Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T15:06:25.805Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Scottish Political Community and the Parliament of 1563*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2014

Julian Goodare
Get access

Extract

When Mary queen of Scots met her first Parliament, she encountered an institution that had long played an influential part in Scottish history. The Scottish Parliament was important for its legislation and taxation, but it was even more important as the forum in which the political community assembled to take major decisions about how the government should be configured. This article uses a newly-discovered list of those attending the Parliament of 1563 as the starting-point for an investigation of the political community in Mary's reign.

Although our understanding of sixteenth-century politics has been much enhanced by studies focused on “kingship,” many crucial issues concern relationships among people other than the king. For more than half of the century there was no adult monarch present, and government had to be carried on by consensus between a regent and the nobility. Adult monarchs usually had more power than temporary regents, but they, too, had to seek consensus if they were to rule successfully.

Type
Research Article
Information
Albion , Volume 35 , Issue 3 , Fall 2003 , pp. 373 - 397
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference on British Studies 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I am grateful to Professor Michael Lynch for his comments on an earlier version of this article.

References

1 For an analysis of Mary's policy towards the Parliament, see Goodare, Julian, “The First Parliament of Mary Queen of Scots,” Sixteenth Century Journal 36 (2005)Google Scholar.

2 A stimulating overview of the subject of “kingship” is Wormald, Jenny, “The House of Stewart and its Realm,” Scotland Revisited, ed. Wormald, Jenny (London, 1991), pp. 12–24Google Scholar. It is complemented on the late medieval period (from which many of the concepts used by sixteenth-century historians derive) by Brown, Michael H., “Scotland Tamed? Kings and Magnates in Late Medieval Scotland: a Review of Recent Work,” Innes Review 45 (1994): 120–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For studies of particular kings see Macdougall, Norman, James IV (Edinburgh, 1989)Google Scholar and Cameron, Jamie, James V: the Personal Rule, 1528–1542 (East Linton, 1998)Google Scholar. Merriman, Marcus, The Rough Wooings: Mary Queen of Scots, 1542–1551 (East Linton, 2000)Google Scholar, is a wide-ranging study, while Ritchie, Pamela E., Mary of Guise in Scotland, 1548–1560: a Political Career (East Linton, 2002)Google Scholar, focuses on the regent using the “kingship” model. Changes in the political system towards the end of the century are discussed by Goodare, Julian, “Scottish Politics in the Reign of James VI,” in The Reign of James VI, ed. Goodare, Julian and Lynch, Michael (East Linton, 2000), pp. 32–54Google Scholar. The state itself is the subject of Goodare, Julian, State and Society in Early Modern Scotland (Oxford, 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Political thought has been illuminated by Burns, J. H., The True Law of Kingship: Concepts of Monarchy in Early Modern Scotland (Oxford, 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Mason, Roger A., Kingship and the Commonweal: Political Thought in Renaissance and Reformation Scotland (East Linton, 1998)Google Scholar. The culture of the royal court, which had political aspects, has been discussed by Williams, Janet Hadley, ed., Stewart Style, 1513–1542: Essays on the Court of James V (East Linton, 1996)Google Scholar, Edington, Carol, Court and Culture in Renaissance Scotland: Sir David Lindsay of the Mount (East Linton, 1994)Google Scholar, and Thomas, Andrea, “Renaissance Culture at the Court of James V, 1528–1542” (Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh, 1997)Google Scholar. One important work deals specifically with Parliament: Tanner, Roland, The Late Medieval Scottish Parliament: Politics and the Three Estates, 1424–1488 (East Linton, 2001)Google Scholar. The extent to which its conclusions can illuminate parliamentary politics in 1563 will be discussed below.

3 James IV (1488–1513) ruled personally c. 1494–1513; James V (1513–42) ruled personally 1528–42; Mary (1542–67) ruled personally 1561–67; James VI (1567–1625) ruled personally from c.1585. This pattern, dominated by royal minorities and other absences, extended even further back, to the early years of the Stewart dynasty that began in 1371.

