Chapter X

Chapter X

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.

In 1266 the town of Cromarty paid to the Crown £7 of rent for lands; but Robert I. granted the town of Cromarty to the Earl of Ross. In fact the whole of the northern burghs were much under the control of the local nobles during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Elgin, Tain, and other towns associated with the Church, were often under a kind of vassalage to the local nobles. The city of Elgin, with her grand cathedral and upwards of a hundred churchmen, was sometimes forced to place herself under the protection of the Earls of Moray and other nobles.¹ In 1472 the citizens of the burgh of Nairn entered into a bond of manrent with Lord Fraser of Lovat, and his heirs and successors.

¹ Old Statistical Account of Scotland, Volume V.

Adverting now to the more settled quarters of the kingdom, or the region extending from the river Deveron to the border counties in the south, which may be called the heart of the nation. In 1327 the Crown rents paid by the chief burghs to the Chamberlain were as follows:――Aberdeen £213 6s. 8d., Perth £160, Stirling £36, Edinburgh £34, Ayr £30, Rutherglen £30, Haddington £29, Dumbarton £22, Forfar £18, Inverkeithing £15, Montrose £13, Lanark £12, and Linlithgow £10. As indicated in a preceding chapter, the burghs eventually obtained feu-charters, under which they paid a fixed yearly rent to the Crown, and thus they at length acquired a perpetual right to collect and apply to their own use the rents, small customs, and dues formerly levied by the Crown. Aberdeen had obtained such a feu-charter in 1319 for the yearly rent stated above, but none of the other burghs had obtained such a charter in 1327, although Edinburgh obtained one in 1329 for a yearly rent of £34 13s. 2d. In July 1386, Robert II. granted a feu-charter to Stirling for an annual payment fixed at £16, and Dundee obtained one in 1365 for a fixed annual payment of £20.

In the reign of Robert I., what was termed the great custom consisted of the charges levied on the exports of wools, wool-fells, and hides. A last of wool consisted of ten sacks, and the sack of twenty-four stones; the last of hides contained twenty dacres, and the dacre ten hides. The charges on the exports of these goods were the chief source of the Crown customs during this period. In 1327 the customs of the following burghs stood thus:――Edinburgh £439, Aberdeen £349, Dundee £240, Perth £108, Linlithgow £14, Cupar-Fife £13, Inverkeithing £8, Ayr £3, and Stirling £2. These are small sums, but it has to be observed that lords of regality and church burghs had the right to export wool and hides at their own ports custom free; so the sums collected by the Crown officials only represent a part of the customs of the kingdom.

Before the year 1357 the usual rate of customs on exports had been half a mark on the sack of wool, three shillings and fourpence on the hundred woolfells, and one mark on the last of hides. In order to raise money to pay the instalments of David II.’s ransom, the customs on the above goods were doubled, and in 1359 tripled. The customs of the chief burghs for the year 1360 stood thus:――Edinburgh £1300, Linlithgow £356, Aberdeen £669, Dundee £485, Perth £437, Haddington £261, Montrose £226, St. Andrews £249, Inverkeithing £72, and Stirling £37. Taking for comparison the customs of the chief burghs for the year 1379, the following results appear:――Edinburgh £2285, Aberdeen £1449, Dundee £918, Haddington £617, Linlithgow £825, Perth £517, North-Berwick £269, Montrose £235, St. Andrews £143, Stirling £49, and Inverkeithing £34. At this time the produce of the custom of wool was nearly thirteen times more than that of hides.

From the customs for the year 1379, it has been calculated that the number of sheep then in the country exceeded a million and a half; while the same year, the number of hides of cattle exported amounted to 44,559; but we have no data for estimating what proportion this number of hides bore to the whole stock of cattle in the country. Comparing the customs of 1327 and 1379, in the former year the fleeces of 1,450,485 sheep, and 8861 hides were exported; this, however, included the exports of a considerable district in the south which was under English rule in 1379; and making allowance for this, it appears that the numbers of cattle and of sheep had increased considerably during the period between 1327 and 1379. This increase of the staple wealth of the nation is very striking, considering the unsettled state of the country, and speaks volumes for the energy and industry of the people under the most unfavourable conditions.¹

¹ Exchequer Rolls of Scotland, Volumes I. and II.

