The rough and tumble of eighteenth-century politics. [William Hogarth, Four Prints of an Election: An Election Entertainment, Plate 1, 1755. National Galleries of Scotland Print Room.]

Few Scots possessed the vote before the Scottish Reform Act of 1832. A year before the Act only about 4,500 men out of a total population of over 2.6 million people were eligible to elect members of Parliament. While the legislation did modestly expand the Scottish franchise by lowering property requirements, as did similar legislation in England and Wales, Britain as a whole remained a far cry from the kind of white male democracy emerging in the United States under President Andrew Jackson. 

But all politics is local. Although property requirements may have denied the majority of Scots the opportunity to elect members of Parliament, that did not prevent them from contesting elections in the Court of Session. Beyond MPs, Scots elected representatives to burgh and town councils, voted to appoint new schoolmasters to educate children in their local, and chose men to lead their trade associations.  And Scots continued the fight long after the final votes had been counted. Accusations of fraud, questions over voter eligibility, and challenges to electoral processes made their way into Scotland's supreme civil court. 

The cases listed here provide a window into the exercise of power and authority on local level. They reveal how personal relationships and class dynamics shaped elections and the institutions to which men were elected. 

Related Cases

Case Date Legal Subjects Abstract
Robert Munro v. John Baxter, Provost of Cupar, and Other Burgesses 1772 Election This case stems from a disputed election for the Dean of Guild of Cupar in 1766. Robert Munro and John Stewart stood as candidates. Munro claimed to have won the election. The town council decided that the other candidate, Stewart, had actually won. On appeal to the Court of Session, however, the court determined that Munro had won the election. The court did not award Munro costs and fees related to the litigation. Munro then petitioned the town council for reimbursement of his expenses. The town council agreed to make a donation to Munro. A few members of the town council, objecting to this donation, sought to stop the payment in court. Munro contended that the Court of Session did not have jurisdiction over the royal burrows with respect to administrative and revenue matters.
Stephen and others v. Duff and other Magistrates and Counsellors of the Burgh of Elgin 1771 Election contest, Burgh This case concerns disputed elections for council in the Burgh of Elgin. John Duff, defender, and his group controlled the Burgh council up to the election in the Michaelmas 1770 term. Duff was provost of the burgh, with members of his group serving other positions on the council. In that 1770 election, Thomas Stephen, pursuer, won and became provost of the burgh of Elgin. Stephen was a member of a rival group. In the next election, the Michaelmas 1771 term, Duff and his group won the election and regained their positions on the council. Each group accused the other of resorting to riots, disturbances, bribery, and other improper means to affect the Michaelmas 1771 election.
Magistrates and Town-Council of the Burgh of Pittenweem v. Robert and William Alexanders, Thomas Martin, and Others 1771 Elections, Corruption, Burgh Robert Alexander and his brother, William, attempted to take over the burgh magistracy of Pittenweem in the mid-1760s, after the death of Sir Harry Erskine. They were successful and assumed power in 1765. Former magistrates of the burgh of Pittenweem filed suit against the Alexanders, alleging that the Alexanders and their agents engaged in undue influence and corruption during the election process. They alleged that some of these corrupt transactions were between the Alexanders and bailie Thomas Martin, defender. During the lawsuit, the Alexanders apparently used burgh funds to cover the costs of the litigation. The magistracy of Pittenweem also took out a loan from Robert Alexander. The former magistrates won the lawsuit, returned to power, and then challenged the burgh debt to Robert Alexander in the Court of Session, arguing that it was not validly procured.
George Allan and Others v. Andrew Crambie and Others 1770 Election contest Pursuers George Allan, Andrew Garnock, and Charles Cock challenged the September 1769 election of defender James Hunter as deacon of the Incorporation of Hammermen of the town of Kinghorn. There were 12 votes for Allan and 10 votes for Hunter, but Hunter was able to successfully challenge the qualifications of 6 of the 12 voters in favor of Allan. For example, two of the voters were apparently non-residents. Allan, on the other hand, sought to challenge 3 of the 10 votes for Hunter. One voter was struck from the rolls of the incorporation for failure to pay dues. Allan et al. sought to prove that Allan properly achieved a majority of votes in the election. The parties disputed who received the majority of votes to become the deacon of the incorporation.
