Replies in the Case of the Suspension of David Woodburn, Student

Author(s): Dalrymple, Sir David

Duplies for the University of
Glasgow to the Reply to their Answers
to the Bill of Suspension of David
Woodburn
The Merits of this Cause have been
stated upon the part of the University in
their Answers to the Bill of Suspension,
& the Respts do not mean now to repeat
any Part of what has been there urged
at Considerable length. They only propose
to submitt a few Remarks upon some of
the cheif things which have been thrown out in the Replies
Upon the first Point respecting the
Competency of the present Application for reviewing
the proceedings of an University
Meeting in the exercise of their Accademical
Jurisdiction The Respts think it unneceſsary
to make any Addition to what was urged
upon that Stead in the answers. The
distinction which the Complr endeavours
to establish betwixt the Judgements
of the Rectors Court or University Meeting
[to] the Proceedings of the Principal &
Masters in exercising Discipline over the
Students the former of which he maintains

to be reviewable by your [¿] whilst he
admitts that the latter are liable to no
Review is entirely chymerical & void of
foundation
The Respts do agree st the Complr
in thinking that there is a Real Distinction
in the Proceedings of the College & that some
of them are reviewable by your [¿] & others
not But the Nature & grounds of this
distinction the Complr has entirely misapprehended
what he seems to take for
granted is, that the Acts or Determination
of the Colledge are to be held reviewable or
not, according as they happened to have
been transacted in this or that particular
Meeting; in the University meeting in
which the Rector presides, or, in the meeting
of the Principal & Masters, in which the
Principal acts as Praeses. The Respts
on the other Hand do maintain that the
Criterion according to which their Proceedings
are to be held reviewable or not is to be taken
not from the particular Colledge Meeting
at which the Busineſs was transacted
but from the Nature of the Busineſs
itself. This the Proceedings with regard

to the Complr altho transacted in the
University Meeting, in which the Rector
presided, were as much a Part of the
Exercise of accademick Discipline, as if
they had been carried on at a Meeeting
at which the Principal had sat as Praeses,
& it is impoſsible to aſsign any good
Reason why a Review should be competent
in the one Case more than in the other.
Accordingly by a Clause in the Charter
of Nova Erectio, quoted in the answers, your
[¿] will perceive, that the expelling [¿]
was conidered to be so much a Part of
the ordinary academick Discipline, that it is
expreſsly committed to the Principal of
Masters alone, altho' in later times
Explusions have generaly been carried on
at an University Meeting in which the
Rector presides. There are on the other hand
Pieces of Busineſs carried on at a Meeting of
the Principal & Masters such as the
ordinary Ministration of the Colledge Revenue
which like the acts of all other Administration
of a Community are subject to the Cognizance
of this Court, altho according to the
Complrs idea of considering only the

of the Meeting at which any Particular
Piece of Colledge Busineſs is transacted
these last ought not to be liable to any
Review.
The illustration likewise of his Doctrine
which the Complr has drawn from the
Case of Father & Child makes clearly agt
him. Suppose a Father was to turn his
Child out of Doors, neither your [¿] nor
any other Court could interpose & take
Cognizance whether he had proceeded to
this Step upon sufficient grounds or not
Because in doing so the Father has been
acting within the tenets of that paternal
authority with which he is by Law entrusted.
If the Father indeed pretends to go one Step
father & refuse to aliment the Child whom
he has expelled, The Court of Law will no
doubt be entitled to interpose; because
the Father has here exceeded his Jurisdiction.
The refusing to aliment or starving a
Chid alive, being a punishment
which the Law does not allow a Father
to inflict upon any account whatever.

