Chapter X (1)

_The Social Condition of the Nation
in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries._

IN this chapter the social state of the people will be treated at length. The government and the administration of justice, the power of the nobles, and the condition of the tenants and labourers of the land, will be explained; the state of the burghs and towns; the habits, dress, and amusements of the people will be handled; the state of the Church, the religious sentiments of the people, and many other matters associated with the life of the people and the state of society, will be touched on.

A notice of the King’s Council and its function was given in a preceding chapter, and its relation to feudalism indicated. The Scotch parliament gradually arose from these meetings of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries which were frequently mentioned in preceding pages. One of the stipulations of the treaty of Brigham declared that no parliament should be held beyond the boundaries of the kingdom to treat on Scotch affairs. John Baliol held a meeting at Scone in 1293, and another at Stirling the same year, and both were called parliaments in the record. From this date the term parliament was freely applied to assemblies of a national and legislative character. A parliament met at Dunfermline on the 23rd of February 1296, and ratified the treaty between Baliol and the King of France; and the seals of four bishops, four monasteries, four earls, eleven barons, and six of the burghs, namely, Aberdeen, Perth, Stirling, Edinburgh, Roxburgh, and Berwick, were affixed to the treaty. Still, from the phraseology of the deed itself, it is uncertain whether the representatives of the burghs were actually present, and voted in parliament, as their consent might have been obtained in some other way.¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., pages
89‒97. On the 29th of March 1298, William Wallace, Guardian
of the kingdom of Scotland, in the name of King John, and
the consent of the community, granted a charter to Alexander
Scrymgeour, conferring on him and his heirs the office of
hereditary Constable of Dundee.

Robert Bruce held a parliament at St. Andrews on the 16th of March 1308, in which a letter to the King of France was dictated. The parties consenting to the document were styled earls, communities of all the earldoms of the kingdom, Edward Bruce of Galloway, James, the Steward of Scotland, Alexander of Argyle, Donald of the Isles, Robert Keith, Mareschal of Scotland, and other barons, and also the barons of Argyle and Torchegall, and the whole inhabitants of the kingdom. In November 1314 Bruce assembled a parliament at Cambuskenneth, in which the bishops, earls, barons, and others of the nobility, but not all the communities of the kingdom, were present. In the parliament held at Ayr in 1315, the heads of communities affixed their seals to a deed; and the parliament which met at Scone in December 1318, settled the succession to the throne, and also passed a number of other Acts. The record stated that these were enacted “by the counsel and the express consent of the bishops, abbots, priors, earls, barons, and the whole community of the kingdom in our full parliament held at Scone.” Still it may be doubted if the representatives of the burghs were actually present as in a parliament, or gave their consent by voting in any of the meetings noticed above. But in the parliament which met at Cambuskenneth on the 15th of July 1326, there is clear evidence that the burgesses sat with the earls, barons, and free tenants. This parliament voted a supply to meet the expenses of the War of Independence. It was then resolved that owing to the diminished value of the Crown lands and revenues, as the result of the war, a tenth penny should be granted to the King out of all the rents, to be computed, except in some cases of extreme devastation, according to the old extent of the reign of Alexander III. From this date onward the representatives of the burghs usually sat in full parliaments, and were recognised as a constituent branch of the great legislative and supreme assembly of the nation.¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., pages
91‒127, _et seq._

It is necessary to observe further, in reference to the occurrence in the national records in times anterior to the period under review, of such expressions as “with the consent of the people,” “with the consent of the community,” “with the consent and assent of all the people of the kingdom,” that such phrases were not always, or even usually, devoid of historic reality, truth, and value. Although the great body of the people were not represented in the King’s council, in parliament, or in any other legally specified form, still the voice and consent of the people in reference to great undertakings, and the sanction of important matters, was frequently sought and obtained by the supreme heads of the kingdom from an early period. In preceding chapters many indications have been incidentally mentioned as to how the voice and consent of the people was obtained; as, for instance, when the people assembled at the coronations of the Kings on the Mote Hill of Scone. On such occasions the assembled multitude gave their “consent and assent” to the inauguration of the Kings as their lawful and rightful rulers. At the election of bishops, and other public officials in early times “the consent and assent” of the people was sought and given in a similar way. When Robert II. obtained the solemn sanction of parliament to his settlement of the succession to the throne of Scotland in the male line, in 1373, was he then satisfied with this sanction? No; for it has been already stated, in a preceding chapter, that immediately after the sanction of parliament was given and completed “the whole multitude of the clergy and the people in the church of Scone before the great altar, being specially convened for the purpose, the aforesaid declaration, ordinance, and statute, thus sworn (in parliament) being explained to them in a loud and public voice, each raising his hand, after the manner of faith-giving, in token of the universal consent of the whole clergy and people, publicly expressed and declared their consent and assent.”¹ This mode of obtaining the “consent and assent of the people” to a great and important national matter was not an innovation of the first Stuart king, it was simply a revival of a customary manner in which the people had sanctioned, and given their “consent and assent” to public matters associated with government for probably thousands of years before the period of parliaments.

¹ See under page 315.

