Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:27:49.221Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Scottish parliament of 1621*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Julian Goodare
Julian Goodare
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This parliament saw two controversial government proposals: to ratify the Five Articles of Perth which introduced Anglican-style ceremonies into church worship, and to introduce a new tax on interest payments. A rare division list survives. It shows the split to have been partly regional: opposition was concentrated in Scotland's central belt, with government supporters in the more conservative northern and Border regions. The most important division, however, is that between ‘court’ and ‘country’. These concepts, familiar in English history, are shown to be applicable to Scotland. An earlier argument that government faction was responsible for the division is shown to be mistaken. The ideological divide, which persisted until after 1638, has implications for our understanding of the events of the 1640s both in Scotland and in England.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 38 , Issue 1 , March 1995 , pp. 29 - 51
Copyright
Copyright Cambridge University Press 1995

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.)

References

1 John, Spottiswoode, History of the church of Scotland, ed. Russell, M. (3 vols., Spottiswoode Soc., 1851), III, 262.Google Scholar

2 David, Calderwood, History of the kirk of Scotland, eds. Thomson, T. & Laing, D. (8 vols., Wodrow Soc., 1842–1849), VII, 498.Google Scholar

3 Rait, R. S., The parliaments of Scotland (Glasgow, 1924), p. 412.Google Scholar

4 Cowan, I. B., ‘The five articles of Perth’, in Shaw, D. (ed.), Reformation and revolution (Edinburgh, 1967)Google Scholar; Mackay, P. H. R., ‘The five articles of Perth’ (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh, 1975)Google Scholar; Mackay, , ‘The reception given to the five articles of Perth’, Records of the Scottish Church History Society, XIX (1977), 185–201.Google Scholar

5 For a recent survey of the political implications of Anglo-Scottish union, see Brown, K. M., Kingdom or province? Scotland and the regal union, 1603–1715 (London, 1992).Google ScholarPubMed

6 Register of the privy council of Scotland [RPCS], XI, 454–6.

7 Zaller, R. E., The parliament of 1621: a study in constitutional conflict (Berkeley & London, 1971), pp. 18–19.Google Scholar

8 Privy council to James, 25 Oct. 1620, State papers and miscellaneous correspondence of Thomas, earl of Melros, ed. Hope, J. (2 vols., Abbotsford Club, 1837), II, 373–4Google Scholar; RPCS, XII, 378–80; earl of Melrose to James, 27 Nov. 1620, Melros papers, II, 376–82.

8 Privy council to James, 21 Dec. 1620, RPCS, XII, 387–8; Acts of the parliaments of Scotland [APS], IV, 589–90; Melrose to James, 29 Jan. 1621, Melros papers, II, 391–2; Spottiswoode, , History, III, 260.Google Scholar

10 Journals of the house of commons, 1547–1628 (London, n.d.), p. 523Google Scholar. For the debate, see Thompson, C., The debate on freedom of speech in the house of commons in February 1621 (Orsett, 1987).Google Scholar

11 Calendar of state papers, Venetian, XVI, 578–9. On 8 Mar. the privy council acknowledged the king's instruction to summon parliament: Melros papers, II, 392–3.

12 Hist. Manuscripts Comm., Report on the manuscripts of the earl of Mar and Kellie, ed. Paton, H. (2 vols., London, 1904–1930), II, 107.Google Scholar

13 RPCS, XII, 475.

14 Spottiswoode to John Murray of Lochmaben, 9 Jan. 1621, Original letters relating to the ecclesiastical affairs of Scotland, ed. Laing, D. (2 vols., Bannatyne Club, 1851), II, 644–5Google Scholar. Murray was a gentleman of the bedchamber. Sums of money will be given in £s Scots, one-twelfth of sterling, unless otherwise stated.

15 James to parliament, 13 Jul. 1621, SirBalfour, James, Historical works, ed. Haig, J. (4 vols., Edinburgh, 1824), II, 89–90.Google Scholar

16 For petitions and pamphlets aimed at influencing parliament, see Calderwood, , History, VII, 474–88Google Scholar; [Calderwood, David,] Quaeres concerning the estate of the church of Scotland (n.p. [Leyden], 1621).Google Scholar

17 Cuddy, N., ‘Anglo-Scottish union and the court of James I, 1603–1625’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th ser., XXXIX (1989), 107–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar. This marked a departure from practice under James's earlier (Scottish) favourite, Somerset, who attempted to manage patronage in both kingdoms.