Shaw v. Fleming 1775 Elections, Burgh This case concerns a disputed election in the burgh of Rutherglen. Different trades (including deacons, masons, and weavers) would meet with members of their industry and submit lists of candidates for the elections, a common election practice of the period. Pursuers George Shaw et al. lodged a complaint against the town council of the burgh of Rutherglen. Apparently the town council adopted a practice of restricting voting to resident masons and wrights, and disallowed non-resident masons and wrights from voting. Shaw et al. alleged that this attempt to disenfranchise the non-resident masons and wrights was unlawful.
Peter Ramsay and Others, Councillors and Burgesses of Pittenweem v. Andrew Martin and Others 1765 Election contest Petitioners sought to have a borough election nullified on the ground that it was conducted in a corrupt fashion by counsellors who were bribed by Robert Alexander, a candidate for the local parliament seat.
Hunter v. Robb, &c 1765 Election contest The complainants in this case protested the borough election held in September 1765; the respondents were counsellors of the borough. Each side accused the other of being bribed by Sir John Anstruther or Robert Alexander, contestants for a seat in parliament.
William Toshack v. Alexander Smart 1771 Voting rights The office of the schoolmaster in the parish of St. Cuthbert's became vacant. In the election of an assistant schoolmaster for the parish, two questions occurred as to the right of voting. The pursuer, Mr. Toshach who participated in the election, maintained that all the heritors whatsoever, who were liable in payment of cess and parish burdens, had a right. The defender, on the other hand, maintained that the right was reserved only to such heritors as were separately valued on the cess-roll. To decide this issue the Lords looked at the terms and meaning of the Act of 1696, c. 26. for the settling of schools. The pursuer also argued that the liferenter, whilst the defender affirmed that the fiar, had the preferable right of voting. The Lord Ordinary found the liferenter "has a right to vote, and not the fiar.”
Robert Hamilton Provost of Kinghorn, Pursuer v. James Rutherford, John Aitken, David Sibbald and Walter Rymer, in Kinghorn, Defenders 1771 Defamation, expenses of process The pursuer, the Provost of Kinghorn, one of the royal boroughs situated upon the Firth of Forth, brought an action of damages for defamation against the defenders. They accused Mr. Hamilton of having sold the burgh's interest and having been bribed at the last general election. The pursuer limited his demand to the expenses of the process and the following judgment was pronounced, "Repel the defences; find the attack made by the defenders, upon the character of the pursuer, was malevolent and injurious; and therefore find them, conjunctly and severally, liable in expenses of process, of which ordain an account to be given in; but not in damages, in respect the pursuer has passed from any.”
James Andrew, and Others, Merchant-Counsellors of the Burgh of Linlithgow, and Thomas Henderson, Deacon of the Incorporation of Weavers there v. Henry Gillies, Provost of Linlithgow, and Others 1775 The 1774 election of the council of Linlithgow produced three counsellors who did not reside in the burgh. Several members of the council sought a declaration from the court that the three non-residents were ineligible to serve, and that their election was therefore null and void. The burgh's provost, ten other members of council, and the challenged counsellors opposed such an order, claiming that the suit was politically motivated. The defenders argued that it was unnecessary for counsellors to reside in the burgh, that the pursuers were barred from suing because they had concurred in the election, and that many non-residents had served as counsellors over the years.
Scotlands v. Thomson 1775 Defamation John, Robert, and David Scotland sought damages from James Thomson, minister of Dunfermline, after Thomson preached two sermons accusing them of lying and corruption in connection with the Dunfermline election. Thomson claimed that it was his duty to censure wrongful behavior, and that the second sermon was justified by a provocative letter to the editor written by Robert Scotland.