During the minority of David II. few records of the parliaments which assembled have been preserved; but, after his return from captivity, several rolls of the parliamentary proceedings of the later part of his reign still exist. From its origin onward the Scotch parliament assumed and exercised the functions of a Supreme Court of appeal and review. It seems to have extended its power considerably in the reign of David II. Parliament then treated the details of the administration of justice, the coinage and the currency of the kingdom; and it assumed the power and right to dictate terms of peace with foreign kingdoms; and directly controlled the King himself in his expenditure. This had become necessary owing to the character of the King, and his intention to degrade and extinguish the independence of the nation, as was shown by an enactment passed in a parliament held at Scone in 1367――“that no officer should put in execution any royal warrant against the statutes and common form of law.”

In the fourteenth century small barons and free tenants considered that it was a great hardship to have to attend parliament. As yet there was no regular representation. From this reluctance to give attendance, some of the peculiarities of the Scotch parliament, and the mode of conducting business in it, originated. In a parliament held at Scone in September 1367, it was stated that, as it was autumn, and inconvenient for many of the members to remain in attendance, a certain number of persons were elected to hold the parliament, and the rest were permitted to return home. The following year parliament assembled at Perth in March, and owing to the inconvenience of the season and the dearness of provisions, certain persons were elected to hold the parliament, and they were divided into two committees, one to treat on the general affairs of the nation, and a smaller one to sit on appeals from the inferior courts. At another parliament, held in 1369 at Perth, two committees were appointed, one to deal with appeals, questions, and quarrels, which ought to be decided in parliament, and the other to treat on special and secret affairs relating to the King and the kingdom, previous to their being placed before the full parliament, as it was inexpedient that the whole body should assist at a deliberation of this character or be kept in attendance. In these arrangements the origin of two peculiarities of the Scotch parliament clearly appears, namely, the institution known under the name of “The Lords of the Articles,” and “The Judicial Committee of Parliament.”

There was little constitutional development during the reigns of the first two kings of the Stuart line. The statute passed in the reign of Robert III., which threw on the King and his officers the responsibility for the misgovernment of the kingdom, was noticed in a preceding chapter. In 1427 James I. attempted to introduce a form of representation of the small freeholders, but the act was totally ineffectual, as no representatives were actually returned to parliament; while Acts continued to be passed for upwards of a century to relieve the small barons from attendance at parliament. In 1457 it was enacted that no freeholder, who holds of the King under the value of £20, should be constrained to attend in parliament or a general council. Again, in 1503, an enactment was passed which declared that no man should “be compelled to come personally to parliament whose lands were valued under one hundred marks.” There was no regular form of representation of the small barons and freeholders in parliament till 1587.

Originally each of the royal burghs had to send at least two representatives to parliament, but the number of burgh members who actually attended was unusually small. The great officers of the Crown had a seat in parliament in virtue of their offices. The members of the Scotch parliament all sat and voted in one house. But there was a body called the ‘Lords of the Articles,’ which originated in the latter years of the reign of David II., as indicated above. At first they seem to have been elected to deal with special matters, but they soon obtained the initiative of all measures and the management of parliamentary business. The mode of electing the Lords of the Articles seems to have been thus:――The clergy elected a certain number from their own body, the nobles in like manner, and also the representatives of the burghs, and the great officers of the Crown were entitled to act among the Lords of the Articles in virtue of their offices. This body usually arranged and prepared all the acts and measures, which were then brought before the full parliament, and at once voted and passed, without debate or deliberation.

As stated in a preceding chapter, James I. made an attempt to establish a court of supreme civil jurisdiction; and in 1457, parliament enacted “that the Lords of the Session should sit thrice every year, and each time for forty days in these three places, Edinburgh, Perth, and Aberdeen, and that nine persons should sit, three from each estate.” In 1503 parliament announced that “there had been a great confusion of summons at each session, as there was no time to bring them to an issue and ending, therefore it was statuted, that a council should be chosen by the King which should sit continually in Edinburgh, or where the King resides, or where he thinks fit, to decide all manner of summons in civil matters and causes daily as shall happen to occur; and should have the same power as the Lords of Session.” These attempts entirely failed, and parliament continued to appoint its own Judicial Committee, who exercised the functions of a court of appeal, and also decided causes in the first instance; their jurisdiction was similar to that of the King’s Council. In 1467 parliament ordered that “all summons and causes which were left undecided in this parliament, should be decided before the Lords of the Council;” and causes which commenced in the one court were sometimes disposed of in the other. The proceedings of the Judicial Committee for the period from 1466 to 1494 have been printed, and also the judicial proceedings of the Lords of Council from 1478 to 1495. These books are the earliest body of recorded law cases which have been preserved in Scotland, and contain valuable historical materials. Trial by jury was a characteristic of these courts. Although the mode of taking evidence was crude, and testimony was admitted on a principle not admissible now, still there was a striking improvement as compared with the trial by ordeal and the processes of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The functions of both these judicial bodies were merged in the Court of Session established in the reign of James V.

In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries the courts of the Church monopolised a large portion of the civil business of the kingdom. The Consistorial Courts of St. Andrews, Galloway, Edinburgh, and others, had a great mass of legal business to execute. Their jurisdiction embraced all cases of legitimacy and divorce; the large class of cases connected with wills and executory; the affairs of widows and orphans; questions of slander, and disputes arising on contracts, if they had been sanctioned by an oath. The Consistorial Courts professed to take care of the affairs of the poor, and those who were unable to pay for the advice and assistance of lawyers, but contemporary literature does not give them much credit for the performance of this part of their duty.¹

¹ Henryson’s _Poems_, pages 148‒152. Laing’s Edition, 1865.

