committee; every motion for a new law was first made there and approved of or rejected by the members of it. What they approved was formed into a bill and presented to Parliament; and it seems probable, that what they rejected could not be introduced into the House. This committee owed the extraordinary powers vested in it to the military genius of the ancient nobles; too impatient to submit to the drudgery of civil business; too impetuous to observe the forms, or to enter into the details, necessary in conducting it, they were glad to lay that burden upon a small number, while they themselves had no other labour than simply to give or to refuse their assent to the bills which were presented to them. The Lords of Articles, then, not only directed all the proceedings of Parliament, but possessed a negative before debate. That committee was chosen and constituted in such a manner as to put this valuable privilege entirely in the king's hands. It is extremely probable that our kings once had the sole right of nominating the Lords of Articles. They came afterwards to be elected by the Parliament, and consisted of an equal number out of each estate, and most commonly of eight temporal and eight spiritual Lords, of eight representatives of boroughs, and of the eight great officers of the Crown."16

On the other hand, Dr GILBERT STUART remarks, “The nomination of this committee appears from the acts of JAMES I. The preface to his laws is in these words: Acta Parliamenta JACOBI primi regis Scotorum, tenti apud Perth xxvi. die menses Maii, Anno Do

16 Hist. of Scotland, b. i.

mini millessimo quadringentesimo vigesimo quarto, et regni sui xix. convocatis tribus regni statibus, ibidem congregatis electæ fuerunt certæ personæ ad articulos datas per dominum regem determinandos, data cæteris licentia recedendi.""

66

Instead, then, of having been elected by the king, or by his dependants, the Lords of the Articles were chosen in Parliament. They were a committee of the Three Estates, not the creatures of the prerogative; and they received articles from the king, which they were to examine and to prepare for the Parliament.

"The testimony of this preamble is confirmed by a statute of JAMES. III., in which power is entrusted 'be the hail three Estates to certane personis underwritten, to commoun and conclude upone the matters effter followand;' for the council of the Articles are thus described as a committee of Parliament."

"From the constitution of the Council of Articles, as illustrated by the acts of JAMES I. and JAMES III., it is yet obvious, that it was merely their intention to prepare business for Parliament. The subjects into which they were to inquire were submitted to them, and the result of their deliberations was reported in full Parliament, and examined and voted there. But other testimonies, to evince these particulars, are to be produced."

"In the acts of Parliament of the reign of JAMES IV., there are these passages

"As tuiching the renewing and confirmatioun to be maid of the consideratioun and allyance of France, and in likewyse of Denmark and Hispanzie, it is thocht ex

b

pedient be the Lords of the Articles, that they desyre to purches and obtain sic friendschippis, liberteis, and fredomes, for the gude public of this realme and proffeit of the cours of merchandice, and sic things as sall be sene proffitabill be the Lords of the Kings secreit counsall. That thairfoir the Body of the Parliament hes committed Power to the Chancellar and secret counsall, to mak the instructiouns and avise sic desyris, as they sall think expedient for the gude of the King, his realme, and liegis, quhilkis sall be done to the King, and in the name of the hail body of his Parliament."

"These proofs explain fully the use of the Lords of the Articles in our constitution. They were not instruments of tyranny, but a council for facilitating affairs. Articles were submitted to their scrutiny; and they judged not finally, but proposed their overtures to Parliament. The Parliament was to approve these, or to reject them; and the object of the Lords of the Articles, while they deliberated together, was the emolument of the kingdom, and not the power of the prince."

"In the institution, and in the election of the Lords of the Articles, there appear the marks of legality, and candour, and justice. No arts which had been used to overawe or direct them in ancient times have been traced or discovered. And, indeed, to gain or to corrupt this council, while it was difficult in itself, was to acquire nothing. For, its overtures being debatable in Parliament, the deliberations and authority of the three estates were to overturn all improprieties in their behaviour and conduct."

"It was not till a late period in our history, that any attempts were even made to counteract their virtue and integrity. These might first be thought of in MARY'S reign; but, I conceive, they were chiefly fostered by a weak or an artful statute of JAMES VI. If we believe this statute itself, it was intended to prevent in Parliament the spirit of frivolous disputation. It may, notwithstanding, have covered a more dangerous purpose. With whatever design, however, it might be framed, this is certain, that it contributed to suggest that negative before debate, of which the monarchical writers are so full, and which was to distinguish the dominations of CHARLES I. and CHARLES II. High notions of prerogative had indeed been founded in the reign of JAMES VI., but they received a memorable correction; and the power and freedom of Parliaments were proclaimed in language the most respectful and decisive."

"Thus the corruption of the Lords of the Articles was late in making its appearance, and it did not continue long. It was to characterize those reigns which immediately preceded the extinction of this council. And, what confirms all I have said, when the Convention of Estates at the Revolution was to complain of the Lords of the Articles as a grievance, it was indirectly to acknowledge the propriety of the council itself, and to urge only the invasion which had been made upon the freedom of its election."17

What appears requisite to be here mentioned in regard

17 STUART'S Observations concerning the Public Law and Constitutions of Scotland, p. 348, et seq.

66

to the Lords of the Articles, cannot probably be better or more authoritatively stated than in the words of ERSKINE " A Committee, called the Committee of Articles, was elected in the beginning of every Parliament, and consisted of a certain number of the Three Estates. Its constitution appears to be at least as old as the oldest of our proper statutes, Black Acts, fol. 1. This Committee was at first chosen by the Three Estates, Ibid. fol. 50. Their business was to receive all proposals relative to parliamentary matters, and transmit them to Parliament; and frequent references are made in our more ancient statutes to the special articles laid before that Committee, 1503, ch. 64; 1540, ch. 82, 119, 120, &c. Immediately after the election of this Committee, the Parliament was adjourned, debatur cæteris licentia recedendi, as it is expressed in Black Acts, fol. 1; and, in the mean time, this Committee prepared overtures, which were afterwards voted in full Parliament, generally on the last day of their sitting. Under colour of preventing frivolous debates, it was that no matter should be brought before the Parliament which was not first laid before this Committee, and presented by the Clerk-Register in their name to the Three Estates. The manner in which they were chosen about a century ago is particularly set forth, 1663, ch. 1. It having been, after the Revolution, accounted inconsistent with freedom of Parliament, that nothing could be there proposed but what had been previously concerted by an inconsiderable number of its members, that Com

enacted by 1594, ch. 218,