Another Preiminary Question
is, whether the Respts in the Exercise of
their accademick Discipline are bound to
observe the strict forms of Judicial Procedure
which are established in the ordinary
Courts of Law.
Upon this point the Complr seems to
be a good Deal at a Loſs how to shape
his argument & after all his Labour
he is reduced to the Neceſsity of doing
it in such a manner as effectualy to
overturn his own System. He admitts
that in Cases of Expulsion there is no
Neceſsity that the form of Proceſs should
"be precisely the same with that of
"your [¿] in civil Actions or of the
"Court of Justiciary in criminal ones" but
if the Forms of Proceſs in the Courts of
Law both civil & criminal are to be
laid aside the Respts would gladly
know by what Standart it is poſsible
for them to regulate their Proceeding
except by the Custom of the University
& the Laws of common Sense, & according
to this Standard the Respts are perfectly
willing that the Proceedings agt the

Complr should be tried & the Judgement
of Expulsion either suspended or affirmed
accordingly. That the Respts have done
Nothing here that was not sufficiently
warranted by the Practise of the University
nor violated any one Rule which that
Practice had established the Respts apprehend
to be a point clear & indisputable.
The Complr has not been able to point out
any one instance in the Records of the
University where the Expulsion of a Bursar
has been gone about with greater Regularity
or the eſsential forms more exactly adhered
to than in the Case under Review.
The only difference is that the proceedings
in this Case partly by the anxieity of the
University Meeting to be perfectly informed
with Regard to every Circumstances of the
affair before they proceeded to paſs any
Judgement, & partly by the obstructions
which the Complr himself had contrived to
throw in the Way were drawn out to a
much greater length than on former
occasions; & the Respts will be bold to
say that if the objections in Point of form
insisted on by the Complr are found good,
there is not a single instnce of a Bursar
having been legaly or validly expelled
since the institution of the University & that every

one of them would have an equall good
Tittle with teh Complr to be re-instated
and as the Complr cannot say with
Truth that the proceedings agt him
were disagreeable to the former Practice
of the University; So is he as little entittled
to maintain that they were
Contrary to the Rules of Justice or common
Sense, as must be obvious on considering
the objections which he has made
The first & great objection insisted
upon by the Complr is, that he was
not served wt a formal Indictment.
To this objection a very satisfying
ansr has been already made, by showing
your [¿] that before any Proceedings
in the Trial, upon the Complr insisting
to know the several Articles of which he
was accused, a most particular & distinct
Explanation of the whole was given by the University
Meeting which was inserted in their Minutes,
& the Complr appointed to be furnished wt
an Extract of it; so that he was as fully
approzed of the Nature of the Charge
agt him, as if he had been served wt an
indictment drawn up according to all
the Punctilios of form.
Still the Complr objects, that altho
this Declaration might otherwise have
answered all the Purposes of a Lybel yet
it cannot be regarded as sufficient because
2/3 of the Evidence had been led before the
Date of it.
This is entirely a Mistake, what the
Complr is pleased to call more than Two
Thirds of the Evidence is neither more nor
leſs than a sort of Precognition or previous
Enquiry into the Fact which the University
meeting appointed to be made, before any
Resolution was formed of proceeding farther
either agt the Complr or any other Person.
The University meeting had received
information, that some Disturbances had
happened in the College, but before they
proceeded to buy any particular Person it
was neceſsary that there should be a previous
[Expiscation] of Facts in order to
know whether there were sufficient grounds
for such Tryal or not. The Result of the
Enquiry was [¿] very strong suspicions
agt the Complr of some very improper
& unbecoming Conduct. It was resolved
therefore by the Meeting that he should
be proceeded agt in common Form in
order that he might have an opportunity
of vindicating his Conduct, or if he could not,
should be expelled from the Community as
an unworthy Member. In the subsequent

proceedings however, no Weight whatever
is laid upon the Examinations which
had been taken in the Course of the
Previous Enquiry or Precognition.
The whole Witneſses were again examined
in the Complrs Presence & he
wa allowed to state objections & to put
whatever questions to them he had
amind, & it was solely upon the
Evidence so taken that the Judgement
of the University was founded. All
this the Respts are advised to be strictly
conformable to the Practice of the Criminal
Courts of this country. First a
Precognition is taken in order to discover
the guilty Person & to find whether
there be sufficient grounds for commencing
a Tryal; Then the Person whom that
Precognition loads wt the strongest
Suspicion is served wt a Lybel & brought
to Tryal. In the Course of that Tryal
the Precognition is not founded on as
Evidence, but the same Witneſses who
had formerly been precognosced, are
confronted wt the Pannel & again
examined in his Presence, when he is
allowed to state objections & to croſs
interrogate them. If the Respts therefore
have erred at all here it has been by following
Step by Step the forms of Procedure

