1. THE Earl of Aberdene when he was only President of the Session, and neither Chancellor nor Officer of State, pro­cured and wrote for a Commission, for the Tryal of the Mint.

The Viscount of Tarbat in Answer to the 2d. Interrogator, Depones, That the Earl of Aberdene did write out of England to the Deponent, to haste up a Commission for Tryal of the Mint, and that accordingly the Deponent did send up a Draught of a Commission, and thinks he has some Letters to that purpose, but at present cannot find them out.

2. When the Earl of Lauderdale was going to London, and that the Earl had obtained his Majesties leave to that effect; Yet the Earl of Aberdene was so earnest in the prosecution of the Commission of the Mint, that he refused to let him go.

The Duke of Queensberry in Answer to the first Interrogator, De­pones, he was present when the Earl of Lauderdale offered to take leave of the Earl of Aberdene, but what past betwixt them, he did not know, only he minds, that the Earl of Aberdene told him, that he had refu­sed to let him go up, till the business of the Mint should be over, and cannot be positive, whether the Earl of Aberdene called a Council, or a Quorum of the Commission of the Mint, but one of them he believes was called, and that a Clerk was sent to order his stay, to attend the Commission of the Mint.

3. That the Earl of Aberdene had a prospect and design the time of that Commission; and before the raising of the Process for the benefite of the event thereof, and that he dealt for the same.

The Viscount of Tarbat in Answer to the 5th. Interrogator, Depones, That Aberdene did recommend to the Deponent (when he was going to Court) his Affairs in general, and to speak to the King in his sa­vours, which the Deponent did; but the Deponent had no Commis­sion from Aberdene anent the Mint in special; And Depones, That the Deponent understanding, that the Mony due upon the Mint was to be exacted; he proposed the same to the King, in savours of Aber­dene, albeit he had not any special Commission for it; but what was the King's Majesties Answer, the Deponent conceives he is not holden, and is not free to condescend thereon.

To the 8th. Interrogator he Answers, That as to what past in privat betwixt the King's Majesty and the Deponent, he refuses to answer; but as to a Letter sent to, or received from the Earl of Aberdene, De­pones, [Page 2]That he did acquaint the Earl of Aberdene of the Deponent,This was before the raising of the Mint-Process. his proposing to the King, that the Earl might have a Gift of what was due upon the Mint, and that this was in the Harvest time, 1682. And that Aberdene did write, and return Thanks to the Deponent, for making the proposal in his behalf, which Letters the Deponent thinks he hath, but cannot at present find them out.

The then Lord Chancellor in the midst of his Answer to the 4th. Interro­gator, Depones, That the first suspicion he had, that the Earl of Aber­dene had interest in that Affair, as to his own particular, was, when the Vote was put concerning John Falconer the Warden his Deposition, whether it did prove sufficiently, or not; and when that Vote was like to miscarry, as to Aberdene's intention in it; Aberdene said to the Lords, that if this was the way they served the King, they who were the King's Judges, (or to this purpose) that he would be forced to let the King know of it: To which the Lord Pitmedden Answered, That he wished the King were amongst the Lords, to Judge of their carri­age; that then the Deponent began to suspect that Aberdene had some particular interest in it, not having observed formerly, that the King's business made him so forward.

