|
256 HISTORY OF SCOTLAND.
SECTION III.
ANCIENT PARLIAMENT OF SCOTLAND.
In the course of these observations, a subject of great interest and import ance now presents itself, the satisfac tory elucidation of which would require many pages of careful and laborious investigation : I mean the history and constitution of the Ancient Parliament of Scotland.
Long before the existence of the word parliament, or the mention of the three estates of the kingdom, in our authentic histories or records, the sovereign of Scotland, like every other contemporary feudal monarch, was accustomed to consult, on occasions of solemnity and importance, with his high council; consisting of the bishops and abbots, the great officers of the crown, and the most powerful nobles and barons of the realm; but nothing resembling a regular parliament is to be found during the reigns of Alexan der the First, or of his brother David. The bold and imperious character of Alexander seems, indeed, to have stretched the royal prerogative to the utmost extent; and, from the few and imperfect records of his short reign which yet remain to us, he appears to have been his own chief-councillor; but it is more remarkable that we look in vain for a parliament, or for any solemn assembly of the estates of the realm, under the long reign of
1 Barrington on the Statutes, pp. 247, 351.
David the First, although he has been pronounced by Buchanan, an impar tial witness when kings are the sub ject, the most perfect model of a wise and virtuous prince. Yet David was undoubtedly a legislator; and on one memorable occasion, the death of the heir-apparent, his only son, Prince Henry, he adopted the most solemn measures for the regulation of the succession.
It will, perhaps, be recollected by the reader, that, under the reign of Robert Bruce, when the death of the young Steward rendered necessary some new enactments regarding the succession to the throne, a parliament assembled, in which the entail of the crown was solemnly settled upon Ro bert the Second and his descendants. Now, David the First, in 1152, had exactly the same task to perform as Bruce in 1318. But the mode in which it was executed was entirely different. He called no parliament. We do not even discover that he took the advice of his royal council, or of his nobility. But he assembled an army, of which he gave the command to one of the most powerful of his nobles, and, delivering to him his infant grandson, commanded him to march through his dominions, and to proclaim him heir to the crown;2 a circumstance from which there arises a strong pre sumption that, at this period, a parlia ment was unknown in Scotland.
Neither do we find this great coun cil under the reign of his successor, Malcolm the Fourth. Lord Hailes, indeed, in his Annals has stated that Malcolm, with the advice of his parlia ment, gave his sisters, Ada and Mar garet, in marriage to the Counts of Holland and Brittany ; but the words of Fordun, if accurately understood, do not appear to bear such meaning, and the conjecture which the same author has added, in a note, is the true sense :—“ Malcolmus subsidio suorum et consilio,” implies nothing more than that Malcolm, with the “ assistance and advice of his nobles,” married his sisters: the assistance here spoken of was probably an aid or 2 Simeon Dunelm. p. 280.
ANCIENT STATE OF SCOTLAND. 257
grant of money, given to the king to make up the marriage portions of the young princesses; but there is not the slightest proof that a parliament was as sembled, during the reign of Malcolm, upon this or any other occasion.1
In 1174, William the Lion, the suc cessor of Malcolm the Fourth, having been taken prisoner by the English, after a short confinement at Rich mond, was sent, by Henry the Second, to a more secure and distant dungeon at Falaise, in Normandy. The event called for an immediate interference of those upon whom the principal management of the government de volved ; and it is well known that, in the name of the nation, a disgraceful transaction took place, by which the king, with consent of the Scottish barons and clergy, purchased his liberty at the price of the independ ence of the country. The principal fortresses of the kingdom, and some of the highest barons of the realm, were placed in the hands of the Eng lish king, as hostages for the perform ance of this treaty; yet this whole transaction, which gave liberty to a king, and extorted from the nobles an acknowledgment of feudal superiority in the English crown, was carried through without a parliament.