Owing to the introduction of Norman Feudalism and an extraneous nobility, from the beginning of the reign of David I. to the reign of Alexander III., the greater part of the land of the kingdom changed owners. David I. and his two grandsons bestowed lands on these extraneous nobles profusely, which entailed a legacy of enormous evil upon the nation, and created a disorderly condition of society. These Normans, mainly through their craft in forming marriage contracts, obtained possession of extensive territories and rose to influence and power; and at last they claimed the Crown and kingdom of Scotland. They then sold the independence of this Crown and kingdom without “the consent or assent of the people.” The invasion of the kingdom and the War of Independence ensued.

From the commencement of the War of Independence to the middle of the fourteenth century, the greater part of the land in the country changed owners three or four times. A number of those Norman nobles who sold the independence of the kingdom, and aided Edward I., II., and III., in their invasions of Scotland, at last forfeited their possessions in Scotland. Robert Bruce was the first Scotch king since the reign of Malcolm III., who discovered that no Norman noble could ride upon two horses at once running in opposite directions. The result of this was that Robert I. disinherited the Baliols, the Comyns, and many others; and then conferred their forfeited possessions on his own supporters, who had assisted him to recover the kingdom from the enemy. In this way a considerable number of the small families of gentry were raised to wealth, power, and influence; and amongst these were the Douglasses, Gordons, Lindsays, Campbells, Hays, and many other families. But unhappily Robert I. made no effort to limit the feudal power and the privileges of the nobles in relation to the land and the people; on the contrary, he rather extended their powers in these directions. He not only gave his nephew, Thomas Randolph, the earldom of Moray with the usual rights and privileges, but also conferred on him the burghs of Elgin, Forres, and Nairn, the customs of Inverness, the burgh of Lochmaben, extensive estates in the sheriffdoms of Dumfries and Berwick, and the island of Man. Bruce also gave the town of Cromarty to the Earl of Ross.¹

¹ _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volume I.

Although Bruce during his own reign kept his nobles in restraint, owing to his success, yet in the reign of his son, David II., they greatly extended their power; while the weak reigns of Robert II., and Robert III., afforded the nobles many opportunities of extending their power, which they eagerly embraced; and ere the end of the fourteenth century they had attained to a position incompatible with any form of settled government. When two or three of the chief nobles united, they were more than a match for the King, and they often strengthened themselves in this way. They entered into bonds and leagues, by which individual nobles or families bound themselves to take part in the causes and quarrels of each other; and this reacted in the most disastrous way upon the social state of the nation. These bonds and leagues became so universal in the fifteenth century and the first half of the sixteenth, that there ♦was scarcely a man in Scotland, above the rank of the smallest landholder, who was not bound in one or more of these private leagues. Such bonds were always confirmed by the oaths of the parties. The marriage alliances between families were also usually accompanied by a bond, obliging the parties to assist each other in “all their actions, causes, and quarrels, moved and to be moved, with their persons, goods, fortunes, castles, kin, men, and friends; and all that will do for them, contra and against all men that live and die may, their allegiance to our lord, the King, except.” Thus powerful nobles who held bonds from a host of other nobles and barons sworn to take part in all their quarrels, were not likely to appeal to the ordinary courts of law for justice, when they could more effectively secure what they desired by force. So the King often found it necessary to suspend and to forbid the holding of courts, in order to prevent hostile collisions and bloodshed between rival barons and their armed vassals and sworn adherents. In July 1474 the King sent letters to the Earl of Buchan and the Lord Oliphant commanding them to stay their muster for the court of Forfar; it appears that they disobeyed the King, and the muster issued in bloodshed. Such collisions were a common enough occurrence. Parliament in 1478 had under consideration the administration of justice throughout the kingdom; and it was then resolved that immediate steps should be taken to remedy the great breaches which existed in various parts of the kingdom; and ♠especially in Angus, between the Earl of Buchan and the Earl of Erroll and their parties; and in like manner between the Master of Crawford and the Lord of ♣Glamis and their parties; and in Nithsdale and Annandale between Lord ♥Caerlaverock and the Laird of Drumlanrig; and the great struggle raging in Caithness, Ross, and Sutherland, and in other quarters of the kingdom.¹

♦ “were” replaced with “was”

♠ “especi-” replaced with “especially”

♣ “Glammis” replaced with “Glamis”

♥ “Caerlaverok” replaced with “Caerlaverock”

¹ _Accounts of the Lord High Treasurer of Scotland_, Volume I.;
_Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages 16,
122; _Miscellany of the Old Spalding Club_, Volumes II., IV.

The right which earls possessed of granting charters to their vassals within the territories of the earldoms, gave them an enormous power over the people; and as mentioned in a preceding page, Robert I. rather extended the feudal rights and powers of the nobles than limited them in any way. But James I. clearly saw and realised that Norman Feudalism contained in itself the essence of anarchy, and that no effective government could be established while the nobles had such feudal rights, and local power over the people. He therefore immediately proceeded to act, and attempted to reduce the rights and the power of the nobles; but these were too deeply rooted to be summarily extinguished, and in spite of his exceptional abilities, his great energy, and his utmost efforts, he soon fell a victim to their revenge. The attempts of James II., James III., James IV. and James V., to restrain the lawless anarchy and the oppression of the feudal nobles all proved equally unavailing; and their power and turbulence continued to rage unabated till past the Reformation period.