Collonel Grahame to the first and second, Depones, That the Earl of Aberdene then Chancellor, and the Duke of Queensberrie Lord Thesaurer, imployed the Deponent upon some publick Accompts, and at the same time the Deponent was imployed by them to move the late King, and King James (then Duke) some things relating to their present pri­vat Affairs, and particularly for a Gift in favours of the Earl of A­berdene, of 1000 lib. Sterling a year, or 20000 lib. Sterling, This was during the dependance of the Process. which was thought to be equivalent; and before the Deponent went out of Scotland (being about the end of February 1683.) he went to my Lord Thesaurer's Lodging, and had his al­lowance upon the matter, as to the quantity; after which, the Depo­nent went to my Lord Aberdene, and acquainted him with it, and com­muned with him upon the different Fonds, that it could be made out of; and amongst others, that of the Mint. But whether or not Aberdene, or the Deponent proposed it first, the Deponent cannot be positive, but remembers particularly, that when the Deponent proposed, that in case the Lands of Dudhope were taken from the Earl of Lauderdale, the House, Parks, and Constabulary of Dundee, should be given to the Deponent by the King; that the Earl of Aberdene answered to this purpose, that he should be very well content, but that he heard, it will be little useful to either of them, because they were resolved to part with nothing; however he allowed the Deponent to ask that Gift of the 20000 lib. Sterling, as freely out of that Fond, as out of any other; and accor­dingly the Deponent, when he came to New-mercat, where the late King, and King James were for the time, he did represent to the King, (and then Duke) the Services of the Earl of Aberdene, and endeavoured to perswade his Royal Highness to gratifie him with some considerable Gift, and particularly with 20000 lib. Sterling, and told his Highness, that se­veral Fonds might be found for it, such as the Fines, and the Decreet of [Page 3]the Mint; all which his Royal Highness heard, and said, he would speak to the King about it; and als far as the Deponent can remember, he said further, when my Lord Middletoun came, he would see something done, and this the Deponent did signifie from New-mercat, by a Letter to the Earl of Aberdene, the 13th of March 1683, and Depones, That when he spoke to the Earl of Midletoun, to savour himself anent the House and Parks of Dudhope, the Earl of Midletoun Answered that he could not do it without Aberdenes Consent, and said something as if he had been some­ways engaged to him in it; and so soon as the Decreet of the Mint came up, the King having given Warrand of before, a Letter was drawn by the Advice of the Earl of Midletoun, and the Deponent who best knew the Lands, and the nature of the Gift, ordering the Earl of Lauderdale to dispone the saids Lands, as is more fully exprest in the Letter for that ef­fect, direct to the Lord High Thesaurer; But withal, the Deponent declares als far as he remembers, he had no advice from the Earl of A­berdene thereanent; but after he gave him an accompt what was done, he had his approbation.

The Deposition bears, That Aberdene had written to the Deponent se­veral Letters, wherein were publick concerns, which he produced, but only read these parts thereof that concerns this Affair.

The first Letter is without a date, and bears these words; I hope you do not think I am less sensible of your kindness, that I doubt of the ef­fects of the Mint affair, since both the Earl of Middletoun and your self, are of a [...] mind, and say only this, That I could not do half so much for my self, were I present: This Letter makes mention, that A­berdene had received one from the Deponent of the last of March.

The second Letter is dated the 14th. of April thus, The Duke has asked no opinion of me, but what he should do in the Affair of the Mint, and als hard to give you advice at this distance anent it, not knowing what may be his Majesties, or the Dukes purpose therein, further than that you should chearfully comply with what you see is their inclination.

The 3d. Letter is dated the 24 of March, which being torn, there could be no more read of it than follows; I could not but let you know that I would be very well satisfied in what you do for your self anent 1. [...] and Jurisdiction ye wrote of, and do thank you for your care in my Concerns. 2. [...] think that project will be little useful 3. [...] you or me, for they are resolved 4. [...] no­thing on that accompt; and the Deponent thinks so far as he remembers, that the words that are wanting and torn of the Letter, has been these, First, (anent the House) The 2d. is, (I) The third (useful for) And the 4th (to part with nothing, or do nothing on that account) And upon the other side of the same Piece of the Torn Letter, swa far as the Deponent can make sense thereof, it's to this purpose, I shall An­swer your Letter more Particularly by the next; The Lands about Dun­dee and the rest, are not of that valued Rent you write, and Tweedale Leads the Teinds of Innerkeithing, nor would I have so much stress laid upon that Project, if his Majesty should please to make effectual for me, that which you name, in any way he seems fit (which the Deponent thinks he meant to be the 20000 lib.) I shall think my self very much obliged to my Lord Middletoun and your self, and am very well satisfi­ed with your own success that way.

To the 7th. Depones, he never heard his present Majesty tell his own Thoughts concerning my Lord Aberdene, his being both Judge and Par­ty; and what has past besides in Discourse betwixt the present King's Majesty and the Deponent, the Deponent conceives he is not holden to give an accompt thereof.

4. That the Earl of Aberdene took unwarrantable Courses in the Tryal, and Process of the Mint, which is evinced in these following particulars.