Upon the accession of Richard the First, that crusading monarch, anxious to collect money for his expeditions to the Holy Land, proposed to restore to the same prince who had resigned it the independence of the nation, upon payment of ten thousand marks, somewhat more than a hundred thou sand pounds of our present money. This sum, we learn from authentic evidence in the Cartulary of Scone,2 was collected by means of an aid grant ed by the clergy and the nobles ; and it is remarkable that there is not the slight est mention of a parliament in the course of the whole transaction. Not long be fore his death, the same monarch con cluded a peace with King John of Eng land ; by one of the articles of which he
1 Fordun a Goodal, book viii. chap. iv. Hailes’ Annals, vol. i. p. 124, 8vo edition.
2 Cartulary of Scone, f. 10. Hailes’ Annals, vol. i. p. 156. VOL. I.
engaged to pay to this prince the large sum of fifteen thousand marks. This could not be done without assistance : and, when the term of settlement arrived, “a great council,” says For- dun, “ was held at Stirling, in which, having requested an aid from his nobility, they promised to contribute ten thousand marks, besides the bur gesses of the kingdom, who agreed to give him six thousand.”3 That this was a national council, and not merely a consultation of the king with his great officers, is, I think, evident from an expression of Benedictus Abbas, when describing the consideration given by William to a proposal of Henry the Second, for a marriage be tween the Scottish prince and Ermin- garde de Beaumont, as contrasted with the words used by Fordun. “Rex, habito cum familiaribus consilio, tan dem adquievit,” are the words used by the first-mentioned historian ;4 and they are essentially different from the expression of Fordun.5 Yet, upon what grounds shall we presume to call this great council a parliament, when no evidence remains to us that the spiritual estate were assembled at all, or that a single burgess or mer chant sat in the assembly, although the royal burghs, as towns belonging to the king, were obliged to contribute their share in the public burden ?
We shall, I think, be confirmed in this opinion by an examination of some of the great public transactions of the succeeding reign of Alexauder the Second. Upon the marriage of this monarch with an English princess, Joan, the sister of Henry the Third, it naturally happened that many in tricate discussions and grave and material stipulations took place; yet these, as well as the settlement of the jointure of the princess, were discussed, and finally concluded, without the intervention of a parlia ment. And the same observation may be made on the second marriage of this prince with Mary de Couci.6 On
3 Fordun a Goodal, lib. viii. chap, lxxiii vol. i. p. 529. 4 Benedictus Abbas, p. 44S. 5 Fordun a Goodal, vol. i. p. 529. 6 Math. Paris, p. 411. Ed. a Wats R
258 HISTORY OF SCOTLAND.
another occasion, when Alexander, in 1224, levied an aid of ten thousand pounds, for providing portions to his sisters, it was granted, or rather im posed upon the nation, by the simple order of the king, without the slightest appearance of a meeting of the three estates, or even of the council of the king;l and although we are informed by Fordun, that the same monarch, immediately after his coronation, held his parliament at Edinburgh, in which he confirmed to the chancellor, con stable, and chamberlain, the same high offices which they had enjoyed under his father,2 the expression is so vague, and the notice so brief, that no certain inference can be deduced from it. On the contrary, although he was one of the wisest and most popular of our early kings; although statutes of his enactment have come down to us, and his reign is fertile in domestic troubles and in foreign war, a careful examination of our authentic historical records has failed to discover a single instance, if we except the above, in which a parliament was as sembled ; and the government appears to have been entirely directed and controlled by the will of the king, and the advice and assistance of the great officers of the crown.
Upon the accession of Alexander the Third there was no change in this respect. The important public mea sure of the marriage of their youthful king with a daughter of Henry the Third; the appointment of counsel lors, who were intrusted with the management of the kingdom during the minority of the sovereign; and the frequent changes in the regency which occurred in the stormy commence ment of this reign, were wholly carried through without a parliament.3 But we shall not wonder at this, when one
1 Fordun a Goodal, vol. ii. p. 53.
2 Ibid. vol. ii. p. 34.
3 Ibid. vol. ii. pp. 84, 85, 90, 91. In the year 1259, we find in Math. Paris, p. 844, Ed. a Wats., that W. de Horton, a commissioner from Henry the Third to the King of Scotland, on his arrival in that country, found the king and queen, and the nobility of the realm, as sembled inparliament; but of this parliament we have no evidence in Fordun, or Winton, or any authentic record. It was in all probability a mere assembly of the court.
