$>CS> ■ 0|Z PUBLICATIONS OF THE SCOTTISH HISTORY SOCIETY VOLUME XII. BARON COURT BOOK OF URIE October 1892 . - Scctti^ ■ THE COURT BOOK OF THE BARONY OF ERIE IN KINCARDINESHIRE 1604-1747 Edited from the Original Manuscript with Notes and Introduction by the Rev. DOUGLAS GORDON BARRON • Printed at the University Press by T. and A. Constable for the Scottish History Society 1892 PREFATORY NOTE The manuscript of the Court Book of the Barony of Urie forms a small quarto volume. It has been carefully pre- served, and though the writing is often slovenly and difficult to decipher, there is no part of the record which has been destroyed or rendered illegible through decay. Prior to the death of Captain Barclay-Allardice in 1854, the Court Book remained in the possession of the proprietors of Urie. It subsequently passed into the hands of its present possessor, Mr. Robert Barclay of Bury Hill, Dorking (see App, iv. p. 192), to whom the thanks of the Society are due for permitting its publication. The manuscript has been carefully transcribed by the Rev. Walter Macleod, whose kindness in revising the proof-sheets of the text I gratefully acknowledge. My thanks are also due to Sir Patrick Keith-Murray, Bart., of Ochtertyre, Mr. Baird of Urie, Mr. Fraser of Findrack, Mrs. Barclay-Allardice, and others, who have kindly put at my disposal materials bearing upon the history of Urie and its proprietors. To Mr. Barclay-Allardice I am indebted for notes on the pedigree of the Barclays. The illustration of the Old House of Urie, which forms the frontispiece of this volume, is from an engraving by the late PREFATORY NOTE William Miller, H.R.S.A., Edinburgh. The signatures on the margin are those of Colonel David Barclay and his son, Robert Barclay, the Apologist. Two maps have been introduced, in which it has been attempted to define the original boundaries of the Baronies of Cowie and Urie. While perfect accuracy is not claimed for these, no trouble has been spared to render them as correct as possible. D. G. B. Dunnottak, Qth September 1892. CONTENTS Prefatory Note, . i Introduction, ...... v COURT BOOK, 1-174 Appendix— I. The Rentall Buik off the Barony off Wrie, . 177-178 II. Notes written on the fly-leaf of the sis., . 179-180 III. Chronological Table of Prices, Converted Fermes, Customs, etc.. Extracted from the Court Book, . 181-184 IV. The Lairds of Urie, 1430-1892, .... 185-196 Glossary, ...... 197-200 Index, ....... 201-208 Illustration—Old House of Urie, at beginning. Map of the Baronies of Cowie and of Urie, at end of Introduction. CORRIGENDA P. xxiii, 1. 2, for James, Earl of Kinghorn, read John, Earl of Kinghorn P. xliv, 1. 30, for Baron-bailie, read Baron-bailiff P. xlviii, 1. 18, for haddocks or, read haddocks and INTRODUCTION The establishment of the Baron Court in Scotland may be regarded as an essential growth of feudalism, coincident with the spread of the tenure of land by military service, as intro- duced by Malcolm in. in the middle of the eleventh century, and encouraged and extended by his successors. The object of the early kings in fostering the new system of land-tenure was sufficiently apparent. Desirous to increase the influence of the Crown over their turbulent and restless subjects, they were not slow to recognise in it a ready means of bringing into subjection those who might otherwise have been the last to acknowledge their supremacy, or to seal to it the warlike tribes who followed them, and who knew no other claim to gratitude or obedience than the old 4 tie of blood.1 The feudal lord, who held a charter of the king on terms of military service, acquired thereby an imperium in imperio which was admirably fitted to transmit through every stratum of society that hitherto unknown respect for law and dis- cipline which it was the object of the Crown to recommend and teach. For, just as he did homage for his land, confess- ing himself to be the vassal of his sovereign, so those who held of him, whether as tenants or sub-vassals, were com- pelled to recognise a similar indebtedness on their part, and to submit themselves to his authority as their superior or over-lord. Nor did it end here. A minor proprietor, although not holding directly of the king, and being therefore the vassal of a vassal, might yet assume, in virtue of his charter, the position of an over-lord to his immediate dependants, from vi INTRODUCTION whom he could exact the homage he himself had rendered, and over whom he was empowered to exercise, though in a limited degree, the jurisdiction to which he was himself subject. The machinery which controlled this complicated system was centered in the curia baronis, or Baron’s Court. This court it was the privilege of every superior to hold within the