In the later part of the fourteenth century and the first quarter of the fifteenth, the social state of the nation was deplorable, the great nobles oppressing the poor people, and murders, robberies, and other heinous crimes were committed with impunity. On the most frivolous pretences, tenants were evicted from their holdings, and the labourers from their cottages. Parliament tried to check this, and in 1401 it was enacted that such resumptions of holdings by the overlord should be null, unless lawful cause was shown; and it was provided that evicted tenants should not lose their right to their lands till after the lapse of a year, if they repledged them within forty days. It appears that the overlords often expelled their vassals by force, and in this way the nobles were enabled to accommodate their own sworn adherents, and to crush all those within their territories who may have declined to join in their projects, quarrels, and lawless proceedings. Thirty years later, James I. simply requested the barons and bishops not to remove the husbandmen and labourers suddenly from their lands if they had leases. In 1449 parliament passed an act which aimed at giving more security to the tenants, but it was not carried into effect. Parliament in 1457 passed a statute which allowed lands to be let on feu-tenure, free from military service; and the Act enjoined that the King should show an example to the nobles, the bishops, and freeholders, by feuing the Crown lands. In 1491 it was enacted that when land changed owners, the tenants, labourers, and the inhabitants should not be removed before the ensuing Whitsunday. At the terms of Martinmas and Whitsunday there were always much poinding of the goods and effects of the tenants for their rents, and a great commotion of “outcasting and incasting among the tenantry all over the country.”

Even the small class of landed proprietors within the earldoms and great free baronies of the kingdom were bound hand and foot to the policy and service of their overlords. The baron always had the power to expel and disinherit a refractory vassal, on the ground that he had failed to render the proper feudal services to his lord. The overlord might also raise a plea that his vassal was not the lawful heir, and on that ground turn him out of his home and land. Much injustice was inflicted upon the tenants and the inhabitants of the kingdom by the action of the creditors of the nobles. When these exalted personages fell into debt then their creditors sued for briefs of distress, obtained judgments against them, and immediately seized the property of the lord’s tenants. By such processes the tenants were often totally ruined. In 1469 parliament passed a measure which attempted to remedy this injustice, and it was then declared that the poor tenants should not be held liable for more than the amount of their rent due to the lord. If the debt exceeded the rents, then the creditor could have recourse to the other goods of the debtor, and if he had no other property but his land, the land itself might be sold to pay his debt. But the debtor retained the right to reclaim his land from the purchaser at any time within seven years, if he paid the same price as it had been sold for. This Act had little or no effect in the fifteenth century, although subsequently when the power of the nobles began to wane it came into operation. Such were the relations between the feudal aristocracy and the occupiers and tillers of the land, as presented in the national records.¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., pages
208‒214, 217; Volume II., pages 17, 35, 225, 49, 96,
213, 248‒255, 286, 288, 367‒369; _Registrum Episcopatus
Moraviensis_, page 382.

The occupiers of the land and the people generally were severely oppressed by the nobles and their retinues travelling through the country; as the nobles, accompanied by a train of retainers, were in the habit of living at free quarters on the husbandmen and the inferior clergy, and thus consumed and often destroyed the crops and grass, and any store of grain which these people possessed. Acts of Parliament were repeatedly passed, with the object of checking and limiting this form of oppression, but they failed to remedy the evil. Indeed, so inveterate was the custom among the nobles of living on the produce of the people as they passed through the country with their hosts of followers, that in 1499 parliament found it necessary to enact and command, “that all the officials and officers holding courts throughout the kingdom, should ride with a small company only, in order that the people might not be so grievously oppressed.” At the same time the coroners were ordered to cease from taking the twopence of unlawful fee from those who had immediately paid their bail. The oppression of the people by the nobles, the Crown officers, and the entire organisation of Norman feudalism, resulted in the infliction of enormous suffering upon the people of Scotland. Contemporary literature as well as the national records presents evidence of the oppressive character of feudalism and the Scotch nobles. Bower, who wrote in the reign of James II., presents a frightful picture of the state of the nation, from which I quote the following:――“Confounded as we are with daily tyranny, oppressed with rapine, spoil, and tribulation.... The groans of the humble, and the miseries of the poor, whom I myself who write this, have seen this very day in my own neighbourhood――stripped of their garments, and inhumanely despoiled of their domestic utensils, constrains one to exclaim with him who says, ‘I have seen the injuries which are done, the tears of the innocent, the helpless and the destitute, who cannot resist violence, and have none to comfort them.’ I have praised the dead more than the living, and happier than both have I esteemed the unborn, the sole strangers to the evils of this world.”¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., II.;
_Scotichronicon_, Volume II., page 473.

Robert Henryson, the poet, who wrote in the latter part of the fifteenth century, frequently alludes to the state of society. His writings indicate very clearly that the husbandmen and tenants were grievously oppressed by their lords.¹

¹ Henryson’s _Poems_, pages 37, 152, 201, 214, 215.