of the most important transactions of his reign, the settlement of the dis putes with Norway, and the acquisi tion of the Western Isles, involving an intricate and laborious treaty with that kingdom, a grant of money, and a yearly payment of a hundred marks, was concluded entirely by the king. The words, “ habito super hoc maturo avisamento,” which are used by For- dun, cannot, by the utmost ingenuity, be construed into anything more than a consultation between the king and his council.4 The mode of considering the expediency of any public measure during this reign, appears to have been by the king holding a council, or col loquy, with the officers of the crown, and, probably, the most powerful of the nobility. In the year 1264, when the treaty with Norway was in agita tion, Alexander held two colloquies of this kind at Edinburgh; and the ac counts of the Chamberlain inform us that, on this occasion, the carcasses of twenty-seven cows, six calves, and fourscore of sheep, were sent to the capital for the consumption of the king’s household.5
On the death of the Prince of Scot land, and of his sister, the Queen of Norway, events which left this mo narch with an infant grandchild as the only heir to the crown, it became ne cessary, for the peace and welfare of the kingdom, that there should be a settlement of the succession; and it is fortunate that, in two authentic his torians, we have a clear, although exceedingly brief, account of this trans action. Winton informs us that Alex ander the Third “ caused make a great gathering of the states at Scone;” and by an original and contemporary re cord in Rymer, it is shewn that in this “ gathering,” which took place on the 5th February 1283-4, the Scottish nobles bound themselves by a solemn oath to acknowledge Margaret, princess of Norway, as their lawful queen, fail-
4 Fordun a Goodal vol. ii. p. 102.
5 “In viginti septem carcosiis vaccarum et Vi. vacc. et. iiijxx. multonibus empt. ad ser- vicium Dni Regis ad duo Colloquia que tene- bantur apud Edinburgh, anno mcclxiv.”— Chamberlains’ Accounts, vol. i. p. 52. Compo- tum Vicecom. de Edinburgh, Temp. Alex. III.
ANCIENT STATE OF SCOTLAND. 259
ing any children of the monarch then on the throne, or of the Prince of Scot land deceased.1 The expressions used by Fordun in describing the same as- sembly denominate it a council of the prelates and nobles of the realm.2 Nei ther of these historians makes use of the word parliament in recording this event; nor is there the slightest evi dence of the appearance of the repre sentatives of the burghs upon this occasion; and, as Alexander the Third died soon after, we must conclude that, during his whole reign, there is no evidence that a parliament, in the sense in which that word was used in England under Edward the First, ever sat in Scotland.
Upon the death of this monarch, and the subsequent calamities in which the kingdom was involved by the am bition and injustice of Edward the First, we begin to discern something like the appearance of the great na tional council; and it is a remarkable fact that, from the greatest and bit terest enemy who ever coped with this country, we should have derived our first ideas regarding a regular parlia ment, composed of the prelates, barons, and representatives of the royal burghs. But this, as may be naturally conjec tured, was not a sudden, but a gradual change, of which the history is both interesting and important.
Immediately after the death of Alex ander the Third, we are informed by Winton that there was a meeting of the estates of Scotland, who held a parliament, in which they appointed six regents to govern the kingdom. It is to be observed that this is the first time that the word parliament is used by this historian; but unfortunately no authentic record of its proceedings has been preserved; and Fordun is even silent as to its existence.3 With regard, however, to a meeting of the estates of Scotland, which, not long
1 Winton, vol. i. p. 397, and Rymer, vol. ii. pp. 1091, and 582. Winton is in an error in making this gathering of the states in 1285, as it appears in the Fœdera to have been held 5th February 1283-4.
2 Fordun a Goodal, vol. ii. p. 127.
3 Winton, vol. ii. p. 10. Fordun a Hearne, p. 951.
after this, took place at Brigham, we are fortunately not so much in the dark; as the record of it is preserved, and proves beyond a doubt the exact constitution of the great national coun cil or parliament in 1289. It consisted of the five guardians or regents, ten bishops, twelve earls, twenty-three ab bots, eleven priors, and forty-eight barons, who address themselves to Ed ward under the title of the Community of Scotland; and it is certain that, in this parliament held at Brigham, there is no appearance of the representatives of the burghs; an evident proof that, although called upon frequently to contribute their portion in the aids or grants of money which the exigencies of the kingdom required, they as yet had no place in the national council, and were not considered, in a legis lative light, as part of the community of the realm.