James Hill v. Thomas Hopkirk and John Macall 1779 Fine In 1752 and 1769, Thomas Hopkirk and John MacCall, respectively, paid a £20 fine to avoid serving on the Glasgow Town Council. In 1778, both men having retired to the country, they were successively elected Dean of Guild and also declined the position. The Town Council demanded that they each pay a £40 fine to the Merchants House as a penalty, so the two men presented suspensions of charge to Lord Gardenstone. They argued that the Town Council was not a court of law and did not have the authority to seize the private property of a burgher. Furthermore, they argued that even if the Town Council had the legal authority to impose fines, both men had been liberated by the fines they had already paid. The Lord Ordinary ruled in their favor, and James Hill, collector of the Merchants House, represented against this interlocutor. He argued that such fines were customary in several Scottish burghs, and that their previous fine did not liberate the suspenders from serving as Dean of Guild. In response, Hopkirk and MacCall argued that it was unjust that two men, both over the age of sixty, should be required “to take up the load of a laborious employment, at an age, when the humane regulations of every civilized community, permit the willing subjects to lay down the burden of public office altogether.” The Court found that the men were not liable for an additional fine, having already been liberated from serving on the Council.
Micheal Marshall and Richard Dick v. John Carre of Cavers, Esq, and Others 1781 The petitioners, a current counsellor and a former counsellor of the burgh of Jedburgh, alleged that an election was influenced by bribery and corruption. They asked the Court of Session to set aside the results and find that the candidates favored by the apparent minority had been legally elected.
Sir Alexander Campbell, Baronet v. Peter Spiers 1790 Sir Alexander Campbell, Baronet, as pursuer, sought admission to the roll of freeholders, while Peter Spiers of Culcroich, Esquire, as defender, argued in his duplies that the freeholders had rightly refused to admit him. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
George Dempster and Others v. Charles Lyel, Sr. 1790 George Dempster and others sought to remove Charles Lyell from the freeholder roll for Forfar, contending that his valuation improperly included Easter Glenquharity lands not held in his title, thereby reducing his qualification below the requisite 400l Scots. The respondents initially denied the allegations and asserted that statutory limits restricted the court’s jurisdiction, while the complainants maintained that the court possessed authority over all wrongful freeholder enrolments and cited precedent. Lyell subsequently answered the petition and complaint, denying that he had been wrongfully retained on the roll.
Alexander Milne v. Freeholders of Aberdeenshire 1790 Freeholder, Election contest, Freehold Qualification, Penalty, Interlocutor, Disposition Alexander Milne pursued the Freeholders of Aberdeenshire, represented by George Skene of Skene, to reverse his expungement from the county freeholder roll following the Michaelmas meeting of 1790. The defenders answered that Milne’s freehold qualification was nominal and fictitious, contending that the statutory four-month limitation did not bar objections to fraudulent claims, while Milne asserted his independent acceptance of the wadset and denial of political obligation. The litigation proceeded through reclaiming petitions against adverse interlocutors, condescendences regarding the qualification’s validity, and Milne’s objections to the defenders’ account of expenses. The cause culminated in disputes over the award of statutory penalties and the allocation of costs between the parties.
Robert Alexander v. James Chrystie 1766 Election contest The commissioners from five boroughs of the county of Fife gathered to elect a parliament-burgess, and on the first vote Robert Alexander was elected. Later, the presiding officer voted again so that Alexander's opponent won. Alexander sued the clerk and returning officer, James Chrystie, because of the way the voting was handled.
David Fowler v. Andrew Reid 1765 Election contest Complainers David Fowler and James Miller alleged that an election in Kilrenny was tainted by corrupt practices designed to instate officials who would support Robert Alexander for a seat in parliament. Fowler and Miller sued the burgh’s elected officials, seeking to have the election vacated or, at minimum, to be reinstated in their positions as counsellor and bailie. The officials denied these allegations and alleged that members of the opposing party, including Sir John Anstruther and complainer David Fowler, had themselves engaged in corruption.
