the body of the said Charles Miller, and to commit him prisoner to the tolbooth of Glasgow, there to be detained in custody, until he shall be from thence delivered over to a sufficient guard of his majesty's forces, to be appointed by the general, in order to his being transported safe to the tolbooth of Edinburgh, there to abide his trial. And the magistrates and keepers of the tolbooth of Edinburgh are hereby required to receive the body of the said Charles Miller, when he shall be delivered to them as above, and to detain him in sure custody within their tolbooth, until he shall be from thence liberated by due order of law. Given at Glasgow the 16th July 1725 years. Sic subscribitur, Dun. Forbes."
"To the constables of the shire of Lanerk, or any of them. To the keepers of the tolbooth of Glasgow, and to the magistrates and keepers of the tolbooth of Edinburgh."
The authority from whence these wartants proceeded, occasioned great speculations among the gentlemen of the law. The Lords of justiciary who are supreme judges in criminals within Scotland, when this affair came before them, gave it as their opinion, that since the union his majesty's advocate had no power of commitment. It would seem that the advocate himself was also of this opinion because he adds in the warrant as another source of his authority, "That he is one of the justices of the peace in the shire of Lanerk." But then it is much doubted if it is in the power of any one justice of peace to commit the whole magistrates of a place, and especially the provost of the city of Glasgow, who besides being his majesty's lieutenant there, is a justice of peace in special for the city, and therefore within that jurisdiction not subject to the authority of any other justice within the county. But further, it is hard to be understood, how a justice of peace in the county of Lanerk, could by law order any person whatsoever to be committed to the custody of the king's forces, to be by them carried out of the county of Lanerk, thro' the counties of Dumbarton, Stirling, Linlithgow, and unto the county of Edinburgh, there to be imprisoned. But these things I leave to the consideration of lawyers, and proceed to consider the crimes expressed in the warrants, as the cause of their commitment.
It is said, "That by their conduct they favoured and encouraged the mobs, &c, whereby Mr. Campbell's house was riffled, and whereby two companies of the king's forces were assaulted, compelled to retire out of town, pursued and two of them taken and beaten in the streets, and were also guilty of divers other acts of partiality and male administration in the discharge of their office, with respect to the said rioters." How this charge is to be maintained against these gentlemen is more than I can tell, I have heard it said that the provost was much to be blamed because he did not put the soldiers in possession of the guard upon their first arrival; because for that night the guard was not kept by the inhabitants or any other, the like whereof had never happened since the revolution; and because he did not call for the assistance of the soldiers; and when captain Bushell offered it he refused it. But all this is abundantly defended by the foregoing narrative. And tho' we should grant that he might have done better, yet it would be the greatesthar