In the treaty regarding the marriage of the Prince of Wales and the Maiden of Norway, which was concluded at Brigham, one of the articles expressly stipulates “that no parliament was ever to be held without the boundaries of Scotland;” but the deed itself throws no light upon the composition of this national council. The death of the Princess of Scotland, and the bold and unprincipled conduct of the English monarch, have been already detailed; and as the various conferences pre paratory to the decision of the great question of the succession took place in an English parliament, although attended by the whole body of the Scottish nobility, it would be unsound to draw any inferences from this part of our history illustrative of the con stitution of the ancient Scottish par liament; nor can we lay much stress on a passage in Fordun,4 when he in forms us that the parliament of Scot land afterwards declared to Baliol that he had been compelled to swear ho mage to Edward, “ inconsultis tribus statibus regni.” It is material, how ever, to observe, that when Edward, in the interval between the delivery of the Scottish fortresses and the production of the claims of the com- 4 Fordun a Goodal. vol. ii. p. 152.
260 HISTORY OF SCOTLAND.
petitors, took his progress through Scotland for the purpose of exacting a general homage, he called upon the burgesses of the realm to come for ward and take the oaths of allegiance; and that the first record in which we find the names of this important class in the community is an English deed, and the first monarch who considered their consent as a matter of public consequence, an English sovereign.1
Upon the accession of Baliol to the throne, we have seen the harshness and intolerance with which he was soon treated by his new master; and it is worthy of remark that in the parliament which was held by this un fortunate monarch immediately after these indignities had been offered him, there is the first authentic intimation that the majores populi, or chiefs of the people, formed a constituent part of this assembly.2 This, therefore, is the first great national council in the history of our country which is truly entitled to be called a parliament: the first meeting of the estates, in which the clergy, the nobility, and the repre sentatives or heads of the people, sat in deliberation upon the affairs of the country. It may, perhaps, be in the recollection of the reader that its pro ceedings were of a bold and determined description. They banished all English men from Scotland; seized and confis cated the estates of the Anglo-Scottish nobles; compelled Baliol to renounce his homage and fealty; and resolved upon an immediate war with England.3 In addition to this, the same parlia ment negotiated a marriage between a daughter of France and the eldest son of their sovereign; and the public in strument which contains the treaty entered into between France and Scot land upon this occasion affords another proof that the towns and burghs had arisen at this period into a considera tion to which till now they had been strangers. In contains a clause which provides that it shall be corroborated
1 Fœdera, vol. ii. p. 573. Prynne, pp. 502, 512.
2 Fordun a Goodal, vol. ii. p. 153. Heming- ford, vol. i. p. 75, gives a different descrip tion as to the constitution of this parliament, but I prefer Fordun’s authority.
3 History, supra, pp. 41, 42.
by the seals and the signatures, not only of the prelates and nobles, but of the “ communitatis villarum regni Sco- tiœ,”—meaning, evidently, the royal burghs of the kingdom.4 The ex pression in another part of the treaty is, “ universitatis et communitatis nota- biles regni” which is equally clear and definite. I venture, therefore, to affirm, that as far as an examination of the most authentic records which have yet been discovered entitles us to judge on the subject, the first ap pearance of the royal burghs, as an integral part of the Scottish parlia ment, is to be found under the third parliament of Baliol; and that we pro bably owe their admission into the great national council to our bitter enemy, Edward the First. Could we discover the original record of this important parliament, the question would at once be set at rest; but the expression of Fordun, and the positive proof of the appearance of the burghs in the treaty with the King of France, appear to be conclusive upon the point. In the long train of national calami ties which followed this alliance with Philip we do not once meet with any event which throws light upon the constitution of our ancient parliament, till the period when Edward, after the death of Wallace and the surrender of the castle of Stirling, in the premature belief that his Scottish wars were ended, proceeded to organise a final settlement of his conquest. Upon this occasion, the persons whom he consulted were, the Bishop of Glasgow, Robert Bruce, afterwards king, and John de Mowbray. By their advice, he issued an ordinance, directing that the “ Community of Scotland,” mean ing the states of the realm, should as semble at Perth on the 28th of May 1305, in order to elect ten commis sioners, who were to repair to the English parliament, which was to be held at London. This number of ten persons, who were vested with full powers from the Scottish parliament, was to include two bishops, two ab bots, two earls, two barons, and two members to represent the “ Com-