Under the conditions indicated in the preceding page, agriculture could not have been in a satisfactory state. In the fourteenth century a large part of the best land of the country had been so much exposed to the ravages of war, that some portions of the cultivated lands returned to its natural state. After the return of James I., parliament passed various acts relating to husbandry. In 1425 it was ordered that every man who reasonably was a labourer, should either become the half owner of an ox in the plough, or dig a plot of land seven feet square every day. The following year, it was enjoined that every farmer in the kingdom who possessed a plough of eight oxen, should every year sow a firlot of wheat, half a firlot of pease, and forty beans, under a penalty of ten shillings. And in his reign, Acts were passed for the protection of growing crops, the destruction of wolves, and rooks. In 1457 all the freeholders of the kingdom were ordered to make a provision in their leases that their tenants should plant wood, make hedges, and sow broom in the most suitable places; and that no one should make enclosures of dry sticks or dressed wood, but only of living plants, that wood might grow and become plentiful in the country.¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages
6‒16, 51.

The Crown lands were extensive in the fifteenth century. In the reign of James II., the Crown had lands in the neighbourhood of Edinburgh, including Ballincreiff and Gosford. In the vicinity of Linlithgow, the royal possessions around the palace were called the King’s acres, and certain lands in the barony of Houston; and the rents of which amounted in 1457 to £140 17s. 8d., with one chalder of barley, one of oats, two dozen of hens, and two dozen of young cocks. The rents of the Crown lands lying around the castle of Stirling, and in Stirlingshire in 1455, amounted to £184 19s., with two dozen of salmon. The Earldom of Fife fell to the Crown in 1425 on the forfeiture of the Duke of Albany; and in 1457 the gross money rent was £560 12s. 7d., thirty-five chalders and three bolls of wheat, sixty-two chalders and three bolls of barley, forty-six chalders and three bolls of oats, and two bolls of oatmeal. In the year 1451, four hundred and seventy-one young cocks, and one hundred and four geese, formed a part of the rental of this earldom. The Earldom of Monteith also fell to the Crown on the execution and forfeiture of the Albany family in the reign of James I., and the King retained the greater part of the lands of the earldom in his own hands. For the year 1451 the money rental of the earldom amounted to £351 12s. 8d., and thirty-four chalders of oats, twenty-four chalders and seven bolls of oatmeal, two chalders and two bolls of barley, thirty-four sheep, sixty poultry, and one hundred and forty salmon. The Earldom of Strathern was in the Crown, and in the latter years of the reign of James II., its gross money rental annually ran from £316 to £461. The Earldom of Athole was forfeited to the Crown by the treason of Walter Stuart in 1437, and its money rental for the year 1450 amounted to £139 13s. 4d. James II. granted this earldom to Sir John Stewart of Balveny in 1457. A large portion of Perthshire was in the possession of James II., including the lands of Methven, which extended to the south and west of the town of Perth; the barony of Strathbraan, which commenced at Dunkeld, and included Logiealmond, and extended by Crief to Innerpeffry; and at Loch Fruchy, in the upper reach of the strath, the King had a hunting lodge. In 1455 the gross money rental of Methven was £120 8s. 4d., three chalders and eight bolls of meal, and nine dozen of poultry, while the money rental of Strathbraan was £46. The Crown had many other lands in Perthshire, the lordship of Strathurd, Glenlyon, Fothergill and others. In Forfarshire, the lordship of Brechin, and other lands; and farther north, Aberluthnot, Fettercairn, and Kincardine, were in the possession of the Crown. It was stated in a preceding chapter that James I. annexed the Earldom of Mar to the Crown, which then comprised nearly a half of the county of Aberdeen, and the family of Erskine claimed it; but it seems to have been a disputed possession between the Crown and Lord Erskine; and in 1459 James II. granted the Earldom of Mar to his own youngest son, John, then an infant. He died in the castle of Craigmillar, and the third son of James III., John, was created Earl of Mar in 1486. The gross money rental of the Earldom of Mar for the year 1459 was £396 10s., with thirty head of cattle, for each of which 5s. was allowed, and two chalders and four bolls of “custom oats,” for each boll of which 4d. was allowed. After the Douglas forfeitures, the rents of the thanage of Kintore fell to the Crown; and amongst the other Crown lands between the Dee and the Spey were a portion of Badenoch, which fell to the Crown on the death of Alexander, Earl of Buchan, in 1349, and the money rental of which for the year 1455 was £20. But the forfeiture of the Douglas tribe brought to the Crown the lands of Balveny, Boharm, and Botriphnie, which had belonged to John Douglas, and the annual money rental of these lands as given in the records vary from £25 to £73, with seventeen cattle and the same number of sheep. In the same locality, Kininmont, Buchromb, and the half of Clunymore, had fallen to the Crown through the illegitimacy of David Garden, proved by a jury at Aberdeen in the reign of James I. These lands were conferred in liferent on Sir William Forbes of Kinaldy, and subsequently occupied by the Earl of Huntly.

The Crown lands beyond the Spey were chiefly in the Earldom of Moray. Farther northward, in the region between the Moray and Cromarty Firths, called the Black Isle, also including Dunscathe on the north side of the Ferry of Cromarty, is usually referred to in the records as ♦Ardmannoch, and sometimes Avach and Eddirdule. This district belonged to the historic Sir Andrew Moray of Bothwell; but in 1362, Archibald, Lord of Galloway, afterwards third Earl of Douglas, married Joan Moray, widow of Thomas Moray, and through her the lands of Avach and Bothwell passed to the Douglas family. Hugh Douglas derived his title of Earl from the castle of Avach, on the moot hill of Ormond near Castletown Point, on the Bay of Munlochy. The gross rental of the lands of Ardmannoch for the year 1460 was £172 15s. 8d., with ten chalders and nine bolls of barley, and ten chalders and nine bolls of oatmeal, twelve cattle and twelve sheep.