established in the Criminal Courts of
Law, to the observance of which the Complr
upon all other occasions is so paſsionately
fond of having them tied up.
The Manner in which the Complrs
Declaration was taken is also taken notice
of as an instance of very improper Conduct
in the Respts. The Complr observes, altho
it may be true, that the Declaration of
a pannel may be laid as Evidence before
a Jury, yet that the pannel is at Liberty
to emitt such a Declaration or not as he
thinks proper, & that when he is brought
before a Judge for that purpose, he is
entitled to know the particulars of
which he is accused.
That a party accused is at Lberty
to emitt a Declaration or not, is a point
which the Respts have no occasion to
dispute, as the Complr has not been so
hardy as to say that any improper Violence was
used to compell him to emitt what is
called his Declaration altho as the
Proceedings agt him were merely at
civilem Effectum he might have been
legaly appointed to confeſs or deny the
Particular Facts under the usual Certification
of being held as confeſsed
if he remained Silent. But the Respts
have never understood that a Judge

before taking a Partys Declaration
is under a neceſsity of explaining the
Circumstances of the offence wt regard
to which he is to be examined. To give
such a previous information it is plain
could answer no good purpose except
to serve as a Directory to the Party
accused what Facts he shoudl disguise
or Misrepresent & of Consequence to defeat
entirely the Purpose of taking
the Declaration. The Respts accordingly
do maintain, that neither the Law
nor Practice of the criminal Courts
of this Country require this to be done,
& that when a Persons Declaration is going
to be taken the Judge does not think it
neceſsary that he should be allowed to
know any thing about the Matter farther
than what he can pick up from the
Nature of the Questions that are put to
him. Indeed the whole of this
Argument is mere affectation upon the
Part of the Complr. He will not seriously
maintain that when any Part of
his Declaration was given he was at
all in the Dark with Regard
to the particular Circumstances of
his Conduct which had give Rise
to the Enquiry. It is likewise a

undisputable, that the only Part of his
Declaration upon which the Respts
have founded any argument, was not
taken till after the Particulars of
the Change agt the Complr were as fully
explained to him as Heart could wish
by the Declaration of the University
Meeting of the 20th Aprill,
an Extract of which was appointed
to be delivered to him.
As to their not having
examined the Witneſses upon Oath
which is made another ground
of Suspension. The Respts have
already informed your [¿] that
it is not the Practice of the University
to examine Witneſses especially young
Students upon Oath. During the
Two last Seſsions of the College
no leſs than three Students were
expelled, besides the Complr.
& in no one of these Cases was
a single Oath administred. In
the whole Records of the University
amidst the Numberleſs instances

of Students being expelled there are only
one or two Cases where the Examinations
were taken upon oath and that only where
either the partys or the Witneſses themselves
have insisted upon an oath being
administred. In the present Case
altho before the meeting came to any determination,
the Complainer was called upon
and asked if had any thing further to
urge in his defence. he did not then or
at any other time, insinuate the
least doubt of the integrity & honour
of the Witneſses, or expreſs the smallest
desire that any of them should be put
upon oath.
A third ground of Suspension is
that Several inhabile Witneſses were
examined against the Suspender,
particularly Mr Robertſon Mr Hay
& the whole Witneſses that were adduced
upon the part of Mr Robertſon.
In order to found an objection to
the first of these, [respt], Mr Robertſon,
the Complr. is pleased to suppose that
this Gentleman & himself were precisely
in the situation of two Pannels prosecute
upon the same Indictment, any
one of whom it is said cannot be
admitted as a Witneſs agt the other
Even supposing the Paralel to