18 Melrose to James, 26 July 1621, Melros papers, II, 411–12.

19 Melrose to James, 3 Aug. 1621, Melros papers, II, 425; Calderwood, , History, VII, 491.Google Scholar

20 Calderwood, , History, VII, 308Google Scholar. It is interesting that his bishop, Lancelot Andrewes, later to emerge as a leading Arminian, was a nominal member of the Scottish privy council: RPCS, XI, 169.

21 James stayed for a week at Carnegie's house, Kinnaird, during his seven-week visit to Scotland in 1617: The Muses' Welcome to the High and Mighty Prince James …At His Majestie's Happie Retume to his Old and Native Kingdome of Scotland… (Edinburgh, 1618), pp. 85, 104.Google Scholar

22 Calderwood, , History, VII, 490Google Scholar. For their names, and the names of all those at the parliament, see Appendix. The ‘barons’ were the shire commissioners, who had gained representation as a separate estate in parliament in 1587.

23 Melrose to James, 26 July 1621, Metros papers, II, 416; Calderwood, , History, VII, 490Google Scholar; cf. Rait, , Parliaments, p. 370.Google Scholar

24 APS, IV, 594; Calderwood, , History, VII, 491.Google Scholar

25 Calderwood, , History, VII, 490Google Scholar; James to parliament, n.d., Metros papers, II, 417–21.

26 Melrose to James, 27 July 1621, Metros papers, II, 421–3. Melrose gives the impression that the parliament as a whole had made this decision, but this cannot be correct. Notice that 1,000,000 merks (£666,666) was already only about half the £1,200,000 suggested by Spottiswoode in Jan.

27 Ibid.

28 Calderwood, , History, VII, 491.Google Scholar

29 Caldwood, , History, VII, 491–2.Google Scholar

30 Melrose to James, 2 Aug. and 3 Aug. 1621, Metros papers, II, 423–5.

31 Ibid.

32 SirHamilton, Thomas, ‘Memoriall anent the progres and conclusion of the parliament haldin at Edinburgh in October 1612’, Miscellany of the Maitland Club, III (1843), 116.Google Scholar

33 Calderwood, , History, VII, 492.Google Scholar

34 Melrose to James, 3 Aug. 1621, Melros papers, II, 425.

35 Melrose to James, 4 Aug. 1621, Melros papers, II, 426; Original letters, II, 661.

36 How consensus was sought in English taxation debates is described in Russell, C., Parliaments and English politics, 1621–1629 (Oxford, 1979), pp. 40–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

37 Calderwood, , History, VII, 498–501Google Scholar; for the official sederunt of parliament, APS, IV, 592–6, and the official voting figures, Original letters, II, 661. Among Calderwood's improvements to the sederunt is his inclusion of a substitute commissioner for Edinburgh, Andrew Scott, who replaced the goldsmith George Foulis when the latter was injured in a fall from his horse during the riding of parliament: cf. Extracts from the records of the burgh of Edinburgh, 1604–1626, ed. Wood, M. (Edinburgh, 1931), p. 224Google Scholar. Calderwood listed the voters' names, but gave no totals, and adding them up is not as simple as might be imagined. Two erroneous attempts to do so, the figures from which have unfortunately been widely quoted by later historians, are those of David Masson, in his magisterial edition of the Register of the privy council of Scotland (XII, 557–9n), and Rait, R. S., in his equally influential Parliaments of Scotland (p. 408)Google Scholar. Masson listed 85 voting in favour and 59 against; Rait's figures were 86 to 59. The main error in both cases was to count the shire commissioners (and some burgh commissioners) as voting individually, whereas the voting unit was the shire or burgh. I have corrected this in my figures. The table includes one duke (Lennox) among the earls. To Calderwood's list I have added Sir William Alexander of Menstrie, master of requests (I assume that he voted the same way as the other officers of state), and Viscount Lauderdale, whom Calderwood himself mentioned in his narrative of the parliament (p. 495) as abstaining. Another figure, more widely quoted, is the statement of Melrose that the government majority was 27: Melrose to James, 4 Aug. 1621, Metros papers, II, 426; also in Original letters, II, 661–2. Rait's figures also happened to produce such a majority, which gave them an undeserved credibility. Before leaving this subject, it should be observed that one contemporary gave the government majority as 9: John, Row, History of the kirk of Scotland (Wodrow Soc., 1842), p. 330Google Scholar. It might be conjectured that he subtracted the votes of the proxies (10 to 3), of which he complained, and the 11 bishops; he revised his work after 1638 when bishops had been abolished, and as a presbyterian he may have extended their non-existence back to 1621.

