| LOCATION | London, BL |
| MANUSCRIPT | London, BL, Addit. 27472 |
| ITEM No. 1 | Ius proprium Scotiae - Practicks (general digest of law, alphabetical) 'Abbot' - 'Zeiris', a.1566 |
Ius proprium Scotiae - Practicks (general digest of law, alphabetical) 'Abbot' - 'Zeiris', a.1566
Author(s):
Incipit:
Explicit:
Ius proprium Scotiae - Practicks (general digest of law, alphabetical) 'Abbot' - 'Zeiris', a.1566 . Purchased by what is now the British Library in 1866.
The digest refers to the "Auld Lawis", to statutes of Kings James I-V and Queen Mary, and to Maitland's Practicks up to the year 1566. These contents confirm that the indicated date 1566 is correct. The author was Chancellor of the bishopric of Ross and Senator of the College of Justice. He fled into exile, was forfeited in 1568, returned and was re-instated in 1584, re-appointed Senator of the College of Justice in 1586, and died in 1592.
The work starts with a dedication to Mary Queen of Scots, but the volume's leather cover already bears an embossed dedication to her successor, the Regent James Earl of Moray (1567-1570).
I assume that the present MS was produced in the intention to submit it to the Queen for approval. Yet, before this could be done she abdicated. Chalmers thus had the volume's cover embossed to be submitted to the Queen's successor. Yet, I deem that the submission to the Regent Moray did not take place either, because Chalmers fled to France. Otherwise he would surely have torn out the leaves with the dedication to the Queen who had in the mean time fallen into such disrepute. After Chalmers' re-instatement, his digest was obsolete because it had in the mean time been overtaken by Balfour's Practicks.
Chalmers' digest contains short abstracts of provisions of law (thus stating the essence of the law = 'the effect', as the author explains in his letter to the reader). The text is hastily written by only one hand, on only one type of paper. The ink is often faded, so that the text is difficult to read. Keywords or even short abstracts are noted in the margins, by the same hand, thus probably the hand of the author himself. As explained in the letter to the reader, blank paper is left at the end of each letter of the alphabet for possible supplements. Modern foliation in pencil. Old foliation in ink.
The author refers to the following sources (see his table of abbreviations): Liber de iudicibus, Hector Boetius, Iter Camerarii, Leges Forestarum, Leges Burgorum, Leges Marchiarum, Statutes of King Malcolm, Maitland's Practicks ('in libro Practicarum Lethingtoun'), the author's own collection of judicial precedent (marked as "nottat Chalmer") , Quoniam attachiamenta, Regiam maiestatem, De maritagiis (= 'tractatus immediate post Regiam maiestatem'), Statutes of King William, and Statutes of Kings James I-V and Queen Mary, and yet another treatise contained in the appendix to 'Regiam majetatem', here described as 'Tractatus post Quoniam attachiamenta' [= probably the {i}Tractatus de tutoribus et curatoribus{/i} 'Tutores dantur pupillis usque ad decimum quartum annum', with its appendices].
I presume that Chalmers wrote his digest in context with a Commission which had been constituted in May 1566 (once more) for the preparation of a 'body of law' [{i}= Corpus iuris{/i}], to consolidate all the extant texts of the domestic law. The Commission worked concurrently: it actually published in November of the same year 1566 a printed chronological consolidation of statutes from King James I to Queen Mary. The Commission's intentions in collecting material should have gone (and may actually have gone) far beyond that aim, because the Commission's task comprised the same full range of sources of law which also Chalmers used. Chalmers was a member of the Commission [see the appendix below: 'Printed: Statutes 1566', and there the Queen's command]. Chalmers boasted that he had left out no useful text, and that he had even included texts which - by then - had only retained a historical value. The range of sources which he had surveyed fully overlapped with the sources to be surveyed and consolidated by the Commission.
Chalmers must obviously have based his digest on a preparatory collection of material. One cannot write an alphabetised digest of law without collecting material for it beforehand. This means that either Chalmers may have used a preparatory collection of material which the Commission had brought together (and preceding Commissions?), or the Commission may have used the personal collection of Chalmers which he had brought together.
In theory, the Commission might have produced its 1566 printed edition of statutes (the 'Black Acts') by transcribing from the records of Parliament those entries which already Chalmers had listed. It would be interesting to verify this theory. It could also be the other way round: someone else could have compiled a task list for the forthcoming work of the Commission, thus enumerating statute texts to be transcribed, and David Chalmers could then have used that list to compile his alphabetised digest
Author(s):
No. of pages: Fol. 1r-207r
Rubric: [{i}Dedication, fol. 1r-2r{/i}] The epistle to the rycht excellent, rycht severe(?) and mychtie prence Marie be the grace of God Quene of Scottis, and dowarier of France, my soverane.