be exact the Respondents are advised
that according to the strictest Ideas of
Criminal procedure the Declarations
of both pannels included in the
same Indictment might properly
be produced & founded upon ascendence
in the joint trial. But to what purpose
make a question of this matter
for altho Mr Robertſons Declaration,
is ingroſsed in the minutes of the
Committe, which in point of form
was unquestionably proper, yet it
makes no part of the Evidence upon
which the Judgement of the University
Meeting proceeded; the whole facts
therein mentioned as the grounds of
the Judgement being proved [¿]
beyond the poſsibility of a doubt.
With regard to Mr Hay the
Respts cannot perceive even the
Shadow of an objection. The Sum
Total of it seems to amount to this
that Mr Mutter the Gentleman who
exhibited the Complaint, in consequence
of which an Enquiry was set on [¿],
was his Tutor. Mr Hay himself was
no party of ths Complaint, and if it
could be supposed that news of

Inerest could have any Influence
upon this young Gentleman's account
of teh affair, that Interest would
surely have prompted him to
conceal the story of the advertisement
altogether. his own concern in it,
in allowing himself to be made a
fool by the Complr to propagate
his malicious Calumny, not being
entirely justifiable, or such as a
perſon could chuſe to boast of, if it
had not been true.
As to the Gentlemen whom Mr
Robertſon desired to be examined, it
is of no sort of Consequence, whether
they are held to be good Evidence
[¿] the Complainer or not. The
fact is, that what they say is perfectly
immaterial and the Evidence against
the Complr would stand fully as
strong, and the Judgement of the
University Meeting remain equally
well founded, altho' these Declarations
were to be that very moment be expunged
from the Minutes.
As to the first ground of the
Judgement pronounced by the University
respecting Mr Woodburns behaviour,
on St Patricks Day the Respsts think

it unneceſsary to add any thing to
what has been stated on that head
in the answers, and after all that
has been said they can have no
doubt that his Conduct upon that
occasion will appear to your [¿]
as it did to them to have been highly
improper & unbecoming his Character,
both as a Tutor & as a Student of
Theologie. If the Complr was so much
a Man of the World, that he would
not set up as a Censure upon the
reedoms of others, he had at least
one thing on his power, without
violating any of the Laws of good
Manners, which was to leave the
Compy, wher he saw that hey were
bent upon converting their mirth into
indecency.
With regard to the subsequent & more
inexcusable part of his Conduct in
transmitting to Mr Robertſon that
infamous Lybell, which he is pleased
to style a jocular advertisment, the
Complr is still more at a loſs how
to shape his Defence
First he Endeavours to shake
himself loose of it altogether, by
denying that the paper produced in

the University meeting, was the one
which he caused to be transmitted
to Mr Robertſon, The fact however,
is fixed down upon him by evidence
that leaves not the smallest room for
doubt. Besides the direct And
positive Testimony of Mr Robertſon,
the whole Circumstances of the res
gesta, the appearance of the paper
itself half burned as it is, having
been thrown into the fire by Mr
Robertſon in the first Transport of
his Indignation, the very
particular Circumstance taken notice
of in the Answers, the manner in
which it came to be preserved,
having been picked up in the Scuffle
that happened betwixt Mr Robertſon
& the Complr, and what is stronger
than the Testimony of a Thousand
Witneſses, the shuffling behaviour of
the Complr himself, his attempt to
suppreſs his concern in the affair
altogether, his refusing to say positively
whether the paper produced to the
Meetingwas the one which he had
sent to Mr Robertſon altho' at so
short a distance of time, it is
impoſsible but that he must have

known exactly whether it was so or not,
his refusing to name the Perſon who
had transcribed it, all these afford most
satisfying Evidence how the fact really
stood. The Complr is driven to the
neceſsity of supposing without evidence &
contrary to all probability, that the
paper produced to the meeting had
been forged by Mr Robertſon himself.
But if that Gentleman who
has hitherto enjoyed a fair Character,
could have been guilty of so base an
Action as to forge an informaous Scrawl
in orer to heap guilt upon the
Complrs head, what temptation could
he have after the forgery was committed
to burn one half of it, so
as to leave room for the Complainer
to cavil with regard to the meaning
& import of what remains.
The Complr has likewise attempted
but with equally bad succeſs to explain
away the meaning of what remains
of the paper, supposing it to be genine
The Respts will not trouble
your [¿] with any Commentary
upon the particular Expreſsions which
are made use of either in the first
Advertisement, which was given to Mr