♦ “Ardmannock” replaced with “Ardmannoch”

One third of Duffus was another portion of the lands forfeited by Douglas Earl of Ormond, and its rental in 1458 was £24, with eight chalders of barley, one chalder and ten bolls of malt, one chalder and ten bolls of oatmeal, three cattle and three sheep. Strathdearn or the valley of the Findhorn, and Petty and Brachly lying along the shores of the Beauly Firth, were forfeited to the Crown by John Douglas of Balveny. The money rent of Strathdearn in 1460 was £53 6s. 8d. The rental of Petty and Brachly was £80 6s. 8d., with ten cattle and ten sheep. In 1456 these lands were in the occupation of the M‘Intoshes. The Crown held the lands of Bonach and Bannachare, lying to the westward of Inverness and beyond the river Ness; and the barony and castle of Urquhart with Glenmoriston lying on the west side of Loch Ness; but in 1455, this barony, castle, and Glenmoriston, were conferred in liferent on John Earl of Ross and Lord of the Isles.

The Earldom of March was in the possession of the Crown from 1434 till 1455, when James II. conferred it on his infant son, Alexander, afterwards Duke of Albany. The gross rents of the lands of the earldom were sometimes returned as over £570. The lordship of Stewartown, in Ayrshire, fell to the Crown at the time of the Douglas forfeitures. In 1457 the rental of this lordship was £127 13s. 4d., and two chalders and eight bolls of meal. The islands of Bute and Arran were in the hands of the Crown. In the reign of James II. both these islands were in the occupation of kindly tenants or rentallers. The money rental of Bute was £141 18s. 6d., which included £40 from the burgh of Rothesay, and in addition to this one boll of barley was paid for every mark of money rent. Each tenant had also to give one mart for every five marks of rent due by him, and these marts were valued at 5s. In the reign of James IV. these tenants were converted into feuars, and they and their descendants came subsequently to be popularly known as “the barons of Bute.”

The annual money rent of Arran was £56 18s. 8d., with barley and cattle as in Bute. The slate quarries of Bute were worked, and in 1445 11s. 10d. was paid for 13,000 slates, which were sent to Dumbarton to repair the King’s castle. A passenger boat then plied between Bute and Cowal, and the ferryman for some time received a boll of barley yearly from the Crown. It appears that Arran was in a more unsettled state than Bute, and in the former the King’s rents were not regularly paid. The shores of Arran supplied the King’s household with the fish, called in the records “mullones,” large quantities of which were bought at two shillings a dozen.¹

¹ _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volume V., Volume VI. 1883.

In the preceding paragraphs the principal, though not the whole, of the Crown lands have been indicated. It appears that in the fifteenth century a considerable portion of land rent was still paid in produce. In the reign of James IV. the Crown lands were fully as extensive as in the reign of James II.

The Crown lands were mostly in the hands of farmers, who held varying portions of land for payment in money and produce, under leases which were renewed from time to time; and kindly tenants or rentallers, who enjoyed a certain fixity of tenure, which, however, depended on the current of national events, emergencies, and circumstance; in other words, the success of the King’s government or the reverse. But, on the whole, it may be fairly assumed that the farmers and the kindly tenants on the Crown lands were in a more favourable position than the same classes on the lands of the nobles. The kings retained small portions of Crown lands in their own hands, which were cultivated by their own agricultural labourers.

The tenants on the church lands probably held their lands under somewhat easier terms than tenants on the estates of the nobles. All the bishoprics and the great monasteries possessed extensive lands; for instance, the see of Moray had eight baronies, namely, Spynie, Keith, Rafford, Birnie, Kynneder, Strathspey, Fothirface, and Kilmiles.

Touching the condition of the actual labourers and tillers of the soil, it was stated in a preceding chapter that this work was chiefly done by bondmen and serfs. And farther, it was historically maintained that these servile classes were mainly created in Scotland by Norman feudalism in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. It was shown that serfs were actually bought and sold, and that they could be reclaimed by their owners like strayed cattle or sheep. The bondmen and serfs were numerous in the thirteenth century, but they became less numerous in the fourteenth, and disappeared before the end of the fifteenth century. What were the causes of their disappearance? No Act of Parliament nor canon of the Church ever proclaimed their emancipation; on the contrary, parliament and the civil law supported the institution of serfdom by written enactments and the decisions of the courts; while the Church appears to have possessed a large number of serfs, and was exceedingly careful in tracing and keeping records of their descent. Indeed, the last case of claiming serfs which occurred in Scotland, so far as known, was in 1364, when the Bishop of Moray, before the Sheriff of Banffshire and a jury, obtained a verdict finding that two men were his natives and property.¹ Thus it is obvious that the extinction of serfdom was not effected by the Church or Parliament.

¹ _Registrum Episcopatus Moraviensis_, page 161.