The customs from 1379 to the end of the century rather fell off a little than increased, but in the first twenty years of the fifteenth century the customs fell very low. This demands some explanation. After the death of Robert III., under the regency of Albany, it was an every day occurrence for earls and barons to ship the produce of their lands custom free, in open defiance of the collectors of customs, and also to abet the merchants who were under their protection in doing the same thing. Further, the nobles when they thought fit actually robbed and plundered the collectors, and even imprisoned them till they delivered up whatever balance they had in hand. And sometime the Earl of Douglas, his brother James Douglas, Lord of Balveny, Walter of Haliburton, Sir William Crawford of Haining, the son and heir of Sir William of Borthwick, and James Dundas of Dundas, took possession of the tron and granted a cocket for the shipment of the wool or hides themselves, and then received the customs from the merchants, and thus prevented it from coming into the hands of the collectors of customs at all. In the first audit after the death of Robert III., the collectors of Edinburgh deponed to £23 5s. 2½d. having been taken by violence from them by James Douglas, brother of the Earl of Douglas. At the succeeding audit in March 1408, the sum in question was carried over as arrears; and it was explained that Douglas claimed the sum for his expenses in setting fire to Berwick, and at the close of the account it was enumerated with other sums amounting to about £100, which had been forcibly taken on various pretexts. In the spring of 1409, Sir William Crawford and other persons had shipped twenty-three sacks of wool duty free in defiance of the custom collectors of Edinburgh. The Exchequer audit was held in May, and the same collectors claimed to be credited with various sums taken by Crawford and the Earl of Douglas――in all £708 2s. 1d.――as having been extorted by violence, and by the imprisonment of one of the collectors in Edinburgh Castle at the instance of Crawford. The auditors referred this matter to the Regent, and the result of the reference appeared in the next Edinburgh account, which was the exoneration of the collectors, and a promise by the Regent to admonish the Earl of Douglas against similar doings in future.

During part of the years 1411 and 1412 the Earl of Douglas was in Flanders. The account of 1412, however, showed a new score amounting to £43 11s., which had arisen from Borthwick and James Douglas, whose wool had been arrested for payment of duty, but they had broken the arrest and shipped their goods in defiance of the collectors of customs. The Earl of Douglas returned to Scotland before 1413, and no doubt he had received the Regent’s admonition; still at the audit of 1413 the Earl of Douglas refused to pay the custom on his wool, estimated at £69, and also carried off the whole balance in the hands of the collectors of Edinburgh, amounting to £634 10s. 11d. The following year the Earl’s “ministry” seized by violence the whole of the balance of £1339 5s. 9d. In 1415 the new depredations amounted to a further sum of £1254, and Douglas then produced a list of his “ministry” who plundered the customs under his authority, and these included the Earl of Orkney, Walter of Haliburton, William of Borthwick, James Douglas, Sir William Douglas of Drumlanrig, and the Earl’s own steward, John of Livingston. It further appeared that Douglas had directly taken from the merchants a sum of £240. The habitual evasion of custom greatly increased, and in 1417 the auditors pressed the collectors to disclose who the evadors of custom were, and amongst others they named Sir William Crawford, Lord Seton, George Lauder, and Richard of Winton. It appeared that wool had been shipped at North Berwick under a cocket, which the collectors had granted under threats of violence. The collectors also said that similar evasions of custom by many other persons occurred every day. Of the balance in the collectors’ hands a sum of £562 4s. 6d. was carried off by the Earl of Douglas, Haliburton, and the Master of Douglas. In 1418 the gross customs of Edinburgh had diminished to £1098, and of this, £378 was seized by the Earl of Douglas’s steward, John of Livingston; and the collectors again produced a list to the auditors of the habitual evadors of custom. The collectors of Linlithgow had a similar narrative of the evasion of custom. Year after year the collectors were robbed of the money which they had collected, and the chief criminals were James Douglas and Walter of Haliburton, two of the Earl of Douglas’s accomplices. On one occasion James Douglas seized the collectors of Linlithgow and carried them to the castle of Abercorn, and imprisoned them there till they disbursed the sum demanded. Sometimes these robbers of the revenue overawed the merchants, and compelled them by threats and imprisonment to pay their custom to them instead of the lawful collectors. Such were the acts committed, and such were the rewards which the Duke of Albany, Regent of Scotland, covenanted to allow the Earl of Douglas and his associates in return for their support of his demoralising government of the kingdom.¹

¹ Exchequer Rolls of Scotland, Volume IV., pages 80‒321, Preface, pages 57‒64, 209‒212.