Hay or in the corrected Copy which
was transmitted to Mr Robertſon.
It is submitted to your [¿], when
both are considered together, if it
is poſsible to conceive, that the Complr,
did not thereby mean to convey a
most infamous & malicious insinuation
against Mr Robertſon. The Respts
are sensible, that particular Expreſsions
however significant & however
apt to represent the Idea they
are meant to convey are liable to
be tortured a thousand ways and
may with the aſsistance of a little
Critical Ingenuity be brought to
mean any thing or to have no
meaning at all. But altho the
Complr may now pretend to put
a gloſs upon what he has wrote, he
will find it a Tash somewhat more
difficult to explain away the import
of his own actions, which are allowed
to be the best Commentary upon perſons
words and which plainly give the Lie to
every one word that he now pleads.
If the Complr is right in the interpretation
which he now puts upon this
paper, how is it poſsible to account
for any one Circumstance in his Conduct,
with regard to it. If the Complr only
meant it as an innocent piece of

humour, why so much pains to keep
his Concern in it a profund Secret.
Why employ a hand different from
his own to transcribe the one that
was sent to Mr Robertſon, why take
the trouble of seducing a young
Gentleman to transmit it to Mr
Robertſon in a clandestine manner?
Why should he afterwards be so
anxious with that same Gentleman to
keep the matter a dead Secret? or,
why endeavour to prevail upon him
(as the Complr unquestionably did), to
be guilty of so base an action as
to retract what he had Disclosed to
the Committee upon his first Examination?
It may further be urged,
to what purpose did the Complr
betrat so much artifice & evasion
in his appearance before the Committee.
Why did he at first refuse to say one
word about the matter? why did
he refuse to the last to name the
Perſon who had transcribed the
Second or corrected Copy of the
Advertisement? and when the paper
in question was shown, why did
he avoid Declaring positively
whether it was the identical one

that he had sent to Mr. Robertſon,
which so shortly after he might
unquestionably have done with absolute certainty?
These are Circumstances liable to no
misinterpretation, and by those it is
proved, more strongly than by the
Testimony of any Witneſses, that the
Complr was the real author of this
paper and that when he sent it, he
was conscious to himself that it's
Contents were such as he dared not
openly to avow.
It is further said that the Complr
knows nothing of any such Law
existing in the University as that quoted
in the answers which subjects the
Author of a [¿] Libellus to the
punishment of Expulſion. It would
have been better, however for him
not to have put on this affected ignorance.
The Laws of the University of which
this is one could not faill to be well
known to the Complr, as they are
read over to the Students once a year
and an Extract of them was produced
along with teh answers certified under
the hand of the Clerk to the University.
As to what the Complr has alleged
in order to account for his non-attendance

which is the third ground of Expulsion
taken notice of in the Sentence
of the University, the fact stands shortly
his.
The Complainer was admitted to
his Burſse in the beginning of Winter,
1767, and from the very first
admiſsion he discovered a violent
Reluctance to giving attendance on
the Lectures of his Profeſsor, which
the Conditions of his Burſe required,
in so much that the Principal was
obliged to speak several times to him
in private & to write several notes
to him during that first Seſsion
requiring his regular attendance. But
these repeated adminitions did not
practice the desired effect, and he
continued as he acknowledges to be
irregular in his attendance during
the whole of this first Seſsion. The
Profeſsors in hopes he would attend
[tiller] next Seſsion showed their
usual lenity and overlooking this as
a first fault allowed him the usual
precept for his Burse, resolving at
the same time to insist more rigoursly
upon his attendance during the succeeding
Years. About the beginning of