4 Donaldson, Gordon, All the Queen's Men: Power and Politics in Mary Stewart's Scotland (London, 1983)Google Scholar.

5 Occasionally, though not in 1563, “masters” (peers' eldest sons) also attended, either supplementing or replacing their fathers. In the fifteenth century barons below the peerage had sometimes attended as members of the noble estate, but this practice had ceased some time before 1563.

6 For royal burghs see Pryde, George S., The Burghs of Scotland: a Critical List (Oxford, 1965)Google Scholar, and Young, Margaret, ed., The Parliaments of Scotland: Burgh and Shire Commissioners, 2 vols. (Edinburgh, 1992–1993), 2: Appendix 2Google Scholar. This figure excludes inoperative royal burghs, counting those that had been created a royal burgh by 1563 and sent a commissioner to at least one sixteenth-century Parliament.

7 Goodare, Julian, “The Scottish Parliamentary Records, 1560–1603,” Historical Research 72 (1999): 244–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 National Archives of Scotland (hereafter cited as NAS), Morton papers, GD150/329/1–3. Three lists, each written on a single sheet folded lengthwise, with no heading or endorsement. The lists may be from up to three different hands, though this is not certain as differences between them are small.

9 Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, 12 vols., ed. Thomson, Thomas and Innes, Cosmo (Edinburgh, 1814–1875) 2:546–47Google Scholar (hereafter cited as APS).

10 For the 1566 parliament see Goodare, Julian, “Queen Mary's Catholic Interlude,” in Mary Stewart: Queen in Three Kingdoms, ed. Lynch, Michael (Oxford, 1988), pp. 162–67Google Scholar.

11 On these see Adamson, N. J., “The Crown and Government,” in The Laws of Scotland: Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia, ed. Smith, T. B., et al., 25 vols. (Edinburgh, 1987–1995), 7: paras 789–93Google Scholar.

12 The future fifth earl of Huntly was not allowed to succeed to his father at the latter's death and remained known as Lord Gordon. He was himself forfeited on Jan. 28, 1563: Robert Lindesay of Pitscottie, The Historie and Cronicles of Scotland, 3 vols., ed. Mackay, Æneas J. G. (Scottish Text Society, 1899–1911) 2:179Google Scholar. For the imprisonment and forfeiture of Sutherland, Huntly's cousin, see Thomas Randolph to Sir William Cecil, Nov. 18, 1562, March 10, May 1, June 3, 1563, Calendar of the State Papers Relating to Scotland and Mary Queen of Scots, 1547–1603, ed. Bain, Joseph, et al. (Edinburgh: HMSO, 1898–1969) 1:668, 689Google Scholar; 2:7, 10 (hereafter cited as CSP Scot.).

13 Lynch, Michael, Edinburgh and the Reformation (Edinburgh, 1981), pp. 235–37Google Scholar.

14 The Warrender Papers, 2 vols., ed. Cameron, Annie I. (Scottish History Society, 1931–1932) 1:41–44 (misdated)Google Scholar; British Library, speech at opening of parliament, Royal MS 18.B.vi, fo. 238r.–v.

15 The provosts and commissioners' names have been identified from a variety of sources, but see Young, Parliaments, under the listed names. I am also grateful for the advice of Alan R. MacDonald.

16 Dirunal of Remarkable Occurances that Have Passed within the Kingdom of Scotland, ed. Thompson, Thomas (1833), p. 76Google Scholar [hereafter cited as Dirunal].

17 Goodare, , “Scottish Politics in the Reign of James VI,” pp. 36–37, 53Google Scholar.

18 The basis for these figures is discussed above. The lists in the Appendix include twenty named monastic heads, but one, Robert Richardson, was also an officer of state and is counted in that category.

19 For unreferenced statements about the peerage in what follows, see Paul, J. Balfour, ed., The Scots Peerage, 9 vols. (Edinburgh, 1904–1914)Google Scholar, and Donaldson, All the Queen's Men. For the peers and bishops see also Fryde, E. B., et al., eds., Handbook of British Chronology (3rd ed.; Royal Historical Society, 1986)Google Scholar. For monastic heads see Watt, Donald E. R. and Shead, Norman F., eds., The Heads of Religious Houses in Scotland from Twelfth to Sixteenth Centuries (Scottish Record Society, 2001)Google Scholar. For attendance at the Reformation Parliament see APS 2:525–26.