38 Donaldson, G., ‘Scotland's conservative north in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries’, Scottish church history (Edinburgh, 1985)Google Scholar; originally published in Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th ser., XVI (1966), 65–79.Google Scholar

39 Charles I to Menteith, 12 May 1627, Fraser, W., The red book of Menteith (2 vols., Edinburgh, 1880), II, 1–2.Google Scholar

40 RPCS, IX, 277–8.

41 RPCS, IX, 277–8; G., Eyre-Todd, History of Glasgow (3 vols., Glasgow, 1931), II, 177Google Scholar; RPCS, IX, 307; Stevenson, D., ‘The burghs and the Scottish revolution’, in Lynch, M. (ed.), The early modern town in Scotland (London, 1987), p. 181Google Scholar; Stephen, W., History of Inverkeithing and Rosyth (Aberdeen, 1921), p. 324Google Scholar; Mines accounts, 1608–9, Edinburgh, Scottish Record Office (S.R.O.), E83/1.

42 On these ministers see Scott, H., Fasti ecclesiae Scoticanae (8 vols., Edinburgh, 1915–1950)Google Scholar, under the relevant parish.

43 Mackay, P. H. R., ‘The reception given to the Five Articles of Perth’.Google Scholar

44 Russell, C., ‘Parliamentary history in perspective, 1604–1629’, History, LXI (1976), 18.Google Scholar

45 For the council's membership, see RPCS, XI, pp. cxlix–clii; xii, pp. cvi–cviii.

46 RPCS, XI–XII, per index.

47 Lee, M., Government by pen: Scotland under James VI and I (London, 1980), pp. 182–3.Google Scholar

48 Lee, M., The road to revolution: Scotland under Charles I, 1625–1637 (Urbana & Chicago, 1985), p. 211Google Scholar; the point is illustrated with a list of the ‘connections’ of Dunfermline's son and successor. Dunfermline's ‘connections’ were partly based on the marriages he arranged for his nephews, the sons of the first earl of Winton: Lee, M., ‘King James's popish chancellor’, in Cowan, I. B. & Shaw, D. (eds.), The renaissance and reformation in Scotland (Edinburgh, 1983), p. 181Google Scholar. His five ‘connections’ among the opposition were the earl of Eglinton (his nephew), the earl of Linlithgow (Eglinton's father-in-law), Lord Kintail (Dunfermline's son-in-law), Lord Yester (his brother-in-law, with a further marriage between the families in 1621), and the earl of Rothes (whose later half-sister had been married to Dunfermline, making Dunfermline's children by her Rothes' nephews): Lee, M., ‘James VI and the aristocracy’, Scotia, 1 (1977), p. 22Google Scholar. Equivalent ‘connections’ among those voting yes include: the third earl of Winton, Eglinton's elder brother and the head of Dunfermline's own family; Winton's father-in-law, the earl of Errol; and the earl of Kellie, whose son had married Dunfermline's daughter. Another daughter had married Viscount Lauderdale, who abstained. For these and other statements about the peerage, see Paul, J. B. (ed.), The Scots peerage (9 vols., Edinburgh, 1904–1914)Google Scholar, under the relevant title.

49 Records of Elgin, 1234–1800, ed. Cramond, W. (2 vols., New Spalding Club, 1903), II, 143.Google Scholar

50 Melrose to James, 4 Aug. 1621, Melros papers, II, 427.

51 Maxwell, A., The history of old Dundee (Dundee, 1884), p. 346Google Scholar; Annals of Banff, ed. Cramond, W. (2 vols., New Spalding Club, 1891–1893), I, 47–8Google Scholar; Spiller, M., ‘Poetry after the union, 1603–1660’, in Jack, R. D. S. (ed.), The history of Scottish literature (4 vols., Aberdeen, 1988–1989), I, 147–8Google Scholar; Royal College of Surgeons, Edinbugh, MS minute books, 15 May 1593 (I am grateful to Dr Helen Dingwall for this reference); RPCS, XI, 273–4.

