[25] _E.g._ Wigton in 1342, and Sutherland in 1347. [26] Wallace, _op. cit._, p. 163. [27] Wallace, _op. cit._, p. 192, &c. [28] Robertson, _Hist. of Scotland_, App. iv. The claim is not based upon any constitutional right or theory. It is stated as a matter founded on common sense, and the efficacy of the petition lay in the support of those who had special reasons for desiring the presence of the smaller barons. The language of Randolph's letter shows how far the strictly legal position was from being understood. [29] _Foreign Calendar_, 19th Aug., 1560; Laing, _Knox_, vi. 116. [30] Cf. Innes, _Legal Antiquities_, p. 116. [31] _Charters of the Burgh of Aberdeen_, ed. P. J. Anderson; also in the Spalding Club edition of Gordon's _Description of Aberdeen_. [32] Innes, _op. cit._, p. 116. [33] _Acts_, vol. i. References to acts when no authority is quoted are always from the volumes of _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_. [34] _Acts_, i. 492. We have no reason for supposing that "proceres" included burgesses, as it is generally used in contradistinction to them. [35] "Plebanos, qui ad parliamentum non erunt, nec voluerint promittere interesse ibidem." [36] Although the burgesses had thus successfully asserted their right to a place in Parliament, the theory was not at once extended to the meetings known as conventions, which could impose taxes, and possessed every parliamentary power except that of passing general laws. In 1503 an act was passed, ordering that "commissioners and head men of burghs be warned" to attend conventions; but it had to be re-enacted in 1563, and even after that date it was not completely operative. Between 1566 (the first date of their recorded presence) and the end of the sixteenth century burgesses were present at only half of the conventions which were held. It is important to note that the royal burghs alone had parliamentary representation up to the year 1832. [37] We have no evidence that the Court of the Four Burghs was in any sense strictly representative. [38] The possible objection that a similar theory of burghal representation has been stated and rejected by English constitutional historians is scarcely applicable. For it is agreed that the idea of representation existed in England before the towns were summoned to Parliament, while in Scotland no such idea is traceable, nor are there any writs such as were issued for the English towns. It might even be argued that, in strict theory, there was no representation in Scotland till 1832; that commissioners both from shires and burghs only saved their fellows the trouble of attendance, the right to attend being, not _de facto_ but in ultimate theory, possessed by all who were entitled to vote. Such a statement is certainly true of the shire, at all events.