20 This figure includes one duke, Chatelherault. Before acquiring this French dukedom he had been second earl of Arran, but since then his eldest son had acted as third earl of Arran. To the tally of earls should perhaps be added Christian Stewart, countess of Buchan, but a countess suo jure could not attend Parliament.

21 Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, 38 vols., ed. Burton, J. H., et al. (Edinburgh, 1877–) 1: 192, 197Google Scholar.

22 Randolph to Cecil, Sept. 18, Oct. 23, and Nov. 18, 1562, CSP Scot., 1: 651–52 and pp. 661, 669Google Scholar.

23 NAS, Register of Acts and Decreets, 1562–63, CS7/25, fos. 305v.–307r.

24 Maxwell was a minor, and Methven probably was one. Elphinstone had attended the Reformation Parliament, but was normally inactive politically; he seems to have had personal difficulties and later resigned his estates to his son. John Maxwell, fourth Lord Herries, was a major political figure, but had a courtesy title in right of his wife which was formalized only in 1566. He had attended the Reformation Parliament, but as one of the lairds. He was present in Edinburgh at the time of the 1563 parliament, registering a deed on May 30, but was styled “Johnne Maxwell of Terriglis Knycht”: NAS, index to register of deeds, 1561–66, p. 300, citing Reg. of Deeds, vol. vi, fo. 232r.

25 Innermeath had attended the Reformation Parliament, but made only occasional political appearances. Lovat, who was aged about 18, had attended Queen Mary when she visited Inverness in 1562, but had as yet no other political experience: Fraser, James, Chronicles of the Frasers, ed. Mackay, William (Scottish History Society, 1905), pp. 148–49Google Scholar. Sanquhar was a young man who had only just succeeded to the peerage, and who remained a minor figure. Sinclair was an elderly man with a remote base in Orkney, who rarely if ever attended parliaments in this period.

26 Boyd was a very active and committed Protestant who had been important among the Lords of the Congregation in 1559–60, had been one of the lords of the articles in the Reformation Parliament, and continued active long after 1563. Cathcart had attended the Reformation Parliament, signed the Protestant Ayrshire bond of 1562, and normally attended parliaments.

27 Oliphant was an elderly Catholic who had not attended the Reformation Parliament but who remained active politically. Sempill was a prominent Catholic who had been in arms against the insurgent Protestants in 1559–60 and had not attended the Reformation Parliament. He was also at feud with the earl of Glencairn, a stalwart of the Protestant regime.

28 This concludes the analysis of secular lords. But we should note the possibility that there were lairds present in parliament, as there had been in 1560 and would be again (though the evidence is incomplete) in several parliaments and conventions of estates before their position was regularized in 1587. See Goodare, Julian, “The Admission of Lairds to the Scottish Parliament,” English Historical Review 116 (2001): 1103–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 Donaldson, Gordon, Reformed by Bishops: Galloway, Orkney and Caithness (Edinburgh, 1987), pp. 56–58Google Scholar.

30 Sanderson, Margaret H. B., Ayrshire and the Reformation: People and Change, 1490–1600 (East Linton, 1997), pp. 122–24Google Scholar; Knox, John, History of the Reformation in Scotland, ed., Dickinson, William Croft, 2 vols. (London, 1949) 2:71–74Google Scholar; Pitcairn, Robert, ed., Ancient Criminal Trials in Scotland, 1488–1624, 3 vols. (Bannatyne Club, 1833) 1:*427–*430Google Scholar.

31 Dilworth, Mark, “The Commendator System in Scotland,” Innes Review 36 (1986): 51–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 Donald Campbell, abbot of Coupar Angus; Adam Blackadder, commendator of Dundrennan; William Colville, commendator of Culross; Nicholas Ross, commendator of Fearn; and Robert Cunningham, Minister of Fail. Campbell and Blackadder had died before the 1563 parliament. Cunningham's absence is interesting as he was a brother of the strongly-Protestant earl of Glencairn, and had himself become a Protestant minister.