The great customs still continued to be levied at the same rates to which they had been raised to pay the ransom of David II. The highest yield of the customs on wool and hides in the reign of James I. was in 1428, when they reached the sum of £6912, but the average annual yield was about £5000. James I. imposed some new taxes. In 1424 he imposed a duty on the exportation of skins of the marten, polecat, otter, fox, hart, hind, roe, and doe. The duty, however, brought only a very small return to the Crown, and the most that it yielded in any year was £3 16s. 8d., and the average yield was about £1. The skin chiefly exported was that of the rabbit, though at Inverness the skins of the otter, ♦marten, fox, and polecat appeared in the custom accounts, while deer skins only occurred in the custom returns of Elgin. At the same time a duty of 1s. in the pound was imposed on the home-made white woollen cloth, and it appears from the custom rolls that about £3000 worth of this cloth was annually exported. A duty on the export of salmon was imposed, and the ports from which salmon were mostly exported were Montrose, Aberdeen, and Banff. The average annual yield of the custom on salmon was about £115, representing £920 worth of fish. All goods imported from England were subjected to a duty of 2s. 6d. in the pound.¹

♦ “martin” replaced with “marten”

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume II., pages 6, 8, 13.

Subsequent to the reign of James I. the customs on wool and hides rather fell off than increased. In the reign of James III. the average annual yield of the customs was about £3300; and the average yield of these customs for the last five years of the fifteenth century was £3106. No doubt one cause of the falling off of the customs was that greater quantities of the native wool, and also of the hides, were being gradually consumed and used at home, as the population of the kingdom increased, and civilisation advanced.

The export duty on salmon was 2s. 6d. in the pound, and in 1478 it was ordered that salmon must be packed in barrels, under a penalty, each barrel capable of containing fourteen gallons. In 1481 the duty was raised by royal proclamation to 4s. per barrel. During the latter years of the reign of James III. the yield of the custom on salmon, at the chief ports where they were exported, stood thus:――Aberdeen, £135; Banff, £47; Perth, £29; Dundee, £14; Montrose, £7; Stirling, £6; and for the whole of the kingdom, about £310. The herring trade in some of the arms of the sea on the west coast, and in other quarters was becoming an important industry. The custom for herrings of Lochfyne was returned by the collectors of Irvine in 1479 at £10, and in 1481 at £34; from that date the custom was accounted for by the collectors of Dumbarton. In 1487 it amounted to £379.

In preceding pages of this chapter it was indicated that the Crown lands were of considerable extent and value in the later part of the reign of James II. A large portion of the revenue of the Crown was derived from the rents of these lands, which were partly paid in money and partly in produce. It has been approximately calculated that the revenue of the Crown in the reign of James III. amounted to £16,380, which is equivalent to about £5,460 sterling money. This revenue was derived from the following sources:――From the Crown lands, £10,600; from the sheriffs, £1,720; from customs, £3,300; and from burgh rents, £760. At the end of the century the Crown lands were still pretty extensive.¹

¹ Exchequer Rolls of Scotland, Volume VIII., IX., and XI.

It was noticed in a preceding chapter that a commercial treaty was concluded between Flanders and Scotland towards the end of the thirteenth century, and the commercial dealings between Scotland and Flanders and the Low Countries continued for many centuries. Edward I. endeavoured to persuade the Count of Flanders in 1299 to cease all trading relations with Scotland, but he failed in his object. In December, 1321, the Count of Flanders gave letters of safe conduct to Stephen Fourbour, burgess of Berwick, and James Will, burgess of St. Andrews, and their companions, to come, stay, and go, as their business might require, in the countries of Zealand, Holland, and West Friesland. In 1323 Robert I. granted in return that all merchants from Holland should have free ingress and egress to every quarter of the kingdom wherever they pleased to land, and he ordered that these merchants should be honourably treated, and allowed to dispose of their merchandise according to the usages and the laws of the country. A commercial treaty was arranged between Flanders and Scotland in 1427 to continue in force for a hundred years and one day. By this treaty the Scots were allowed to export in bales the home-made white woollen cloths (already mentioned) to any part of the provinces of Flanders “without let or hindrance.” It appears that quantities of this home-made cloth were sent to the low countries to be dyed and then carried back to Scotland; but during this period Scotland had commercial dealings with France, Bruges, Prussia, Lombardy, Spain and England, though her staple trade was chiefly with the Low Countries or Netherlands.¹

¹ Scotichronicon; W. T. M‘Cullagh’s _Industrial History of Free Nations_, Volume I., pages 58, 76, 105.