4 Rymer’s Fœdera, vol. ii. p. 696.
ANCIENT STATE OF SCOTLAND. 261
mune,” or community of burghs; a clear and satisfactory proof that their right to be represented in the great national council was now distinctly recognised, and that they stood in this respect upon the same ground as the two other estates of the kingdom.1 It is unfortunate that no authentic record has come down to us of the pro ceedings of the Scottish parliament in which these ten commissioners were elected; but it may be presumed that the representatives of the burghs sat in the national council at Perth, and elected the two commissioners who were to appear for them in the Eng lish parliament at London. From this period till the year immediately sub- sequent to the battle of Bannockburn no parliament sat in Scotland. Per haps it is more correct to say no record of any has been preserved, be cause an important council of the clergy which was held at Dundee, and in which a solemn instrument was drawn up respecting the succession to the crown, gives us some ground for supposing that about the same time a meeting of the three estates had taken place. In the year 1315, Bruce, whose only child was a daughter, yet unmarried, judging it prudent to settle the succession, assembled a parlia ment at Ayr, on the 26th April 1315; and we know, from the authentic evi dence of the instrument drawn up at this time, that the heads of the com munities or burghs sat in this parlia ment, and affixed their seals to the deed, along with the prelates, earls, and barons who were convoked upon this solemn occasion.2 No other meaning can be given to the passage which affirms that the prelates, earls, barons, and heads of the communities or royal burghs, “ majores communi- tatis,” had appended their seals to the instrument.
The same observations may be made 1 Palgrave’s Parliamentary Writs, Intro ductory Chronological Abstract, p. 66.
2 Fordun a Goodal, vol. ii. p. 258. Robert- son’s Index to the Charters, Appendix, pp. 7, 8. The original deed is now lost, although it appears to have been in the hands of Sir James Balfour, who made the copy which now exists amongst the Harleian Manuscripts, No. 4694.
regarding the parliament which met at Scone in the year 1318, after the death of King Edward Bruce in Ireland; in which it was deemed necessary, by King Robert, to introduce some new regulations regarding the same sub ject,—the succession to the crown.3 Of this assembly of the estates, as of the former, no original record remains ; but the presence of the “ communi ties " or burghs is proved by the copy of the original deed, which is pre served amongst the Harleian Manu scripts. In like manner, strong evi dence is afforded by the famous letter of remonstrance, which was addressed to the Pope in the year 1320, that the burghs were now considered as an in tegral part of the parliament. This epistle was drawn up in a parliament held at Aberbrothoc ; and, after enu merating in its exordium the names of the prelates, earls, and most noted of the barons present, it adds, the “ libere tenentes ac tota communitas regni Scotiæ.” 4
Hitherto, as far as the history of the ancient parliament of Scotland has been examined, we have been com pelled to be contented with such pas sages as afford, not indeed conclusive evidence, but certainly strong pre sumptions, that from the period of the reign of Baliol the representatives of the burghs appear to have been ad mitted into the great national council. But we have now reached the parlia ment which was held by Bruce at Cambuskenneth in 1326; and although the original record of this assembly of the estates has perished, with many other precious instruments which might have thrown a flood of light upon the obscure paths through which we have been travelling, an indenture has been preserved, which proves be yond a doubt that, besides the earls, barons, and freeholders, or libere ten entes, the representatives of the burghs sat in this parliament, and formed the third estate of the national council.5
3 Fordun a Goodal, vol. ii. p. 290. Robert- son’s Index, Appendix, p. 9.
4 Fordun a Goodal, vol. ii. p. 275.
5 This indenture is printed in Kames’ Law Tracts, Appendix, No. 4. Fordun a Goodal, vol. ii. p. 287.
262 HISTORY OF SCOTLAND.
The expressions of the historian For- dun upon this occasion are different from what he generally uses. “ In this year,” says he, “ at Cambuskenneth, the clergy of Scotland, with the earls, barons, and whole body of the nobles, along with the people there assembled, took the oaths of allegiance and hom age to David, the son and heir of their king.” On such an occasion, Bruce, whose health was fast declining, would be naturally desirous that the oaths to his son and successor should be ten dered in the midst of a numerous and solemn concourse of his people. It may be presumed, therefore, on strong grounds, that the chief men of every burgh in the kingdom would be ad mitted into the parliament at Cam- buskenneth.