1. The Earl of Aberdene gave spes veniae to Sir John Falconer, to Depone against the Earl of Landerdale, and assurance of keeping of his place.

My Lord Chancellor Depones, in Answer to the first Interrogator, That he has very often heard my Lord Aberdene say in general, That any Officer of the Mint, who would make Discoveries of my Lord Lau­derdale's Malversation, would do the King good and acceptable Service; and that Aberdene often has said to the Deponent, that if he would speak to Sir John Falconer, to make such discoveries, Sir John might expect great favour in his own particular.

In Answer to the 3d. Interrogator, Depones, That the Marquess of Montross has often told the Deponent, that he had a Warrand from my Lord Aberdene, to give assurance of Indemnity to Sir John Falconer, if he would inform against the Earl of Lauderdale, and that the Deponent has just ground to believe, that the Marquess of Montross gave a very fuil assurance of Indemnity in the Earl of Aberdene's name.

The Viscount of Tarbat in Answer to the 3d Interrogator, Depones, That he heard the Marquess of Montross, and the Earl of Perth several times say, that they were warranted to give assurance to Sir John Fal­coner, if he would confess all that he knew concerning the Mint, and that it should not prejudge himself.

My Lord Reidfoord in Answer to the first Interrogator, Depones, That Sir John Falconer having compeared at the Bar, and offered to speak in that affair, to the best of the Deponents memory, my Lord Aberdene told him from the Bench, that if he took that course, he behoved to take his hazard of the issue, or something to that purpose, but does not remem­ber if Sir John Falconer did appear thereafter.

My Lord Collingtoun in Answer to the first Interrogator, Depones, That Sir John Falconer did offer to speak for himself, and did speak, but if he was interrupted, the Deponent remembers not.

Sir John Falconer Depones most fully in this particular, That he was several times dealt with by the Earl of Aberdene himself, and by the Marquess of Montross, at Aberdene's desire, to Depone against the Earl of Lauder­dale.

2. The Earl of Aberdene behaved himself with great concern in the Process.

My Lord Chancellor's Deposition to the 4th. Interrogator, which is insert in the Probation of the 2d. Article, is repeated likewise in this place.

The Duke of Queensberrie in Answer to the 2d. Interrogator, De­pones, [Page 5]That he observed the Earl of Aberdene's zeal in that, and seve­ral other matters before the Session, as to the prompting of Advocats, but the Deponent minds not the particulars.

My Lord collingtoun in Answer to the 2d. Interrogator, Depones, That the Earl of Aberdene then Chancellor, was very intent and for­ward in the business of the Mint, but what privat interest he had there­in, or if he had any, the Deponent knows not.

The Lord Reidfoord in Answer to the 2d. Interrogator, Depones, That my Lord Aberdene did preside as one that was serious in the Af­fair, and the Deponent looked upon him as earnest to bring the Process to a close.

The Lord Forret in Answer to the 2d. Interrogator, Depones, That the Earl of Aberdene then Chancellor, appeared to be more concerned than usually he did in ordinary Processes. And in Answer to the 7th. Interrogator, Depones, That the then Chancellor his carriage to the Lords, and the words he then spoke to them were unusual, but cannot condescend upon the words.

The Lord Salin to the 2d. Interrogator, Depones, That he heard the Earl of Aberdene then Chancellor, resume the Debates, and very fervent­ly urge these grounds, which did agree most to his own opinion.

My Lord Pitmedden in Answer to the 2d. Interrogator, Depones, That in the time that he was present at the Debates in the Inner-House, he heard the Earl of Aderdene then Chancellor, desire the Advocats that were imployed against Lauderdale, to speak to certain Points that him­self proposed, but remembers not whether they were formerly mention­ed by the Advocats on either side.

Sir Alexander Gibson in Answer to the first Interrogator, Depones, That the Earl of Aberdene then Chancellor, did behave himself with con­cern and forwardness in the Process of the Mint, more than he obser­ved him to do in other Processes; and at the time of the Debate, he did several times suggest, or propose to the Lord Advocat Grounds and Reasons, to be urged against the Earl of Lauderdale, and Officers of the Mint.

