. The very statutes on which the present objection was founded had certainly gone into desuetude with regard to the election of Provosts. By these statutes residence was declared necessary, in the case of Provosts as well as Bailies. Usage, however, had altered the law in the case of Provosts, and why might it not have the same effect in the case of Bailies? In the case of Hunter Blair v. Phin, 31st January, 1781, at the election of the Magistrates of Edinburgh, a member of the incorporation of Waulkers was chosen deacon of that incorporation. He resided at the distance of three miles from town, and also carried on his business without the burgh ; and on this ground a complaint was presented against the election. It was contended, however, that, by usage, the deacon of the Waulkers resided out of the burgh, being obliged to do so from the nature of his trade, which required the use of a stream of water. The complaint was dismissed. The Court here proceeded upon the circumstance of usage as to residence, and held, that an election bona fide, made on a belief founded on usage, that the person elected was properly qualified, was not to be set aside upon a summary complaint, whatever might be the effect, as to future elections, of a regular action of declarator instituted for ascer taining the set or constitution of the burgh. If, therefore, the Magistrates of Edinburgh could make out their averments as to the usage of the burgh with respect to the residence of bailies, his Lordship thought that the present complaint must be thrown out; though perhaps it might be found, by an action of declarator, that residence should