last Winter the Complr continued
to be as negligent as in the former
Seſsion, upon which a mandate
in writing was sent to him insisting
upon his due attendance under the
penalty of forfeiting his Burſe,
and in some weeks a publick advertisement
was given in the hearing
of all the Students, requiring Burſers
to attend regularly, with Certification
if they did not, they would be refused
the Precept for payment of their
Salaries, but notwithstanding all
these warnings the Complr continued
obstinate & would attend only when
he thought proper, so that upon
this account alone the Univerſity Meeting
would have been sufficiently warranted
to have applied the Statute quoted
in the answers, by the operation
of which it cannot be denied that
his Burſe was ipso facto forfeited
& lost
The Reſpondents do not deny
that they have on several occasions
shown lenity for a first failure of
this kind to other Students and
they showed the same to the Complr

during the first year of his Burſe,
but they boldly aver before you
[¿] that they never yet have met
with any one Student that has
shown such a determined diſregard
as the Complr has done to all their admonitions. As to the
Complr's pretence of want of
health as an Excuse for his
non attendance, he ought to have
produced Evidence of it to the
University, but this he well knew
was impoſsible, as it was a fact notorious
to every person in the College,
and to the Masters themselves, that
was attending daily upon other
busineſs & upon other Claſses at the
very time, when he pretends that
want of health prevented him
from attending, upon that Claſs,
to which he was bound to give
Attendance by Act of Parliament
by the Conditions of his own Bond,
as well as by the ordinary College
Rules. As to his other pretence
that Burſers are only bound
to attend four months which is
but one half of a seſsion. the

Respondents shall only say that they never heard of this doctrine
before, and they are certain it has no foundation either
in the laws or practice of the Society.
In different parts Replies, tho' the Complr. has taken
care to let your Lordships know that there are often subsisting
parties and disputes betwixt the Profeſsors in this University.
Indeed it would have been somewhat miraculous considering
that the Society is composed of sixteen persons if
no diversity of opinion concerning the measures that happened
to be proposed were to arise among them. The Complr.
it is believed will hardly pretend to argue that, because the
Profeſsors of the College of Glasgow are often divided in their
opinion, every thing that they do must be presumed to be unjust
and oppreſsive. It is well known, that even in Courts of Law
from which all prejudiced and partial views are banished
entirely, the most learned and upright Judges will differ
as widely from one another as the Profeſsors in the College of
Glasgow. These differences in the College will indeed serve to
explain to your Lordships one thing, which upon considering
the circumstances of this case, must it is believed have appeared
entirely unaccountable viz. how it could come to paſs that
the judgement expelling the Complainer upon so just grounds
was not the Act and Deed of the whole members of the University
without one diſsenting voice: For your Lordships will be informed
that although none of the Profeſsors would go so far as
to vote that the Complainer was a proper person to remain
a Studet in this University yet several of them choose to
absent themselves entirely from the proceedings with regard
to him for which conduct of his friends, the Complainer himself
seems unknowingly to have aſsigned the true reason.
The Complainer has likewise given your Lordships a very imperfect
account of another trial which he had occasion to
to stand for some former offences before an university Meeting.
The Respondents own that they were not a little surprised
to see the least mention of this trial thrown out in a paper which
is offered in that Gentlemans name. As to their own concern in
it, were the Respondents permitted here to enter into a full detail,
they have not the smallest doubt that they would be able

