remained till about the 6th
of Dec. when he was again brought to Edinburgh, in order for his trial
and execution; which came on upon the 7th of Jan. 1678. On the third of
the month Sir George Lockhart and Mr. John Ellis were appointed to plead
for the pannel; but Sharp would have his life, and Lauderdale gave way
to it. Sir Archibald Primrose, lately turned out of the register's
place, took a copy of the council's act anent Mr. Mitchel, and sent it
to this council; and a day or two before the trial, went to Lauderdale,
who, together with lord Rothes, lord Halton and Sharp, was summoned: The
prisoner's witness, Primrose, told Lauderdale, That he thought a promise
of life had been given----The latter denied it----The former wished that
that act of the council might be looked into----Lauderdale said, He
would not give himself the trouble to look over the book of council.

When his trial came on, the great proof was, his confession, Feb. 16.
1674.; many and long were the reasons upon the points of the indictment.
Sir George Lockhart[156] argued in behalf of the prisoner with great
learning, to the admiration of the audience, That no extra-judicial
confession could be allowed in court, and that his confession was
extorted from him by hopes and promises of life. The debates were so
tedious that the court adjourned to the 9th of January; the replies and
duplies are too tedious to be inserted here: The reader will find them
at large elsewhere.[157]

The witnesses being examined, lord Rothes (being shewn Mr. Mitchel's
confession) swore that he was present, and saw him subscribe that paper,
and heard him make that confession, but that he did not at all give any
assurance to the prisoner for his life; nor did he remember that there
was any warrant given by the council to his lordship for that effect,
&c. Halton and Lauderdale swore much to the same purpose; but the
arch-bishop swore, that he knew him, at the very first sight at the bar,
to be the person who shot at him, &c. But that he either gave him
assurance or a warrant to any to give it, was a false and malicious
calumny. That his grace gave no promise to Nichol Somerville, other than
that it was his interest to make a free confession. This Nichol
Somerville, Mr. Mitchel's brother-in-law, offered, in court, to depone,
That the arch-bishop promised to him to secure his life, if he would
prevail with him to confess. The arch-bishop denied this, and called it
a villainous lie.