3. The Lords having after the Debate given their Interlocutor a­nent the Copper-Coyn; and of which Interlocutor, the Earl of Lauderdale had gotten a Copy from the Clerk. The Earl of A­berdene caused some days thereafter, alter the Interlocutor, and was angry with the Clerk for giving a Copy thereof.

Sir Alexander Gibson in Answer to the 3d. Interrogator, Depones, That the first Article of the Libel anent the Copper-Coyn, having been Debate, the Lords gave their Interlocutor, whereby they Repelled the Defences, founded upon the King's exoneration and Act of Indemnity; and found that the same could not secure the Defenders from being ly­able in restitution in quantum sunt locupletiores facti, by the profits of the Copper-Coyns, more than was contained in the Warrands; and the Deponent having written the Interlocutor in these Terms (a Copy whereof he now produces, written by Sir Patrick Hume's Mans hand, as the Deponent conceives) the Deponent did immediatly after writing thereof, shew the same to the Lord Advocat, who was satisfied there­with; [Page 6]and then the Deponent gave a Copy of it to the Earl of Lauder­dale, who had called for it; But Sir Patrick Hume, who was imployed in that Process for the King's interest, having seen the Interlocutor, he about two days thereafter told the Deponent that it behoved to be Re­ctified: and these words, in quantum sunt locupletiores facti, left out: And in the Outter-House, he gave the Deponent a Note, or Memo­randum, for altering the Interlocutor, to be offered to the Earl of A­berdene, which Note the Deponent then gave to the said Earl, then sit­ting upon the Bench, who having immediatly moved the matter to the Lords; the Interlocutor was altered, and made in the Terms as it now stands in the Decreet; and immediatly thereafter, the Process being called, and the Earl of Lauderdale's Advocats having Debated something further anent the Point of the Copper-Coyn, they founded upon the Interlocutor as it was first written by the Deponent, and whereof they had gotten a Copy (which Copy they offered to produce) whereupon the then Lord Chancellor did sharply rebuke the Deponent, for giv­ing the Earl of Lauderdale a Copy of the said Interlocutor; but does not remember that he discharged the Deponent to give any more Co­pies of Interlocutors to the said Earl; but the Deponent having receiv­ed the foresaid Check, and the cause being of importance, and carried on for the King's interest (as the Deponent conceived) he resolved to give no more Copies of Interlocutors in that Process, until Sir Patrick Hume should first see them.

The Lord Pitmedden to the 4th. Interrogator, Depones, That he did see the Earl of Aberdene cause alter an Interlocutor Judicially, and re­proved the Clerk for having given out a Copy of the Interlocutor.

4. That the Earl of Aberdene caused Vote John Falconer the Warden's single Deposition, to be a sufficient probation against the Earl of Lauderdale, albeit it was formerly voted, not to be sufficient.

The Lord Pi [...]medden in Answer to the 5th. Interrogator, Depones, That when the Probation came to be Advised, the Question was moved, whether the Testimony of John Falconer Warden, being but a single Witness, could be a Probation, The Deponent being then to Vote in the Cause, desired of the Earl of Aberdene then Chancellor, to call the Advocats to Debate that Point, how far a single Witness in any case could prove, in regard the Deponent was unwilling to give a Vote against the King, so long as he had hopes to be cleared; and this desire being refu­sed, and the Question being put to the Vote, the Deponent Voted, that a single Testimony did not prove, and it was so carried by plurali­ty of Votes. After which the Earl of Aberdene did say, in these, or the like words, (Is this the way, my Lords, you guide the King's Affairs, this must be represented) and the Deponent Answered, God bless the King, it were happy for the Lords, that his Majesty were often among them, to behold their Actions; And the Earl of Aberdene Answered the Deponent in these, or the like words, how come you to answer more than the rest: And thereafter the Earl of Aberdene did represent to the Lords, that this Vote seemed to be contrair to a former Vote whereby the Lords had found my Lord Lauderdale lyable for the faults of the Ser­vants. By which the Deponent supposing, that the Earl meaned that In­terlocutor, [Page 7]which was pronounced when the Deponent was Ordinar in the Outer-House. He Answered to the Earl, that he did not know of that Interlocutor, and therefore could say nothing of it. And the Lord Hercarss desired the Earl to make his best use of it: And the Deponent doth not remember distinctly what followed, whether there was a second Interlocutor, or Vote, or how the Interlocutor was Dictated; for the Deponent was a little discomposed with what had past betwixt the Earl of Aberdene and him in the Premisses, and so took not notice.