Robert Robb v. Gabriel Halladay 1766 Robert Robb accused Gabriel Halladay of committing perjury during Court of Session proceedings regarding the Anstruther Wester elections. Halladay raised several technical objections to the libel (i.e., the indictment); Robb responded to these objections and argued that the case should move forward. The libel was dismissed.
Alexander Young and others v. Andrew Johnston and others 1767 Election contest The pursuers alleged that Andrew Johnston Sr., bailie of Anstruther Easter, and his son Andrew Jr. accepted money to pay off the town's debt from men who wished to run for the borough's parliament seat. The pursuers therefore sought to have the election reduced.
George Anderson v. James Stephen, Andrew Jamieson, and others 1766 Election contest The complainers in this case alleged that the counsellors of Crail were under the influence of Sir John Anstruther and that Sir John's representatives sold meal to the trades at a special price in order to bribe certain men before the borough's election.
Penrose-Cumming v. Lawson 1785 Freeholder, Perjury, Oath, Libel This case was about the enforcement of qualifications to vote in a parliamentary election. Alexander Penrose-Cumming, a candidate for Parliament, alleged that his opponent, James, Earl Fife, had distributed fictitious freehold interests in order to skew the vote. Before voting, the holders of these allegedly fictitious interests were required to swear an oath attesting to their qualifications. Based on this oath, Penrose-Cumming charged the voters with perjury. One of the accused voters was John Lawson, the pannel (i.e., the defendant) in this case. Lawson argued that his oath was not false, because he was, in fact, entitled to vote. Lawson further argued that whether or not he was lawfully entitled to vote, he had reasonably believed that his oath was true.
Penrose-Cumming v. Rev. Leslie 1785 Libel, Oath, Perjury, Freeholder This case was about the enforcement of qualifications to vote in a parliamentary election. Alexander Penrose-Cumming, a candidate for Parliament and a freeholder in Moray, alleged that James, Earl Fife, had distributed fictitious freehold interests in order to skew the vote. Before voting, the holders of these allegedly fictitious interests were required to swear an oath attesting to their qualifications. Based on this oath, Penrose-Cumming charged the voters with perjury. One of the accused voters was Rev. William Leslie, the pannel (i.e., the defendant) in this case. Leslie’s qualification to vote rested on a wadset (similar to a mortgage) of a superiority over part of the lands of Kinneddar. During the proceeding against him, Leslie raised a number of arguments against the charges. These included that Penrose-Cumming lacked the kind of specific injury that would give him title to pursue the case, that Penrose-Cumming had failed to allege sufficiently detailed facts, and that Leslie's rights were not, in fact, fictitious.
Chrystie and Chrystie v. Ferguson, et al 1788 Election contest, Decreet-Arbitral, Reduction, Election, Bribery, Corruption Alexander Chrystie and another pursued Ferguson and others to reduce and set aside the election of the Magistrates and Counsellors of Burntisland, alleging bribery, corruption, and invalid form. The defenders answered, maintaining the validity of the 1789 election and arguing that a majority of uncorrupted votes sustained the result.
Crawford, et al v. Morrison, et al 1787 Election contest, Aliment, Election, Mala Fides, Adjudication, Inhibition Thomas Crawford, Charles Pirrie, Alexander Paterson, and John Gardner pursued John Morrison and others to have Morrison’s election as Deacon of the Incorporation of Wrights in Glasgow declared void. The respondents defended the 1787 election as having proceeded by lawful procedure and majority vote, and further averred that the complainants had themselves accepted office under the contested appointment.
[MERGED → 66891] Forbes, et al v. Gordon 1789 Documents available. Full description in progress.