52 Tullibardine to James, n.d., Letters and state papers during the reign of King James VI, ed. Maidment, J. (Abbotsford Club, 1838), p. 322Google Scholar. The editor assigns this letter tentatively to 1620, but mention of the taxation places it after Aug. 1621.

53 Brown, K. M., ‘Noble indebtedness in Scotland between the reformation and the revolution’, Historical Research, LXII (1989), 260–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar. To this list may be added Lord Dingwall: Prestwich, M., Cranfield: politics and profits under the early Stuarts (Oxford, 1966), p. 73.Google Scholar

54 RPCS, VI, 287.

55 MS accounts of ordinary and extraordinary taxation, 1621, S.R.O., E65/8−9.

56 Treasurer's accounts, 1621–2, S.R.O., E21/88; Comptroller's accounts, 1620–1, S.R.O., E24/38. Stewart of Shillinglaw's pension, strictly, was as agent of the duke of Lennox, but he is included on the assumption that both benefited from the arrangement: E24/38, fo. 26r. That he had such a close connection with the arch-courtier Lennox is itself significant.

57 HMC, Mar & Kellie, I, 113.

58 APS, IV, pp. 633–91, cc. 43–7, 49–59, 64, 66, 69, 71–2, 100, 103, 108.

59 Melrose to James, 4 Aug. 1621, Melros papers, II, 426; APS, IV, pp. 667–72, cc. 77–80; pp. 691–2, c. 109; Dumbarton common good accounts, 1614–1660, eds. Roberts, F. & Macphail, I. M. M. (Dumbarton, 1972), pp. 25–28, 31.Google Scholar

60 Lynch, M., ‘The crown and the burghs, 1500–1625’, in Lynch, (ed.), Early modem town, pp. 70, 74–5.Google Scholar

61 Hannay, R. K. & Watson, G. P. H., ‘The building of the parliament house’, Book of the Old Edinburgh Club, XIII (1924), 1–78Google Scholar. The worm did eventually turn – once it was safe to do so.

62 For instances of disaffection, see Calderwood, History, VII, passim.

63 Friis, A., Alderman Cockayne's project and the cloth trade, 1603–1625 (Copenhagen & London, 1927)Google Scholar; Supple, B. E., Commercial crisis and change in England, 1600–1642 (Cambridge, 1959), ch. 2.Google Scholar

64 Melrose to James, 2 Aug. 1621, Melros papers, II, 424; Calderwood, , History, VII, 492Google Scholar; cf. Row, , History, p. 330Google Scholar. When, in the English Short Parliament, ‘some quarter of the lay peerage… voted against the king in public,’ Professor Russell suggests that ‘the proportion who were unhappy with his course was at least double that’: Russell, C., The fall of the British monarchies, 1637–1642 (Oxford, 1991), p. 112Google Scholar. It would be interesting to apply this formula to the division we are considering.

65 Melrose to James, 2 Aug. 1621, Melros papers, II, 424; Kellie to Mar, 9 Apr. 1622, HMC, Mar & Kellie, II, 117. Elphinstone's son (Alexander, master of Elphinstone) was not at the parliament; Kellie probably meant his nephew, Lord Balmerino.

66 Few works on English history in this period fail to discuss the concepts of ‘court’ and ‘country’. For those that make it their central theme, see particularly Zagorin, P., The court and the country: the beginnings of the English revolution (London, 1969)Google Scholar; Ashton, R., The city and the court, 1603–1645 (Cambridge, 1979)Google Scholar; Hirst, D., ‘Court, country and politics before 1629’, in Sharpe, K. (ed.), Faction and parliament: essays on early Stuart history (2nd edn, London, 1985).Google Scholar

67 Cf. Balfour, , Historical works, II, 84.Google Scholar

68 For a study of courtiers in the next reign, see Brown, K. M., ‘Courtiers and cavaliers: service, anglicization and loyalty among the royalist nobility’, in Morrill, J. (ed.), The Scottish national covenant in its British context (Edinburgh, 1990).Google Scholar

69 Morrill, J., The revolt of the provinces: conservatives and radicals in the English civil war, 1630–1650 (2nd edn, London, 1980), pp. 14–31.Google Scholar

70 Treasurer's accounts, 1621–2, S.R.O., E21/88, fo. 30r.; Goodare, J., ‘Parliamentary taxation in Scotland, 1560–1603’, Scottish Historical Review, LXVIII (1989), 23–52Google Scholar; APS, IV, p. 630, c. 35.

