The past decade has witnessed an ongoing debate on how politics and government were conducted and understood in early modern Scotland. The field has benefited from new avenues of inquiry in examining how power was conceived, who wielded it, what various parties hoped to gain through participation in governance, and how cultural and ideological constructs affected the process. A new understanding of the importance of the Scottish parliament is emerging. It has been enhanced by the project at the University of St. Andrews to provide a digital version of the records of the Scottish parliament and a number of recent works and theses that have made important contributions to this growing literature. Alan MacDonald's outstanding examination of the urban estate's involvement in the early modern Scottish parliament continues this trend.

MacDonald's work is meticulously researched, deftly integrating the product of detailed labor in local burgh archives with the larger historiography both of the Scottish parliament and other early modern European parliaments and assemblies. The work flows nicely from an examination of how the power of urban representation in parliament was constructed and mediated to how that power was used by the burghs collectively and individually and what they sought from its exercise. MacDonald then transitions to an examination of what parliament meant, socially and culturally, to the burghs.

Throughout the work, the author draws attention to the role of the convention of burghs as a representative body that helped to define, advance, and defend the interests and privileges of the “mercantile interest group” that dominated the burgess estate in the Scottish parliament. The existence of the convention, along with the survival of its records for most of the period covered by this study, set Scotland apart as a coalescing state with a strong, cohesive urban representation. For example, MacDonald highlights the fact that it was the burghs themselves, acting through the convention, who controlled urban representation in parliament. The crown's elevation of a burgh to the status of a royal burgh did not automatically confer the right to send commissioners to parliament. Instead, the convention decided on who qualified as a “parliamentary burgh” based on the economic strength of aspiring corporations, thereby providing a mechanism to absorb dangerous rivals that might otherwise threaten their collective interests and privileges. Likewise, it was the convention that enforced the residency requirements and status as a “merchand traffiquer” that were used to restrict the common European practice of outsiders using urban seats in parliament to advance their own interests. The convention also mediated the power of Edinburgh, allowing it to lead the burghs rather than simply dominate them. The combination of self-interest and solidarity fostered by the convention ensured that burghs were keen to send commissioners to parliament even when they had nothing specific to gain for their home corporation. Parliament was one of the most important of many venues where collective action and support was seen to bring benefit. MacDonald's work explains why, in contrast to its southern counterpart, the Scottish parliament was, from the standpoint of the burghs, “useable” (107). Burghs could have a reasonable prospect of success in securing favorable legislation, and the relative affordability of the lobbying process meant that they were willing to try. The burghs may have usually steered clear of “political” matters in parliament, but the activities of the convention and their use of parliamentary statute to advance the causes that did matter to them played a role in the growth of “central” or “state” power in this period. While he is cautious about the extent of the process, MacDonald does a good job of using his research to engage the arguments of Julian Goodare on state formation in early modern Scotland.

MacDonald's chapters dealing with the unique status of Edinburgh among the burghs and its special role as the capital and usual host of the convention and parliament shift the focus from a utilitarian examination of the uses of parliament to an examination of how it was perceived and understood by contemporaries. The burghs, particularly Edinburgh, occupied a special place in the Scottish parliament by virtue of acting as hosts. The author argues that the status of the burghs as the “meynest of the estates” (189), and the least political, led to perceptions among all estates that burghs were able to provide a neutral space that was open (in more than one sense) for the business that was transacted in a parliament. Challenging the view that the new parliament house built in the 1630s was a symbol of aggressive royal power and control, MacDonald makes a persuasive case that its construction was a statement by Edinburgh, both for practical civic reasons and as an assertion of the capital's social and political status. A final chapter on status, precedence, and display in parliament underlines the importance of the institution as the theater for the burghs, like other estates, to assert and defend their social standing and importance.

The flaws in this book are superficial, involving the narrow chronological range of the work and the title. The author admits up front that the research required to extend the scope of the work to 1707, which would seem to be the natural end point of the study, would have taken many more years and defers it to others. His conclusions, however, do sketch out a story of the decline of the cohesiveness and power of the burgess estate in parliament between 1660 and 1707 and suggest that it would have offered an interesting counterpoint to the themes presented here. The title suggests that this is a narrow, institutional study of one estate in one assembly. This work is far more. It is an important examination of many histories, detailing the range of methods and venues through which Scotland's urban centers defined, asserted, and defended their interests and placing them in their broader European context.