This is the last parliament of Bruce regarding which we have any certain account. There can be little doubt, however, that a parliament was as sembled at Edinburgh, in which the peace of Northampton, which for ever secured the independence of the king dom, was debated on, and finally ad justed ; as we know that a treaty was concluded at Edinburgh on the 17th of March 1327, which was afterwards rati fied by Edward the Third at North ampton, on the 4th of May 1328. It is satisfactory to find that the expres sions of this treaty clearly demonstrate that the burghs had been consulted in its formation. It is said to be con cluded with consent of the prelates, earls, barons, and other heads of the communities of the kingdom of Scot land.1
In that disgraceful parliament held by Edward Baliol at Edinburgh, in 1333, in which this prince gave up the independence of the nation, and, by a solemn instrument, actually dismem bered the kingdom, and annexed a great portion of its territory to Eng land, the burghs did not appear,2 an exemption of which Scotland ought to be proud. It is evident, indeed, from the account of it preserved in the original record in the Fcedera, that the assembly was not so much a parlia-
1 Robertson’s Index, p. 103.
2 Rymer’s Fœdera, vol. iv. p. 590.
ment as a meeting of Baliol’s adhe rents, held under the direction and con trol of Geoffrey Scrope, chief justice of England.
From this period, for more than twenty years, the history of the country presents us with a frightful picture of foreign and domestic war; of the minority and captivity of the sovereign ; and the intrigues and trea sons of the nobles : with the enemy constantly at their gates, and fighting daily for their existence as a people. During all this time, no parliament appears to have assembled ; and the different regents who successively held the reins of government were sum marily chosen by the voices of the few nobles who continued to struggle for their liberty.3 There is not pre served to us a single document from which we can conclude that the pre lates, the barons, and the community of burghs, ever consulted together throughout all this disastrous period; but, to this era of obscurity and dark ness, there succeeds a gleam of light, which suddenly breaks in upon us in the negotiations for the ransom of the captive king, and sets the question as to the constitution of the Scottish par liament in 1357 nearly at rest. In a parliament held this year at Edin burgh, we know, from the original instrument preserved in the Fœdera,4 that the representatives or delegates of the seventeen royal burghs formed the third estate in this great council; and when the prelates and the barons chose their respective commissioners to carry through the final arrangement regard ing the restoration of their king, and the payment of his ransom, the royal burghs nominated, for the same end,
3 In Fordun, book xiii. chap, xxii., xxv., xxvii., there are notices of the election of the Earl of Mar as regent, in a parliament held at Perth, 1332, and of the same high office being conferred, successively, on Sir Andrew Moray of Bothwell, in the same calamitous year, and on Archibald Douglas, in 1333 ; but the times were full of war and trou ble, and all record of these elections has per ished.
4 Fœdera, vol. vi. pp. 43, 44, 45. It is evi dent, I think, that the royal burghs also sat in the parliament held at Perth on the 17th January 1356-7.
ANCIENT STATE OF SCOTLAND. 263
eleven delegates, to whom ample powers were intrusted.1
It would have been impossible in deed for the nation to have paid the large ransom which was then exacted by England without the assistance of the class of the community which, next to the clergy, possessed the greatest command of ready money. It is important to observe that, in the record of the proceedings of this national council, which may be said to be the first Scottish parliament in which there is unquestionable evidence of the presence of the burghs as the third estate, the expressions employed in the instrument in Rymer are ex actly the same as those which I have considered as demonstrative of the presence of the royal burghs in the parliaments of Baliol and Bruce. “ De consensu et voluntate omnium com- itum, procerum, et Baronum et Com- munitates regni Scotiæ.”2
The records of the parliaments which were held by David after his return to his dominions in 1363, at Scone, being mutilated and imperfect, we are only able to say that the three estates were present;3 but in the original record of the parliament held at Perth in 1364, it is not only certain that the representatives of the royal burghs formed the third estate, but the names of the worthy merchants who filled this important situation have been preserved.4 Again, in a parlia ment held at Scone on the 20th July 1366, we find it stated in the initiatory clause that it consisted of those who were summoned to the parliament of