71 Meikle, M. M., ‘Lairds and gentlemen: a study of the landed families of the eastern Anglo-Scottish borders, c. 1540–1603’ (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh, 1989), p. 11 and passimGoogle Scholar; Bardgett, F. D., Scotland reformed: the reformation in Angus and the Meams (Edinburgh, 1989), ch. 1.Google Scholar

72 Stevenson, D., ‘Conventicles in the kirk, 1619–37: the emergence of a radical party’, Records of the Scottish Church History Society, XVIII (1972–1974), 99–114.Google Scholar

73 Mullan, D. G., Episcopacy in Scotland, 1560–1638 (Edinburgh, 1986), chs. 5–7.Google Scholar

74 For their careers in the next reign see Lee, , Road to revolutionGoogle Scholar. A detailed study of their role is needed.

75 Calderwood, , History, VII, 489.Google Scholar

76 APS, IV, 625–6, c. 25.

77 APS, IV, 624, c. 23; for the parallel English statutes, see Beresford, M. W., ‘The common informer, the penal statutes and economic regulation’, Economic History Review, 2nd ser., X (1957–1958), 221–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

78 APS, IV, 629, c. 34; Melros papers, I, 361–2; HMC, Mar & Kellie, I, 97–8; for a discussion of the problem as it affected England, see Supple, Commercial crisis and change, ch. 4.

79 APS, IV, 615–16, c. 18.

80 APS, IV, pp. 609–12, cc. 6–8; p. 613, c. 13; p. 623, c. 20; p. 627, cc. 27–8.

81 Donaldson, G., All the queen's men: power and politics in Mary Stewart's Scotland (Edinburgh, 1983), p. 151Google Scholar. Of course, it is also noteworthy that ‘religious or political principles’ had already begun to make inroads into traditional patterns of allegiance.

82 Calderwood, , History, VII, 493–5.Google Scholar

83 Stevenson, D., The Scottish revolution, 1637–1644 (Newton Abbot, 1973), p. 324.Google Scholar

84 Lee, , Road to revolution, p. 132.Google Scholar

85 For what follows on post-1638 allegiance, see Stevenson, Scottish revolution; Scots peerage; lists of royalists and covenanters, S.R.O., Hamilton MSS, GD406/M9/88/6−7; Brown, , ‘Courtiers and cavaliers’Google Scholar. I have taken a common-sense rather than mechanical view of allegiance: thus Lord Carnegie (earl of Southesk by 1638), though he eventually signed both covenants, exerted all his influence in a conservative direction and clearly took more seriously the loyalty to the king that the covenanters nominally professed.

86 For Kinghorn see RPCS, XII, 240–1. Menteith's presbyterianism is inferred from the fact that the minister, John Craigengelt, whom he presented to Aberfoyle parish in 1621 (having purchased the patronage and augmented his stipend) was later appointed minister to a covenanting regiment: Fraser, Menteith, I, 336–7; Records of the commissions of the general assemblies of the church of Scotland, 1646–1647, eds. Mitchell, A. F. & Christie, J. (Scottish History Society, 1892), p. 144Google Scholar. I am grateful to Dr Walter Makey for a discussion of Craigengelt.

87 Russell, C., The causes of the English civil war (Oxford, 1990), p. 118Google Scholar. On the question of presbyterian continuity, see Mason, R., ‘The aristocracy, episcopacy and the revolution of 1638’, in Brotherstone, T. (ed.), Covenant, charter and party: traditions of revolt and protest in modern Scottish history (Aberdeen, 1989), p. 11.Google Scholar

88 E.g. Donald, P., An uncounselled king: Charles I and the Scottish troubles, 1637–1641 (Cambridge, 1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

89 Russell, , Causes of the English civil war, p. 29.Google Scholar

90 Russell, C., ‘The Scottish party in English parliaments, 1640–2: or the myth of the English revolution’, Historical Research, LXVI (1993), 46.Google Scholar

91 Goodare, J., ‘The nobility and the absolutist state in Scotland, 1584–1638’, History, LXXVIII (1993), 161–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar