The article examines charges of committing lese majesty in the parliamentary acts of James IV and James V of Scotland. The author considers cases of application of that concept and the situations under which it was changed.
Keywords: Scottish Parliament, James IV, James V, Scotland.
В статье исследуются обвинения в умалении величия в парламентских актах королей Якова IV и Якова V. Автор рассматривает случаи применения этого концепта и ситуации, при которых оно было изменено.
Ключевые слова: шотландский парламент, Яков IV, Яков V, Шотландия.
By the end of the XV century, the Scottish parliament had become an administrative institute with a developed structure and a prominent political role. That role was approved by its active involvement in the process of ruling the kingdom as well as by attempts of monarchs or power elites to declare their position on internal struggles with enacting statutes. The charges of committing lese majesty as a supreme crime started to arise and were connected with periods of large conflicts since the end of the XV century, therefore the changings in its application set questions on state and further evolution of monarchy in the early modern Scotland.
The brief review of the parliamentary representation of the minority of James IV in 1488–95 allows to identify the circumstances of creating acts and holding parliaments. His reign began after the death of his father and predecessor James III in a battle against rival nobles [1, p. 32]. The adoption of the statutes was not an intention of the monarch in this respect, but of the nobility who came to power after 1488 and de facto governed the kingdom [2, p. 151]. Distinctive features of the post-war assemblies were the emphasis on implementation of traditional monarch’s obligations — defence and justice — as the restoration of ‘good government’ in the kingdom. Since acts of that tenor were adopted during the rule of regent council, the decisions of the representative assembly and the body itself witnessed the decisive role of that institution in governing the kingdom and making the law. In 1488, for example, the parliament ordained that any clerk accepting or purchasing any benefice at the court of Rome committed the crime of ‘hurt majeste’ against the king [3, 1488/10/50]. The similar acts had occurred in parliamentary legislation before, but now it was stated that the trespasser also would be charged as for committing rebellion and treason, which created an important connection between the main crimes against a king mentioned in the XV century.
The adoption of traditional legislation can be considered as a part of parliamentary routine, but some changes also took place. While making the statutes the estates used the vocabulary that was gradually developed during the XV century, however they did it in accordance with the political background. The charges of treason were pressed against those nobles who showed disobedience to the new government and, as in the case of the earl of Lennox and the lord Lyle in 1489, began a rebellion [3, 1489/7/13; 4, p. 31]. After rather quick suppression of the uprising, the parliament dropped the accusation of lese majesty and ordained that the process of forfeitures be stopped and their lands and goods be restored [3, 1490/2/5]. Behind the legislation this step of the estates aimed at a reconciliation amongst former enemies [2, p. 154]. At the same time, it brought up the new usage for the concept of crime of lese majesty — it was rescinded for the first time.
The measures in regard of maintaining peace within kingdom once again showed prominent position of representative assembly and its acts. Although, having entered his personal rule (1495–1513), James IV preferred smaller, less formal and more flexible king’s councils to large assemblies of estates, and the number of parliamentary meetings was significantly decreased compared to the reigns of the previous monarchs. It can be observed on the material of statutes that in the XVI century parliament’s original judicial function gave way to its legislative role [5, p. 12]. Looking ahead, by 1532 two judicial committees within parliamentary structure have been combined with the Court of Session to the College of Justice, the central court of the king’s law. The only exceptions that remained were parliamentary jurisdiction in regard of the heaviest crime and the residual appellate functions. Thus, in 1535 the estates resolved a dispute on heritage matter referred to them by the lords of sessions and declared that similar cases should be settled in the same manner by those sheriffs who act on behalf of king, except crimes of treason and lese majesty [3, 1535/50].
In 1513, the king of Scotland tragically fell in the Battle of Flodden against the English, and Scottish throne was inherited by one-year-old James V. During the new king’s minority, the parliamentary legislation was used by regents in order to support their intentions. After a short period of eclipse parliament did not carry out day-to-day function of government, which now was the responsibility of privy council, but it still was the only place where a change of rulers could legitimately be sanctioned [6, p. 160]. After proclaiming the personal rule of James V in 1524, the queen mother was appointed as a principal, without advice of whom nothing was to be done [3, 1524/11/9–10]. According to the statute, any movement of the young king within the kingdom should have been approved by queen’s grace, and any attempt to transport the king out from the realm would be punished as a crime of lese majesty [3, 1525/2/11].
