|
THE ancient constitution
and government of Scotland has been highly applauded, as excellently
adapted for the preservation of civil liberty; it is certain that the
power of the king was greatly limited, and that the constitution
provided many checks to prevent his assuming or exercising a despotic
authority. But the Scottish constitution was too much of the
aristocratic kind to secure the liberties of the common people; for,
though the monarch's power was sufficiently restrained, the nobles,
chieftains, and great land proprietors had it too much in their power to
tyrannize over and oppress their tenants and the lower ranks of the
people.
The ancient Kings of
Scotland, at their coronation, took the following oath: "In the name of
Christ, I promise these three things to the Christian people, my
subjects: first, that I shall give order, and employ my force and
assistance, that the Church of God and the Christian people may enjoy
true peace during our time, under our government; secondly, I shall
prohibit and hinder all persons, of whatever degree, from violence and
injustice; thirdly, in all judgments, I shall follow the prescription of
justice and mercy, to the end that our clement and merciful God may show
mercy unto me, and unto you." The parliament of Scotland anciently
consisted of all who held, any portion of land, however small, of the
crown, by military service. This parliament appointed the time of its
own meetings and adjournments, and committees to superintend the
administration during the intervals, or while parliament was not
sitting. Its powers were not only deliberative, but also executive; it
had a commanding power in all matters of government; it appropriated the
public money, appointed the treasurers of the exchequer, and examined
all the accounts; it had the nomination of the commanders, and the
calling out of the armies; ambassadors to other states were commissioned
by the parliament; the judges and courts of judicature were appointed by
parliament, as well as the officers of state and privy counsellors;
parliament could alienate the regal demesne, and restrain grants from
the crown; it also assumed the right of granting pardons to criminals.
The king had no veto in the proceedings of parliament; nor could he
declare war, make peace, or conclude any important business, without the
advice and concurrence of that assembly. He was not even entrusted with
the executive part of the government; and the parliament, so late as the
reign of James IV., by an Act still extant, pointed out to that monarch
his duty, as the first servant of his people. In short, the constitution
of Scotland was rather aristocratical than a limited monarchy.
The abuse of power by the
lords and great landholders gave the monarch a very considerable
interest among the burgesses and lower ranks; and a king who had address
to retain the affections of the people, was generally able to humble the
most powerful aristocratical faction, and in this they were zealously
assisted by the clergy, whose revenues were immense, and were always
jealous of the power of the nobility. This was done by establishing a
select body of members, who were called "the lords of the articles,"
chosen out of the clergy, nobility, knights, and burgesses. The bishops
chose eight peers, and the nobility elected eight bishops; these sixteen
nominated jointly eight barons, or knights of the shires, and eight
commissioners of royal burghs, and to all these were added eight great
officers of state, the lord chancellor being president of the whole.
Their business was to prepare all questions, bills, and other matters to
be brought before parliament; so that in fact, though the king possessed
no veto, yet, by the clergy and the places he had to bestow, he could
command the lords of the articles, and nothing could come before
parliament which could require his negative. This institution seems to
have been introduced by stealth, and never was brought to a regular
plan; and the best-informed writers on law are not agreed upon the time
when it took place. The Scots, however, never lost sight of their
original principles; and though Charles I. wanted to form the lords of
the articles into mere machines for his own despotic purposes, he found
it impracticable; and the melancholy consequences are well known. At the
revolution, they gave a fresh instance of how well they understood the
principle of civil liberty, by omitting all disputes about abdication,
and declared at once that King James had forfeited his title to the
British crown. |