My Lord Chancellor Perth's Deposition to the 4. Interrogator, which is inserted in the Probation of the 3. Article, is repeated likewise in this place.

The Lord Reidfoord in Answer to the 3. Interrogator, Depones, that he remembers John Falconer the Warden, his Oath was Voted not to be a sufficient Probation; and that the Earl of Aberdene seemed to be dis­content at the Vote, and said it was the King's Interest, and if the Lords pleased, they might Assoilȝie my Lord Lauderdale, or the Officers of the Mint; but remembers not whether he exprest one or both of them: And that thereupon there was an Overture made, that it was sufficient against John Falconer himself. And the whole Officers being found lyable in so­lidum, it might be looked upon as a sufficient Probation upon that Head; and the Deponent thinks it was so carried by plurality of Votes in a second Vote.

Sir Alexander Gibson, to the 4. Interrogator, Depones, that at the Advising of the Probation, some of the Lords having demurred as to that Point, if the single Deposition of John Falconer Warden of the Mint, was sufficient to prove the quantity of Copper Coyned in the first Jour­ney. The Earl of Aberdene did appear displeased, and in passion, used these expressions to the Lords that this was not his Interest, but the King's Cause, and if the Lords pleased, they might Assoilȝie the Earl of Lau­derdale, or used words to that purpose. And thereafter it being put to the Vote, The Lords found the said Deposition was Probative upon that ground, that he being an Officer of the Mint, and Deponing upon a mat­ter incumbent to his Office and Charge, his Deposition did sufficiently prove against himself, and consequently against the Earl of Lauderdale, as being lyable for him and the rest insolid [...]m▪ in the terms of a formal Interlocutor, and doth not remember that that Point was tune Voted, or not, nor yet how the Votes ran, but that it was carried by plurality of Votes; And Depones, that upon the Lord Aberdene's uttering the foresaids expressions, my Lord Pitmedden said, that he wished the King were some­times present to hear them.

Adam Chrystie Depones, that at the Advising of the Probation, some of the Lords said, that John Falconer Warden, seemed to be Examined before the Commission as a Witness, as appeared by the style of his De­position; (bearing, John Falconer of such an Age, Depones.) And next, albeit he were Examined as a Party, some of the Lords said, it was de­bateable how far it should operate against another, albeit it were Pro­bation against himself. And after some Debate amongst the Lords, the Earl of Aberdene seemed to be angry and displeased, saying, My Lords, This is not my private concern, but the King's Cause. (If you will, for my part you may Assoilȝie the Earl of Lauderdale) And afterward it was carried affirmative.

[Page 8]5. Albeit by the Interlocutor, the Lords found the Earl of Lauderdale only lyable for the rest of the Officers of the Mint, in solidum quoad the Bulȝeon; yet after the Interlocutors were drawn upon the Advi­sing of the Probation, the Earl of Aberdene caused apply the Interlo­cutors as to the Bulȝeon, to the whole other Articles of the Libel, & found the Earl of Lauderdale and Lord Maitland lyable in solidum, for the whole malversations of the rest of the Officers of the Mint.

The Duke of Queensberry in Answer to the 2d Interrogator Depones, as to the Earl of Aberdene's urging, that the Earl of Lauderdale and his Son might be found lyable for the rest of the Officers of the Mint. The De­ponent doth not remember the Argument he made use of to that purpose.

The Lord Reidfoord, in Answer to the 2d Interrogator, Depones, that he thought my Lord Aberdene earnest to have every one of the Officers of the Mint found lyable in solidum.

Sir Alexander Gibson, in Answer to the first Interrogator, Depones, That the time of the Advising, the Earl of Aberdene was of the opinion, and did urge that the Earl of Lauderdale should be found lyable in solidum for the other Officers of the Mint.

To the 4, 5, 6, and 7. special Interrogators, Depones, that after the Deponent had drawn the Interlocutor, given upon Advising the Proba­tion, Sir Patrick Hume did draw another Draught of the Interlocutor in more ample terms, and in special, as to the several Officers of the Mint, their respective malversations; and therein the Interlocutor which was given upon debate, as to the second Article anent the Bulȝeon (finding the general Libel in solidum for the rest of the Officers of the Mint) is applyed and repeated, as to all the Articles of the Libel relating to the Mint; Which Interlocutor Sir Patrick did shew to the Earl of Aberdene, the Deponent being present: And after the same was read, the Depo­nent told he was not clear to Extract the Decreet in the terms of the In­terlocutor, unless the same were brought to the Lords, and considered; Whereupon the Earl of Aberdene ordained the Deponent to Transcribe that Interlocutor, and to bring it in to be read before the Lords the next day, which the Deponent did accordingly: And the Interlocutor being read, the Lords did acquiesce thereto, and the Decreet was Extracted conform to the samen.

The King declared, he would not have the Lord Maitland insisted a­gainst; whereupon my Lord Maitland Compeared at the Bar, and declared he could not Defend, and discharged his Advocats to De­fend, and gave in a written Declaration and Submission to that pur­pose: Yet notwithstanding he is made Compearing, and no no­tice is taken of his Declaration, and refusal to Defend, but is De­cerned in solidum.

My Lord Chancellor Perth, in his Answer to the 6. Interrogator, De­pones, That in the Council held at Windsor (where were present, beside the Counsellors of the Scots Nation) Prince Rupert, the Marquess of Hal­lifax, the Duke of Ormond, the Earl of Sunderland, the now Lord The­saurer of England, &c. The late King, of ever blessed memory, did de­clare, that what-ever faults might be in the Family of Lauderdale, or a­mongst [Page 9]the Officers of the Mint, he thought my Lord Maitland was not chargeable with any of them.

The Earl of Belcarras, in his Answer to the first Interrogator, Depones, That he was in a Scots Council at Windsor, where the late King's Maje­sty, after hearing the report of the Commission anent the Mint, said, That my Lord Maitland, (to whom his Majesty had spoken) was but a young Man, and had been much out of the Countrey, and therefore thought he had little meddling in that Affair; and his Majesty said, he thought he should not be meddled with; and that after some debate in the Council about that matter, the Deponent thought it was his Majesties resolution, that my Lord Maitland should not be meddled with in that Affair.

The Bishop of Edinburgh, in Answer to the first Interrogator, Depones, that the late King's Majesty, in a Scots Council held at Windsor Castle, the 24. of August 1682. After hearing the report of the Commissioo a­nent the Mint read and considered, and that some in that Council had moved, that the Lord Maitland might be turned out of his Office of be­ing General of the Mint, als well as the other Officers; His Majesty did say, that my Lord Maitland could not be guilty of any malversations in his trust of the Mint, since his Majesty knew, that for the most part he was out of the Kingdom, by his Majesties own allowance, and that he was very young: So if when at home any errors were committed by him, they were to be imputed to his Father, under whose conduct he was; and therefore his Majesty declared, he would not suffer my Lord Mait­land to be meddled with, or touched in that Process. All which his Ma­jesty spoke, with a great deal of zeal and concern for the Lord Mait­land's interest.

The Viscount of Tarbat, in Answer to the 7. Interrogator, Depones, that in the Council at Windsor, the Deponent heard the late King say, he would not have the Lord Maitland pursued for the Mint, or some words to that purpose: But what the Deponent heard his Majesty say in private, the Deponent conceives he is not bound to declare it.

The Lord Forret, in Answer to the 6. Interrogator, Depones, that the Lord Maitland did appear before the Lords, and declared in their pre­sence, that he would not Defend in the Mint-Process, and discharged his Advocats to compear therein for him, and gave in a Declaration to that purpose in Writ.

The Lord Collingtoun, in Answer to the 6, Interrogator, Depones, that the Lord Maitland did compear before the Lords, and declared, that he would not Defend in that Process of the Mint, nor allow Advocats to de­fend for him, but referred himself to the King.

The Lord Reidfoord, in Answer to the 6. Interrogator, Depones, that the Lord Maitland did appear, and declare, that he would not defend in the Mint-Process, nor allow appearance for him against his Majesty; and believes he did offer a Declaration or Submission, or some Writ to that purpose, but it was refused at that time: But doth not remember whe­ther the Lords opinion was asked or not.