In 1525, the Earl of Angus, young king's stepfather, took custody of James and held him as a virtual prisoner for three years, exercising power on his behalf [1, p. 108–109]. On the matter of peace negotiations with England it was stated that any who impeded achievement of the peace, refused to give his counsel, and supported the earl of Angus, the Lord Warden of the Marches, should be accused of lese majesty [3, 1526/6/18]. This statute was in accordance with politics of Angus, whose coming to power was supported by Henry VIII of England, and had a practical aim of keeping peace in the Borders [6, p. 175]. James finally escaped from Angus's care in 1528 and assumed the reins of government himself. The parliament of the same year accused the earl of Angus of refusing to obey king’s command, threating of the life of the king and many ‘other points of treason and crimes of lese-majesty’ [3, 1528/9/10].
During the XV century the concepts of crimes against king’s majesty and against royal authority were used in regard of similar offenses. By the XVI century, they seem to be replaced with the concept of lese majesty, although it obviously kept the same meaning of the heaviest charge. In 1524, the estates ordained that any who committed crimes of lese majesty or was to be suspected thereof should be in custody until a competent judge maву his decision [3, A1524/8/7]. By the statutes of 1526 this accusation as well as committing treason should be pressed against those who seizure immovable goods of churchmen or burn houses and set fire in fields [3, 1526/11/11, 64]. In regard of the latter, it was added that ‘such deeds are exorbitant and more against the common good than many other crimes’.
Several acts and summons with accusation of treason and lese majesty were adopted in respect of Sir James Colville, the former director of chancellery, in the period of 1538–40 for his support of the earl of Angus [3, 1538/17]. After his death in 1540, the parliament issued a declaration which allowed the king to raise summons upon the heirs of a dead person convicted of lese majesty with consent of the estates [3, 1540/12/3–5, 8, 37]. As a result, the relatives of late James Colville were convicted of lese majesty and were called by royal summons to come in person and stand trial during the following years.
Most of the formulae contained in acts were already articulated by the statutes, and their succession can be seen during a long period of time, but it does not mean the consistency and similarity of their usage in various circumstances. The parliamentary statutes of the XV and the first half of the XVI century can hardly show the reception of certain political theories and ideas. In this respect post-reformation Scottish assemblies provide the historians with more plentiful material. But what is possible to do is to identify what concepts and expressions were implemented for the explication of royal authority and with what discourses prominent political events were introduced in the acts.
The Scottish law and narrative tradition did not know the wide basis of treatises and collections of local norms, as it was, for example, in England. Some legislation was occasionally adopted from the English practice, as it can be seen when examining the examples of parliamentary statutes of 1420s. The previous parliamentary legislation apparently was taken into account by those clerks who created the statutes. Various acts were periodically reissued since the second half of the XV century, and in 1535, for instance, the parliament confirmed a number of statutes of James I’s reign with a reference on them [3, 1535]. In 1540 the estates ordered to reissue and print the statutes of the realm [3, 1549/12/91]. The work was finished by 1542, which is now known as the first printed collection of acts of the Scottish parliament.
All the cited acts demonstrate what offences and what political actions the accusation of crime of lese majesty could be applied for. However, it is worth noting that the statutes do not contain a list of crimes that fall into one or another category, which can be found in English parliamentary acts in case of treason. Instead, legal formulae and ideas included in the general European tradition arise situationally in acts as a reaction to specific events. The application of concepts enriched the ways of describing a kingship, which is also true for the usage of public law rhetoric and imperial discourse. The statutes of the Scottish parliament fixed and indicated the process of transformation of Scottish late medieval monarchy into the monarchy of the Early Modern period by a reflection on confrontations. The principal aim of all accusations was the maintaining of royal authority, even when the agenda was dictated by ambitious regents. The contexts within which the charges of the crime of lese majesty were pressed, especially during the period of minorities, are able to illustrate the mechanisms of kingship perception and the gradual process of giving abstraction to the figure of the king. In this respect the research and linguistic analysis of parliamentary acts could supplement the view of modern historiography on the Pre-Reformation Scottish monarchy, the perception of kingship by political elites and the process of making law by an institution which had a place at the center of governance.
References:
- Dawson J. E. A. Scotland Re-formed, 1488–1587. — Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007. — 320 с.
- Macdougall N. The Estates in Eclipse? Politics and Parliaments in the Reign of James IV // The History of the Scottish Parliament: Parliament and Politics in Scotland, 1235–1560. — Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2004. — С. 145–159.
- Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707. URL: http://www.rps.ac.uk (дата обращения: 22.01.2020)
- MacDougall N. 'The Glory of All Princely Governing': The Kingship of James IV // History Today. — 1984. — № 34. — С. 30–36.
- Godfrey M. Civil Justice in Renaissance Scotland. The Origins of a Central Court. — Leiden: Brill, 2009. — 488 с.
- Emond K. The Parliament of 1525 // The History of the Scottish Parliament: Parliament and Politics in Scotland, 1235–1560. — Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2004. — С. 160–178.
