Tracts, legal and historical

179
they might be detrimental, as well as a rule in prac-
tice, this may be really carrying scepticism too far.
They were confirmed in Parliament as we have seen,
in the fifteenth century, and, indeed, at a much
earlier period, as is corroborated by an original
authority that is not alluded to by Lord Hailes. 1
In a petition or remonstrance, addressed to Alexan-
der III. by many of our Prelates, it is represented to
the Prince, that although those things " quae in ulti-
mo concilio apud Edinbrucht celebrato, vobis et mag-
natibus presentibus,ordinata fuerant, minimein scrip-
turam redacta," yet they could not believe that it
escaped the memory of his counsellors, " quod ec-
clesie, et earum prelati omnium jurium et libertatum
pacifica possessione gauderent quce tempore folicis
memorie Regis Alexandri patris vestri optinu-
eruntr 2 This was in reference to a conceived spolia-
tion by the laity of their elemosinary grants, with-
out the cognizance of their own body. Now, it is
remarkable that Lord Hailes has shewn that in the
reign of the last mentioned monarch — in 1242, there
was a Provincial Council held at Perth, where " no
1 In his Historical Memorials concerning our Provincial
Councils.
2 Among ancient and original deeds collected by Sir James
Balfour, Advocates' Library. It is without date — but, perhaps,
was written in 1269, when, as Lord Hailes observes, the people
and the clergy were at variance. Hist. Mem. ut supra, Annals,
Vol. iii. p. 217. His Lordship does not notice this last Council
held at Edinburgh in the reign of Alexander III.