The Lord Salin to the 6. Depones, that the Lord Maitland did com­pear at the Bar, and did insinuat by discourse to the Lords, his own innocency, and little accession to the mismanagment of the Mint, and [Page 10]that his late Majesty did very well understand it; and declared he would not defend in that Process, but be silent and absent.

Sir Alexander Gibson to the 2. Interrogator, Depones, that when the day of my Lord Maitlands compearance was come (he being out of the Countrey the time of the Citation of the rest of the Defenders) and he being called, he did declare in presence of the Lords, that he would not defend in that Process, nor allow Advocats to appear or defend for him, but submitted himself to the King's Majesty, and gave in a Decla­ration Subscribed by him to that purpose, which is in the Deponents hands: But it was found by Interlocutor, that the Lords could not re­ceive this Submission from the Lord Maitland; and that he being con­joyned with his Father in the Commission, the Process behoved also to go on against him; and remembers not whether this Interlocutor was pronounced before the Parties and Advocats were removed, or after; And in respect of that Interlocutor, the Deponent conceived he could not insert the Lord Maitland his Subscribed Declaration in the De­creet.

To the additional Interrogator, Depones, that he had no express war­rand from the Earl of Aberdene, to mark my Lord Maitland compear­ing, nor give out he Decreet against him as compearing; but Depones, that he having Written the Interlocutor, as to the Lord Maitland, accor­ding as it was pronounced, viz. That the Lords could not receive a Sub­mission from the Lord Maitland; but being conjoyned with his Father in the Commission, the Process must also go on against him: And in re­gard he declined to propone any defences in the Cause, the Lords ad­mitted the Libel to Probation against him; And the Act being Scrolled accordingly, Sir Patrick Home who had the managing of the Process, did score out these words, (In regard he declines to propone any Defences in the Cause) and caused Extract the Act against my Lord Maitland com­pearing, as will appear by the Interlocutor, and Scroll of the Act, which are lying in Process; whereunto the Deponent gave way, considering the trust that Sir Patrick Home had in that Process.

Mr. James Dalrymple, in Answer to the 6. Interrogator, Depones, my Lord Maitland did compear, and made a gentile and discreet Dis­course in the terms of the Interrogator, remembers not, if he gave it in in Writ, or not, but remembers he said, he would make no Defence, nor would allow Advocats to compear for him.

7. The Probation was not Voted severally, in relation to every Ar­ticle, but joyntly, whether the Articles were proven or not.

Sir Alexander Gibson, in Answer to the 7. Interrogator, Depones, that at the Advising of the Cause, the Probation was pointed and read, as to every Article severally; but to the best of the Deponents memory, there were only two Votes, one anent the Probation of the quantity of the Cop­per Coyned in the first Journey, and the other after the reading of all the Probation, as to the rest of the Articles.

Adam Chrystie, before the end of his Deposition, Depones, that after the Voting of John Falconer the Wardens Deposition, the remanent Ar­ticles of the Libel severally, one by one, and the Probation relative to every one of them was read in Praesentia, and in the close they were all Vo­ted [Page 11]together, as the Interlocutor was Written thereupon: So that to the Deponents best memory, there was only two distinct Votes in Advising all the Probation.

8. After the Session was up, the Earl of Aberdene would have an Interlocutor added to the Decreet, which was not at all moved to the Lords, viz. That the Officers of the Mint should be remitted by his Majesty to the Lords of the Privy Council, or Justiciary, to be punished.