Zour maiesties maist humble subiect and servitor, maister David Chalmer, Chancellare of Ross, and ane of the senators of zour hienes College of Justice, wyschis all hours(?) prosperous regiment, vith solicitie. Calling to rememberance, my soverane, maist beneficiall to all (favoraris?) of wertew ... [{i}argument that one should not unnecessarily recur to the laws of the Roman emperors{/i}] sa lang as ony questioun occurrand can be decidit be ony wreittin lawes of statuttis sufficientlie, and be zour hienes or predecessors ar zit nocht abrogat, nocht zit be onny lovable consuetude or commoun practik ... [{i}To the extent that domestic Scottish rules of law exist, one should thus apply these domestic rules, rather than{/i}] quhatsumever way lawes maid be ony emprers or wther foregn prences. And persawand that ane greit pairt of the lawes and actis of this zour gret realme ar sa confusit and oft repeittit without ony or small augmentatioun or deminitioun, and als sic allegeance of contra(dicting?) practikis, that it is tedius and veray incertane at quhat grounds ony willing to haiff knawlage heirof sal begin. For thir causs, haweand respect that nane hes tane the panis (as zit cum to our knawlage) to put ony help heirto, I hawe tane the hardness according to my small wnderstanding and sobir jugement to extract ane schort compend and universall collectioun of all lawes, aktis, statuts and ordinances that hes beyn sen the first beginneing of ony kingis within this realme, als weill owt of the cronickillis as buikis of Maiestie and all uther continand the samyn, declarand breiflie the effect of tham and gadderand togidder all sic lawes as treittis of ane mater, schawand quhair sic sal be found at mair lenth, distributand tham in commoun places be ordour of the alphabet, adiunand thair in lyke maner the decisiounis and practikis diligentlie nottit be ane honourabill man Schir Richard Maitland of Lethingtoun, knycht, keipar of zour maiesties prewie seill and ane of the member of the said College of Justice. ... Commits zour hienes to the Omnipresent(?). At Edinburgh, the xxii. of Julii 1566.
[{i}Letter to the reader, fol. 3r:{/i}] To the redar. Sen it is manifest that all begining is hard and that it is mekle difficillar to invent nor to eik and augment it that is inventit, in consideratioun heirof I will maist ernestlie pray zow, guid redar, to tak this my small trawell in collecting this summair in guid pairt. And als that ze will supple according to zour guid jugement sic thing as ze find omittit and worthie to be adiunct, specialie to lerning the practikis. To the quhilk efter ewery commoune place ze zall find blank paper to insert the same. For I hawe left na acts nor statut that can be found in wreit before the dait heirof, or at the leist the principall effect of thame, oncitit. And albeit in respect of the imperfectioun and gret difference amangis the wreittin buikkis of the Maiestie and wtheris contenit in that wolume, ze find sum chaptoris wrang cottit [{i}= quoted{/i}], zit ze lukand the particular table af thame that ar maist correctit, ze will find the same. And suppois thair be ane greit pairt of the lawes or(?) uther grounds thairof collectit out of the cronickallis als out of the Maiestie and utheris that presentlie ar nocht in use, zit the knawlage thairof (mon?) necessar and worthie to be wnderstand, and will serff at the leist in place of ane histoir. And swa bydis zow fair weill. David(?) Chalmers(?) [={i}abbreviation, probably in lieu of signature{/i}]. Finis.
({i}Fol. 3v:{/i}) The declaratione of the abreviatiouns ... Nota that the four buikis of Maiestie ar cottit [{i}= quoted{/i}] all togidder and nocht seperatlie.
({i}Fol. 4r-14v:{/i}) The table schawand the leif of the begining of every common place and the contentis wnder the same ['{i}common places' = keywords. The entries 'Abbot' to 'Warrandice' were written by Chalmers, with many cross-references, and the last entry,'Zeiris', was added by David Gordoune{/i}].
({i}Fol. 14a-14b blank{/i}).
({i}Fol. 15r-207r, main text:{/i})
Incipit:
[{i}Last keywords:{/i}] Scheppis. Stallingeris, sleyaris of beistis of fowllis. Talloun. Theift. Tressone. Tutoris and the ordour thairof. Warrandis
Explicit:
Colophon: Finis quidem(?) David Gordoune