bounds of his own lordship, provided always he had at least two vassals to sit in it as peers. A Baron Court, it will be seen, therefore, was not necessarily the Court of a Barony, unless in so far as the jurisdiction of a minor proprietor might be said to be covered by that of his superior. This principle appears to have been recognised in the right of a crown vassal to take part with his feudatory in the meetings of his private court. The authority of our earlier barons, alike in criminal and civil matters, was practically absolute. They held their baronies not only cum furca et fossa, with power of pit and gallows, but even in certain instances cum placitis quatuor punctorum coronae nostrae, that is, with right of jurisdiction in what were termed ‘ the four points of the Crown ’—murder, rape, robbery, and fire-raising. On one point only, that of the crimen majestatis, or crime of treason, did the Crown interpose its caveat to limit and restrain the jurisdiction of its immediate vassals in dealing with the rude and lawless spirit of their time. As things progressed, or in other words, as the policy of delegating power by the State in exchange for ‘ homage and service1 gradually brought about the change anticipated, the privileges of this dominant and ruling class were correspond- ingly curtailed. Their boasted right of ‘pit and gallows’ was tempered in the first instance by the withdrawal from their jurisdiction of the Crown Pleas, and subsequently by the limitation of their right to dispose of the homicide and thief, to cases in which the former had been caught ‘ red-handed,’ or INTRODUCTION vii the latter infang,—that,1'is, with the stolen property in his possession within the confines of the barony. But apart altogether from this higher jurisdiction, care was taken that the feudal lord should still possess abundant power to bring into subjection the most refractory of his vassals, did they venture to dispute his high prerogative and claim. Fine and forfeiture were at all times ready and effective instruments of discipline, while the knowledge that fines and escheats, instead of falling to the Crown, became the lawful property of the superior, may be supposed to have encouraged the latter in the vindication of their just authority, even if it did not occasion- ally incite them to abuse its exercise through greed of gain. As far as civil jurisdiction was concerned, the minor pro- prietor, who in no case possessed the power of life and death over his vassals, and whose criminal authority was strictly regulated by the terms of his charter, extending for the most part to the punishment of petty thefts and the exaction of bludwiies,1 was exactly in the same position as he who held directly of the Crown. Both had alike the right to settle at their court all matters of dispute concerning land and tenancy. They were empowered to pursue for debt, to punish for neglect or contumacy, and, generally speaking, to direct and, in no limited or formal sense, determine the material prosperity or its opposite of all who owed to them the feudal obligation, and were bound by its indissoluble and jealous claim. It was a characteristic of Feudalism that a superior in trans- mitting power or privilege to a dependant did so, as nearly as was possible, in the precise form in which he himself enjoyed it. The Baron, as we have seen, exercised to all intents and purposes the functions of a king among his vassals, and we cannot wonder, therefore, if his court presented in its salient features an almost literal resemblance to the sovereign courts Fines for shedding of blood. viii INTRODUCTION of the realm. Its place of meeting was originally a hill or mound—the ‘ moot-hill1 of an earlier period. And in the record of a Baron Court held by Sir Patrick Gray, as superior of the Barony of Longforgan, in the year 1385, we find this ancient custom still prevailing.1 Though interested enough to watch, and in certain circum- stances, perhaps, even to influence, the judgment of the Court, the Baron did not preside, at least in later times, in person. His bailie or steward sat as preses of the Court, in this and other matters occupying a position analogous to that of the royal seneschal. Other officials were the chancellor or clerk, who was invariably a notary, and qualified, therefore, to advise on points of law and precedent; the officer or sergeant, who acted also as bailiff to the barony; the dempster, a functionary robbed in later times of his old power and state, and retained merely to pronounce the sentence which the bailie, in his capacity as judge, had first awarded ; and, finally, the suitors or free-tenants, who were summoned to be present, just as the Baron was himself required to sit in Parliament.