justify to your Lordships satisfaction eveery one step in the whole
proceedings, unleſs it be the exceſsive lenity of the sentence. The
Complainer has mentioend as his only offence some contemptuous
expreſsions thrown out against the teachers of these
Sciences in the study of which he was engaged which your
Lordships perhaps will not consider to have been entirely
proper when proceeding from the mouth of a Student, but
although the Respondents might have overlooked a piece
of levity and indiscretion of which they themselves alone
were the objects, yet it appeared to them to be a matter worthy
of serious animadversion when they saw a Student of Theology
talking with unbecoming disrespect of the Author of that
Religion to the particular service of which he was educatated
at the publick expense.
With the same disregard to truth the Complainer represents
the Lord Rector as his friend when publickly accused.
This was by no means the case. His Lorship blamed Mr. Woodburn
strongly, and likewise blamed & justly blamed the Judicial
manner in which he was tried and for which he argues in so
strenuous a manner. In like manner he mentions the trial
of one of the Defenders for a supposed Challenge to fight. But
never was any example more unlucky. for in the first place
it was only an Implied challenge, and in the second place
there was neither libel given nor council allowed. In like
manner he says the Profeſsors told him that attendance would
not be required which is all a chimera of his own framing. In
short the aſsertions which he makes are so ill founded that it would
be transgreſsing on your Lordships Patience to point out their falsehood.
The Complainer has taken care when he can find any
thing like an opportunity to insist for further proofs and investifation
of facts The tendendency of all this is abundantly obvious
His great object is to get the Bill paſsed, imagining poſsibly that if
this point is gained till such time as the Suspension shall be discuſsed
he wil continue to have all the provileges of a Student,
and will by that means be enabled to create fresh troubles and
disturbances in the University. The Respondents on the other hand
are humbly confident that the Judgement of the University will
appear to your Lordships to be entirely well founded, from

what appears from the face of the minutes themselves without
any further evidence, and that you will take this opportunity
of strengthning their hands in the exercise of that important
trust which is committed to them by refusing the Bill
Your Lordships doing so can be of no bad consequence
to the Suspender though he were supposed to have reason
to complain of the Judgement; because if he be so advised an
action before your Lordships is open to him for redreſs, and
though the Bil were paſsed, he could reap no benefit from it
without an action, as the Decree craved to be suspended Decerns
nothing to be paid or performed that is capable of being stayed
by a suspension. The sentence expelling him the University
which of course deprives of him of his Bursary requires no further
execution, and therefore the only proper remedy competent
to the Complainer, or that can have any effect, is an action of
Reduction which if your Lordships please you may reserve to
him in the Deliverance refusing the Bill.
This is evidently all that can be done, for a suspension
cannot call back any Degree already executed, or which
requires no execution. So though a Suspension were expede,
it could have no effect, till in a Reduction your Lordships should
set aside the Decree. This the Respondents humbly hope
will never happen, and as the paſsing of this bill might be
made a handle for the Complainers disturbing the peace of the
Society to no purpose, it is not doubted your Lordships will
see cause to refuse the Bill, Reserving to the Complainer his
action of Reduction as accords
In Respect Whereof &c
Attested copy Interlocutor refusing the Bill of Suspension
Edinbr 16th. Septr. 1769 The Lord Ordinary having considered
this Bill, answers Replies and Duplies with the writes
produced, finds the reasons of suspension not Relevant, refuses
this Bill, Reserving Reduction as accords (Signed)
Dav. Dalrymple
I Charles Inglis Depute Clerk to the Bills hereby certify
that what is above written is a just and true Copy of the Interlocutor
pronounced by Lord Hailes Ordinary As witneſs my hand at Edinburgh
this 18th. day of September 1769. (Signed) Cha. Inglis

Replies in the Case of the Suspension of David Woodburn, Student

Document Information

Document ID	569
Title	Replies in the Case of the Suspension of David Woodburn, Student
Year group	1750-1800
Genre	Administrative prose
Year of publication	1769
Place of publication	Glasgow
Wordcount	5496

Author information: Dalrymple, Sir David

Author ID	203
Title	Sir
Forenames	David
Surname	Dalrymple
AKA	Lord Hailes
Gender	Male
Year of birth	1726
Place of birth	Edinburgh, Scotland
Occupation	Judge, historian
Father's occupation	Nobleman
Education	University
Locations where resident	Edinburgh
Other languages spoken	Latin