33 APS 2:503. All of these were represented again in 1563.

34 Brown, Keith M., “Burghs, Lords and Feuds in Jacobean Scotland,” in The Early Modern Town in Scotland, ed. Lynch, Michael (London, 1987), p. 104Google Scholar.

35 MacDonald, Alan R., “‘Tedious to Rehers’? Parliament and Locality in Scotland, c.1500–1651: the Burghs of North-East Fife,” Parliaments, Estates and Representation 20 (2000): 31–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36 Randolph to Cecil, June 3, 1563, CSP Scot., 2:10–11Google Scholar; Diurnal, p. 76. The Scottish regalia did not include an orb.

37 Lindesay of Pitscottie, Historie, 2:180Google Scholar. Lindsay's account added details of the crowns that Mary wore. When she came to the Tolbooth she wore the “croune of France,” and at her return to Holyrood later that day she wore the “croune of France and Scottland.” He attributed the sceptre to the earl of Morton, but as chancellor Morton probably had a separate place of honor.

38 Randolph to Cecil, June 3, 1563, CSP Scot., 2:10Google Scholar; Knox, , History, 2:77Google Scholar. Incidentally, Randolph's point that “she wrote yt in Frenche, but pronunced it in Englishe with a verie good grace” is proof that Mary was fully bilingual in these languages.

39 NAS, Morton papers, GD150/337. I made notes on this document in the 1980s, but the NAS staff tell me that at present it appears to be missing. It is undated but almost certainly relates to 1563, from its mention that the queen would next come to the Tolbooth on “Fryday nixtocum,” as she in fact did (May 28). At Mary's next parliament, in Dec. 1564, Morton was indisposed and a speech was made by Maitland instead (Warrender Papers, 1:41–42Google Scholar).

40 MacDonald, Alan R., “Deliberative Processes in Parliament, c. 1567–1639: Multicameralism and the Lords of the Articles,” Scottish Historical Review 81 (2002): 30–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41 Tanner, Roland, “The Lords of the Articles before 1540: a Reassessment,” Scottish Historical Review 79 (2000): 209CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42 Randolph to Cecil, Aug. 8–10, 1560, CSP Scot., 1:458Google Scholar.

43 One was Adam Bothwell, bishop of Orkney. The other, Alexander Gordon, bishop of Galloway, was in eclipse, being the brother of the late earl of Huntly. His title to his see was disputed and was evidently not recognized at the parliament (though it had been at the Reformation Parliament, where he had even sat in the Articles). Instead he had to attend in his capacity as commendator of Inchaffray.

44 Pollen, J. H., ed., Papal Negotiations with Mary Queen of Scots, 1561–1567 (Scottish History Society, 1901), p. 135Google Scholar.

45 For his ecclesiastical position see Dunbar, Linda J., “Synods and Superintendence: John Winram and Fife, 1561–1572,” Records of the Scottish Church History Society 27 (1997): 97–125Google Scholar.

46 Brunton, George and Haig, David, An Historical Account of the Senators of the College of Justice (Edinburgh, 1836), pp. 187–88Google Scholar; APS, 3:234, c. 50.

47 There may have been four lords in addition to the nineteen known members; these could have been Protestant or Catholic, though the former is somewhat more likely.

48 For more on the Parliament's legislation, and on Mary's dealings with Moray, see Goodare, “The First Parliament of Mary Queen of Scots.”

49 Known attendance figures for other parliaments of the period: 1558 sixty-four; 1560 eighty-one (plus, unusually, about a hundred lairds); April 1567 fifty-nine; December 1567 eighty-three; 1568 fifty-three; 1569 sixteen. For these figures see APS, 2:503–04 and 525–26, 546; 3:3–4 and 46, 57. Attendances tended to decline thereafter as a period of factional conflict set in. There is a full list of parliaments and conventions, with attendance figures where known, in Goodare, Julian, “Parliament and Society in Scotland, 1560–1603” (Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh, 1989), appendix AGoogle Scholar.