Sir Alexander Gibson, to the 1st, and 2d. of the 7. particular Interroga­tors, Depones, that after the Decreet was extended, and ready to be Subscribed, Sir Patrick Home told the Deponent, that there was a Con­clusion in the Libel, whereupon no Interlocutor was given, viz. That the Officers of the Mint be remitted to the Lords of Privy Council, or Ju­stitiary, to be punished according to Law, for their malversing; and did desire the Deponent to insert this following Clause in the Decreet, viz. As to that Conclusion of the Libel, whereby his Majesties Advocat craves, that the late Officers of the Mint having committed such manifest and gross Acts of malversation, in relation to the Mint, and their respective Offices, they ought to be remitted to the Lords of Privy Council, or Lords of Justiciary, to be otherways punished according to Law. The Lords superceded to give Answer thereto, but remits the same to the King, that his Majesty may do therein, and give further order thereanent, as he in his Royal Wisdom shall think fit and expedient. And the Deponent having refused to insert that Clause, in regard he had no warrand for it; Sir Patrick told him, that the Lord Chancellor expected it should be done, and desired the Deponent to speak to him thereanent. And the Depo­nent having gone accordingly to the Earl of Aberdene, told him, that Sir Patrick had desired him to insert the foresaid Clause in the Decreet, which he conceived he could not warrantably do, seing there was no Interlo­cutor for it. And the Earl said to the Deponent, that there being such a Concluson in the Summons, it was necessary there should be an An­swer given thereto, and said, there was no hazard for the Deponent to insert the said Clause, there being nothing concluded thereby against the Defenders. And the Deponent Answered, he was not clear to do the same; and the Deponent thinking it would not have been further prest, and having some business in the Country, went out of Town, resolving to return at night; But about 3 or 4 hours thereafter in the same day, (being a Saturday) he received a Letter from a Servant in the Deponents Chamber, who wrote the Decreet, shewing him, that it was still insist­ed in, that the said Clause might be insert in the Decreet, and that there was to be a meeting of the Lords of Session to that effect that night, and desired the Deponent to haste in to the Town; and accordingly the Deponent having come, he went to Sir Patrick Home, who told him that he had spoken to my Lord Aberdene, who told him he was now content the Decreet should be Extracted without that Clause.

9. The Earl of Aberdene, then Chancellor, was in use to threaten other persons with Process at the King's instance, but for his own ends.

The Lord Chancellor Perth, in Answer to the 5. Interrogator, De­pones, that the Earl of Broad-Albane intreated the Deponent to inter­pose with my Lord Aberdene then Chancellor, that the Process of Trea­son intented against him might not go on, until the King were acquainted with the circumstances of that matter. That my Lord Aberdene spoke to the Deponent, of purchasing his Lands in Caithness, which purchase he pretended he was designing sometimes for the King (then Duke) and sometime for Duke Gordon; though the Deponent hath good ground to believe since that it was not designed for either of them; and that the highest that ever he heard the Earl of Aberdene offer, was 100000 pounds for the Earl of Broad-Albans whole interest in Caithness: And that the Deponent was informed, that the Process went on anent the Forefaul­ture, or was stopt, according to the appearance of going on of that Bar­gain, or not. But when the Deponent said to my Lord Aberdene, that it was not well to go on in that Process against my Lord Broad-Albane, be­fore the King was better informed of the matter: And that my Lord Broad-Albane in stead of appearing to answer to the Criminal Process, would go to London. The Lord Aberdene then said, he should not much trouble himself about that, for he would send up his Libel after him.

The Duke of Queensberry to the last Interrogator Depones, he knows nothing of the Bargain betwixt the Earl of Aberdene and Broad-Albane, but what he heard from the Marquess of Athole: Only the Deponent re­members, that when the Earl of Aberdene spoke to him of that Bargain, he pretended it was for the King or Duke, and still shunned owing of it for himself.

The Viscount of Tarbat, in Answer to the 10. Interrogator, Depones, he knows there was a Treaty betwixt the Earl of Aberdene and Broad-Al­bame, because both Parties told the Deponent of it; but what was the Treaty, or the Price offered, the Deponent remembers not; but only the Deponent thought then it was a low price that was offered.

Collonel Grahame, in Answer to the 8. Interrogator, anent the Bar­gain betwixt the Earl of Aberdene and the Earl of Marr, Depones, that the Deponent might have said such a thing to the Earl of Perth, as is mentioned in the Interrogator, viz. That the Deponent was afraid the Earl of Marr was like to lose the Government of the Castle of Stirling, or his Regiment, if not both: But Depones, that if he said it, it was out of no knowledge of any designs of the Earl of Aberdene had to pre­vail with the Earl of Marr, to part with several Superiorities in the North in his favours, or his threatning him with the loss of his Regiment, or keeping the Castle of Stirling, or Tack of the Lordship thereof, upon the account of these Superiorities, and knew nothing of the Transactions betwixt them, anent the saids Superiorities.