The only series of events and social phenomena which contributed to the emancipation of the serfs were those connected with the War of Independence. When Edward I. conceived his scheme to conquer Scotland, he thought that when he obtained the homage and submission of the Scotch nobles, knights, landowners, clergy, and the magistrates and heads of the burgh communities, then his object would be easily accomplished. The mighty Lord Paramount would have disdained to look at a labourer, a bondman, or serf, or accept homage from them, and yet they were men perhaps as good, if not better, than himself. Edward, however, ran his course on his own lines, while the labourers, bondmen, and serfs ran theirs with more success than he ever achieved in Scotland. When William Wallace and Sir Andrew Moray crossed the Tay for the purpose of recruiting and organising an army in the region lying between the river Ness and the Tay, where the army which fought and won the battle of Stirling Bridge was solely raised, it may be fairly assumed that whenever a suitable man presented himself to the patriots, they never asked him whether he were a serf or not. Then, after the war had continued for some time, and nobles and churchmen who had renounced their allegiance to Edward I. were seized and imprisoned, and their lands often given to Englishmen, the bondmen and serfs would have had many opportunities of escaping and going wherever they thought fit. As the struggle proceeded, lands all over the country fell into the hands of new owners, which again in a short time were seized and the ownership changed. This process continued, with short intervals, for half a century, and by that time the institution of serfdom was broken up, and beyond restitution. Thus the emancipation of the bondmen and the serfs was an effect of the War of Independence――an effect rendered more effectual by many of the class in question taking an active part in the struggle themselves. Subsequently we learn from the Acts of Parliament in the reign of James I., and succeeding reigns that some of the serfs became labourers and tilled pieces of land, as indicated in the Act of 1425, which was referred to in a preceding page, while others found employment in the towns at various kinds of work, and ultimately the servile class became merged in the society of the nation and disappeared as a separate class.

Although the burgh communities suffered severely from the War of Independence, they recovered from its desolating effects wonderfully well. Having regard to locality, external and surrounding circumstances, the towns of Scotland may be historically treated in three groups, namely, the Border burghs, those in the northern quarter, and those in the centre of the kingdom.

The Border burghs comprised Berwick, Roxburgh, Jedburgh, Dumfries, Dunbar, Kelso, Peebles, and a few others. These towns were exposed to the first brunt of war throughout the long struggle between England and Scotland, and to the harassing and desolating effects of the constantly recurring raids on the marches. This tended to engender many strongly marked features of character and habits amongst the people of the Borders, which were manifested in acts of daring, tragic deeds, and many touching and romantic incidents.

Berwick was a place of habitation in far-gone ages, and a centre of industry long before the period of record. In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries it was the chief mart of traffic in Scotland; but the town was desolated and its citizens massacred by Edward I. The town never recovered its former trading pre-eminence. In 1327 the customs of Berwick amounted to £673, and in 1331 it was £549. Two years after Berwick fell into the hands of the English, and although it was retaken several times by the Scots, it was not permanently retained by Scotland.¹

¹ _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volume I.

Roxburgh was an early site of habitation, and it had some trade and wealth from an early period; but in the period under review the importance of the town mainly arose from its strong castle, which was a good defensive position. Still the burgh had its craftsmen, mills, markets, and fishings; and in 1327 its rent to the Crown was £20. It was the scene of many contests between the English and the Scots. In the fourteenth century the town was much injured by the war. It was repeatedly taken by the English, and retaken by the Scots, but in the reign of David II. the castle fell into the hands of the English, and they occupied it till 1460, when it was captured by the Scots, who then razed the castle to the ground; and the town itself has long since disappeared.

The town of Dunbar lies on the south-east border of Scotland, and throughout this period its strong castle rendered the town an important position, and in fact it was the key to that quarter of the kingdom. In 1338 the castle of Dunbar stood a memorable siege, when Black Agnes, the Countess of March, a daughter of Randolph Earl of Moray, heroically defended it for five months against the English army, and ultimately forced the enemy to raise the siege. In the latter half of the fourteenth century Dunbar had a considerable trade, chiefly in wool, the customs on which in 1378 amounted to £139; but in the succeeding century its trade seems to have fallen off.

Jedburgh rose into importance from its castle and its monastery. Subsequently it was occasionally the mustering place of the Scottish army; and the justiciary’s courts for that quarter of the kingdom were often held there. In 1320 Robert I. granted to Sir James Douglas the market, town, castle, forest, and mains, of Jedburgh, and in the following year this was confirmed, along with other grants, to Douglas. Jedburgh and its castle fell into the hands of the English early in the reign of David II., and they held it for upwards of half a century, being only finally expelled from it in 1409. The following year the English burned the town. In 1416 and 1466 it was also destroyed by fire.

The men of Jedburgh and the forest in its vicinity were well inured to war and brave in battle. They were engaged in most of the raids across the Border; their special weapon was the Jedburgh staff, manufactured in the town, which was four feet long, with a steel head. Their war-cry was “Jeddards here,” and their onset was not easily withstood. The town has passed through many viscissitudes, and is associated with many interesting historic events and incidents.

The burgh of Dumfries has many historic associations which cannot be detailed in this work. The burgh had a royal castle in the thirteenth century. In 1288 the Crown rents of the burgh amounted to £20, and in 1330 these crown rents were £30, but at the later date the customs of the burgh were only £4; being an inland town it had not much trade. At the end of the fifteenth century the burgh paid to the Crown a sum of about £20 annually by feu-charter in lieu of rents. In the fifteenth century the Maxwells became the leading family in the Dumfries district, and attained a commanding influence in the affairs of the burgh, as will subsequently appear.