50 Donaldson, , All the Queen's Men, pp. 1–8, 14–20, 149–51Google Scholar. He was also concerned with the dynastic rivalry that began after Mary's contested deposition in 1567.

51 Dawson, Jane E. A., The Politics of Religion in the Age of Mary, Queen of Scots: the Earl of Argyll and the Struggle for Britain and Ireland (Cambridge, 2002), pp. 114–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

52 Morton's lists place Argyll and Moray as the two senior earls, taking precedence over Crawford whose earldom was considerably older. Their kinship to the queen is the most likely reason.

53 Boardman, Steve and Lynch, Michael, “The State of Late Medieval and Early Modern Scottish History,” in Freedom and Authority: Scotland, c.1050–c.1650, ed. Brotherstone, Terry and Ditchburn, David (East Linton, 2000), pp. 48–49Google Scholar.

54 Gunn, S. J., Early Tudor Government, 1485–1558 (London, 1995), pp. 2–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

55 Brown, , “Scotland Tamed,” pp. 137–39Google Scholar.

56 Goodare, Julian, “Who Was the Scottish Parliament?” Parliamentary History 14 (1995): 173–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

57 Tanner, , Late Medieval Scottish Parliament, pp. 1, 264–67, 271–78Google Scholar and passim. For a call for more research on “the crucial period between 1542 and James VI's majority,” see p. 270.

58 E.g. Graves, Michael A. R., Elizabethan Parliaments, 1559–1601 (2nd ed.; London, 1996), ch. 6Google Scholar.

59 For recent accounts of the Reformation Parliament see Loughlin, Mark, “The Career of Maitland of Lethington, c. 1526–1573” (Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh, 1991), pp. 63–80Google Scholar, and Goodare, , “Scottish Parliamentary Records,” pp. 248–55Google Scholar.

60 Donaldson, , All the Queen's Men, p. 54Google Scholar.

61 Lynch, Michael, “Introduction,” Mary Stewart, ed. Lynch, , p. 4Google Scholar.

62 Dunblane had two bishops of that name between 1561 and 1564, the younger being coadjutor to the elder but being known as bishop. The younger may be a more likely attender: Watt, Donald E. R., ed., Fasti Ecclesiae Scoticanae Medii Aevi ad Annum 1638 (2nd ed.; Scottish Record Society, 1969), p. 78Google Scholar.

63 Morton omitted himself from his own list, but his presence is attested by several other sources, and the Diurnal establishes his membership of the Articles.

64 “Cha'skynall” in manuscript, an unusual but not impossible spelling.

65 These two monasteries are listed separately, and both are scored out.

66 Also treasurer: see below under Officers of State.

67 Added to list in a different hand. The same hand has written “1,“ “2,” “3,“ and “4” opposite Arbroath, Kelso, Holyrood, and Coldingham respectively. The significance of these numbers is un-clear, though it is noticeable that Holyrood, Coldingham, and Portmoak were among the lords of the articles.

68 Inserted in the second hand at this point.

69 Morton's lists refer carefully to a “commissioner” from Perth rather than a “provost.” The provost was Lord Ruthven, who attended Parliament as a member of the noble estate. The burgh had sent two other representatives to a convention in 1561: Ruthven's cousin and client, Patrick Murray of Tibbermuir, and George Johnson, craftsman bailie. Murray, unlike Johnson, later represented Perth in at least one more Parliament and one convention of estates, and has been tentatively named here. The sending of a craftsman alone would have rekindled bitter controversy over the crafts' political position. Verschuur, Mary, “Merchants and Craftsmen in Sixteenth-Century Perth,” in Lynch, , Early Modern Town, pp. 49–50Google Scholar; Young, , Parliaments, 2:533Google Scholar.

70 This and remaining burghs added from Morton's first list. There is no indication of their commissioners' identity.

71 To these officers could be added Morton as chancellor; he has instead been included with the earls.