1 Supra, p. 202.
2 The consideration into which the burghs or the merchants of Scotland had arisen during those tedious negotiations for David’s liberty, which called for an immediate supply of money, is evident from a deed in Rymer, vol. v. p. 723, in which the clergy, nobles, and merchants of Scotland gave their oaths for the fulfilment of certain conditions. It, is dated 1351. And again, in the abortive treaty for the king’s ransom, which was con cluded in 1354, and which will be found in Rymer, vol. v. p. 793, certain merchants and burgesses of Aberdeen, Perth, Dundee, and Edinburgh, became bound for the whole body of the merchants of Scotland.
3 Robertson's Parliamentary Records, pp. 96, 100.
4 Ibid. p. 101.
the king according to ancient use and wont—namely, the bishops, abbots, priors, earls, barons, and free tenants, who hold of the king in capite, and certain burgesses who were summoned from each burgh to attend at this time, whilst, in a subsequent meeting of the great national council in the autumn of the year 1367, we find the earliest appearance of those com mittees of parliament which became afterwards so common, and, in all probability, gave rise to the later in stitution of the Lords of the Articles. It is stated that, in consequence of its being held at this season, “ causa au- tumni,” certain persons had been elected to hold the parliament, while permission was given to the rest of the members to return to their own busi ness.5 On this occasion thirteen bur gesses were chosen by their brethren; the burghs of Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Perth, Dundee, Montrose, and Had- dington, each being represented by two burgesses, and the burgh of Lin- lithgow by a single delegate. The expense and inconvenience occasioned by a summons to attend as memberà of the great national council are apparent in the record of a parliament which assembled at Scone, on the 12th of June 1368, and of a second meeting of the three estates, which took place at Perth on the 6th of March of the same year. In the firs the practice of obtaining a leave of absence, and sending commissioners in their place, appears to be fully recognised ; and in the second we find the same mea sure again adopted, which is above alluded to, of making a selection of a committee of certain members, to whom the judicial business of the parliament, and the task of deliberat ing upon the affairs of the country, were intrusted, leave being given to the rest of the members to take their departure, and attend to their own concerns.
It has been already remarked,6 that, in the last parliament of David the Second, which was held at Perth on
5 Robertson’s Parliamentary Records, pp. 105, 108. 6 Supra, p. 229.
the 18th of February 1369, this new practice of choosing committees of parliament was carried to a dangerous excess. To one of these committees, composed of six members selected from the clergy, fourteen from the barons, and six from the burgesses, was committed the decision of all judicial pleas and complaints, which belonged to the parliament; and to the other, which included in its num- bers the clergy and the barons alone, was intrusted the consideration of cer- tain special and secret affairs touching the sovereign and the kingdom, which it was thought expedient should be discussed by them alone previous to their coming to the knowledge of the great council of the nation.1
I have endeavoured to trace the history of the ancient constitution of our Scottish parliament from the ear liest appearance of a national council to the era of the full admission of the burghs as a third estate. Guided in our investigation by the sure light of authentic records and muniments, or of almost contemporary historians, we have seen the earliest appearance of the commons or burghs under Baliol; their increased consequence in the conclusion of the reign of Bruce; and their certain and established right of representation during the reign of David the Second; and, in concluding this division of our subject, it may be remarked that the employment of the great national council in a judicial as well as a legislative capacity cannot be traced to an earlier period than the reign of this monarch.
But first, if you want to come back to Scotland's History and Legends again, just add www.historyandlegends.com to your bookmarks or favorites now! Then you'll find it easy!
Also, please consider sharing our Scottish History and Legends website with your online friends.
Our Privacy Policy can be found at www.cholesterolcholestrol.com/privacypolicy.htm
Copyright © 2000-present Donald Urquhart. All Rights Reserved. Designated trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our legal disclaimer.
|