The town of Kelso attained some note owing to its rich monastery. William of Dalgarnock, Abbot of Kelso, accompanied the young prince, David II., to France as his preceptor.

Peebles was created a royal burgh in the reign of David I.; and it became a favourite residence of the Kings. Charters of David I., Malcolm IV., William the Lion, Alexander II., and Edward I., were dated at Peebles. In the fourteenth century the town and castle became a kind of border garrison, as an outpost of Edinburgh. The Crown rents of Peebles for the year 1327 were £23 6s. 8d., and in 1343 these rents were £12 13s. 4d. In 1460 the burgh of Peebles gave a contribution of £38 17s. 8d. toward the payment of the King’s ransom. David II. granted to John Gray, Clerk of the Rolls, all the rents and issues of the burgh for life, except the issues of the Chamberlain’s court. In 1398 the Crown rents of Peebles were let by lease of Sir William Stewart of Jedburgh to the bailies for an annual sum of £2 13s. 4d., and £6 13s. 4d. for the burgh mills, making a total sum of £9 6s. 8d. The burgh fell into arrears, and in 1457 the Crown rent stood――arrears £8, by feu-charter £9 6s. 8d., sum due £17 6s. 8d. But Peebles paid up the arrears, and subsequently continued to pay the annual sum stated above to the end of the century. In 1501, however, the bailies of the burgh were fined £18 for failing to appear before the Exchequer.¹

¹ _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volumes I., II., III., IV.,
V., VI., VII., X., XI.

The town of Peebles was repeatedly burned by the English in the fourteenth century, and the citizens were often subjected to all the horrors of war. Peebles had seven yearly markets, some of which extended over several days, and the records of the burgh contain many regulations touching the markets.¹

¹ _Burgh Records of Peebles_, pages 67, 85, 209‒211.

The conditions and circumstances under which the people on the Borders lived tended to encourage and to prolong the continuance of the predatory spirit and habits; and the disorder on the Borders gave the Government much work and trouble; still, these people were not naturally more lawless than the inhabitants of any other quarter of the country. The state in which they lived was a result of historic conditions, for the creation of which they were responsible only in a very limited measure. The Norman nobles planted upon the borders of Scotland in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries had nearly all disappeared long before the end of the fifteenth century, but the effects of the feudalism, which was introduced along with them, remained.

Turning to the northern burghs, including Inverness, Dingwall, Forres, Elgin, Cullen, Banff, and others. During the period under review Inverness was a burgh of comparative wealth and trade. The customs of Inverness in 1366 were £81 5s., and those of Elgin £67 11s. 7d. In 1373 the customs of Inverness were £145 13s. 11d., and the same year the Crown rents and the petty customs amounted to £40; in 1380 the customs of the burgh were £248 19s., and the Crown rents and petty customs, by lease of the Chamberlain, £53 6s. 8d. The same year the Crown rents and petty customs of Banff were £33 6s. 8d. The trade of these northern burghs, by sea at least, does not seem to have increased much during the fifteenth century, as the customs of Inverness in 1455 were returned at £62 8s. In 1499 the customs of Inverness, Forres, and Elgin, were returned together, and consisted of a charge of £131 of custom on 55 lasts of salted salmon exported, and a quantity of hides charged £7 19s. 2d. The same year the Crown rents of the burgh of Inverness, by feu-charter, were £57 6s. 8d. and one pound of pepper.

Cullen was a royal burgh in the reign of William the Lion. In the reign of Alexander III. there was a royal residence at Cullen, and in 1266 the hall and the brewing utensils of the town were repaired. Robert Bruce’s queen, Elizabeth, died at Cullen in November, 1327, and her body was embalmed there, and she was buried at Dunfermline. Robert I. founded a chaplainry at Cullen “to pray for the soul of his spouse, Queen of Scots, who died in our said burgh of Cullen;” and £4 was paid yearly out of the burgh rents to the chaplain celebrating mass for her soul. The regular accounts of Cullen drop out of the burgh rolls after the year 1343; but they were resumed in 1496. In that and succeeding years the rents of various lands held by the burgh from the Crown were accounted for, and the annuity to the chaplain still appears in the accounts.¹

¹ _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_

Alexander II. in 1227 granted a charter to Dingwall, which conferred on the citizens the same liberties as the burgesses of Inverness, and authorised a weekly market to be held on Monday. In 1265 Alexander Comyn, Earl of Buchan and Justiciary of Scotland, was bailie of Dingwall. Robert I. granted the burgh of Dingwall to the Earl of Ross, and the town remained in the hands of the Earls of Ross for upwards of a century. In 1475 parliament ordered the Sheriff of Inverness to summon John, Earl of Ross and Lord of the Isles, either at the castle of Dingwall or the cross of Inverness, to appear at Edinburgh and answer for his crimes, and accordingly he was summoned at the gate of the castle of Dingwall. The proceedings which followed on this were stated in a preceding chapter. In 1498 James IV. renewed and confirmed the rights and privileges of Dingwall, which had completely fallen into desuetude.¹

¹ Ibid., Volume I.; _Origines Parochiales Scotiæ_, Volume II.,
page 494; _Burgh Charters_.