High v. Main 1788 Election contest, Election, Oath, Corporation, Adjudication, Voting rights Thomas High and Robert Main contested the deaconship of the Kinghorn Weavers' Incorporation, Main having petitioned to alter the council's decision admitting High to the office in his place. The central question was whether town-servants under the magistrates held voting rights in such elections, with the complainers citing precedents from Inverkeithing, Cupar, Perth, and Haddington to support their position. James Donaldson and others raised parallel challenges to the election of the deacon of the bakers, and the parties submitted answers and petitions seeking alteration of the Court's interlocutors.
Magistrates and Councellors of the Burgh of Dunfermline v. Wilson, et al 1786 Debt, Arrestment, Election contest, Creditor, Aliment, Diligence The Magistrates and Councellors of the Burgh of Dunfermline, as defenders, filed answers to the petition of Thomas Wardlaw and others, responding to claims of electoral corruption. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
James Cheap v. William Morehead [Copy 2] 1790 This record contains additional documents not included with the case record located in UVALL Box 22
Sir William Augustus Cunynghame, Bart, and Alexander Marjoribanks v. Francis Dundas 1790
Sir William Forbes and Others v. Andrew Gordon 1789 Sir William Forbes of Craigievar, Baronet, George Skene of Skene, Esquire, and others petitioned the Court to overturn the Freeholders' decision enrolling Lieutenant-Colonel Andrew Gordon as a Freeholder, alleging that Gordon held his lands by nominal and confidential titles that disqualified him from that status. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Papers in Political Cases, 1790-1 - Manuscript Index 1790 This is the manuscript index that appears at the beginning of Vol. 02- Papers in Political Cases, 1790-1
Minutes of Election of the County of Stirling 1790 This is a printed record of the Minutes of Election of the County of Stirling, dated 6 July 1790. It is a standalone document that precedes several cases dealing with Stirlingshire elections that are contained within "UVALL - Box 22 - Vol. 02 - Papers in Political Cases, 1790-1 - Stirlingshire Elections." Please see that sub-record for a complete listing of the cases and their corresponding documents.
James Cheap v. William Morehead [Copy 1] 1790 Digitization and Description in Progress.
Additional documents in this case can be found in the duplicate case record in UVALL Box 16 and in UVALL Box 22 - Vol. 03.
[MERGED → 14702] Ilay Ferrier v. William Morehead 1791
Adam Livingston, Esq. of Bantaskine v. Sir Thomas Dundas, Bart. 1790 Adam Livingston of Bantaskine petitioned the Court to overturn the Michaelmas head court's decision striking him from the roll of freeholders for Stirlingshire, asserting his qualification through possession of the two merk land of Kipdarroch. Sir Thomas Dundas resisted the petition, answering that Livingston never possessed the lands, which had been held by the Gourlay family and Mr Moir of Leckie under Crown tenure since the preceding century. The parties exchanged replies and answers regarding the title to stand upon the roll, and Dundas additionally petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor, contending that statutory prescription did not bar inquiry into the possession of the lands.
[MERGED → 34446] James Bruce v. W. A. Cuninghame 1791
James Bruce v. Laurence Dundas 1791
William Campbell v. Sir John Anstruther, of Anstruther 1790 William Campbell petitioned the Court to overturn the election of Philip Anstruther in place of Sir John Anstruther and to sustain his own vote as a constituent member of the Council meetings. Sir John Anstruther answered, rejecting allegations of illegal council removal and election manipulation, while Inshie separately contested the forfeiture of his East Michaelmas seat on grounds of non-residency and want of notice near a general election. The parties thereafter exchanged replies and duplies debating the regularity of the April 1790 Council meeting and the legal right to challenge the election of Counsellors of Kilrenny.
James Bruce v. James Hogg 1790 James Bruce, a tailor in Anstruther Easter, petitioned the Court against James Hogg, seeking a finding that the Town Council had wrongfully elected Hogg as a Counsellor in place of Bruce, who had been legally elected and accepted. Hogg answered that Bruce’s election was void and that the vacancy had been properly filled. Bruce, joined by other Counsellors and Magistrates of the burgh, replied, defending his own election and challenging the validity of Hogg’s interim election on the grounds of statutory time limits and lack of prior notice.