Seasons of dearth sometimes occurred, and attempts were made to mitigate them by encouraging foreigners to import food, and by regulating the modes of selling. In 1454 it was enacted that strangers who brought grain into the kingdom should be favourably received and thankfully paid. There was a great scarcity of victuals in the country in 1478, and it appeared that foreigners from several nations used to bring victuals into Scotland, but the new duties imposed on their goods had prevented them from coming with their cargoes, and the people had been greatly injured. It was therefore enacted that all foreigners “coming with their victuals and merchandise should be honourably and favourably entertained, and have free entry with their goods, according to former use and custom; and the King to have the first and the best of their cargoes, next the lords of his council, and after that the remainder to be sold among the people.” This Act was repeated in 1482 with some additions. “It was declared that any person who bought goods from strangers and pretended that they were for the King’s use, and then sold them again, should be banished from the kingdom and all their property confiscated. Any foreigners in or out of the kingdom complaining of injuries done to them, should have immediate redress, according to justice, against any man in the nation. So, through the fair and honourable treatment of all strangers who come into the country hereafter, they may be encouraged to return, for the benefit and utility of the whole community.”¹

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume II., pages 36, 41, 119, 144.

It is scarcely necessary to remark that the trading regulations of this period were sometimes based on curious notions. In 1467 Parliament enacted that none but burgesses living in burghs, or their factors and servants, should be permitted to sell or traffic in merchandise out of the kingdom, and so no person, save burgesses, could engage in foreign commerce. Even within the kingdom no craftsman was allowed to deal in merchandise himself, nor by his factor, unless he first entirely ceased to work with his own hands; and “no man should pass out of the kingdom on business, but a famous and worshipful man, having of his own half a last of goods, under a penalty of ten pounds.” The same Parliament enacted that no ship should be freighted by any of the King’s subjects at the ports of Scotland, nor from a foreign port, without a formal charter party, that the shipmaster should find a steersman and timber man, and a sufficient crew to manage the ship. If any dispute should arise between the shipmaster and the merchantmen it must be referred to the court of the burgh to which the ship was freighted. There were careful rules for the protection of the cargoes from damage. Every ship carrying more than five lasts of goods had to give one sack to the chaplain of the Scottish nation at the port to which she was bound, and every ship homeward bound was to bring one ton of materials for the church work of the town to which she was freighted. It was enjoined that no drink-money should be given to the shipmaster or his agents; and also that no shipmaster should sail his vessel during the winter.

The amount and the description of the exports of the kingdom have been indicated in the preceding pages; but the imports were various and miscellaneous, including many articles in daily use, luxuries, and ornaments. Throughout the period under review large quantities of wines were imported, and wine was very generally and freely used in the Scottish court, amongst the nobles, the burgesses, the monasteries, and at festivals of every description. The wines chiefly used were those of Gascony, Guienne, Burgundy, the Levant, and the Rhine regions; and claret, which was imported by Scotch and French traders from Bordeaux. The wines of Spain and Portugal were also imported from Lisbon, Bayonne, and other ports. The Scotch Parliament encouraged the importation of wine, and in 1431 it was enacted that those who exported salmon should sell it only for English money or barter it for Gascon wine. Olives, oranges, raisins, figs, and other fruit were imported in considerable quantities. The finer woollen cloths, black, brown, blue, green, scarlet, and russet; fustians, fine linen, silk stuffs, velvet, many articles of apparel and ornament, and iron, hardware, armour, and cannon, were imported.

The standard value of silver seems to have been about the same in England and Scotland prior to the fourteenth century. It appears that Robert I. made a slight diminution in the standard value of the currency, and the money of Scotland, by successive depreciation, gradually became of less and less value. Edward III. depreciated the English currency, and two hundred and seventy pennies was coined from the pound of silver instead of two hundred ♦and forty. The Steward, as Regent of Scotland, issued a new coinage even more depreciated than the money of England, and in 1355 Edward III. proclaimed that the new money of Scotland was not of the same value as the old, and should only be received as bullion. In 1366 the Scotch Council ordered that the money to be coined in future should be similar in weight and fineness to the English standard money; but a parliament, which met in September, 1367, resolved that the standard should be reduced by ten pennies in the pound, so that the pound of silver should contain 29s. 4d.; and from this sevenpence was taken for the King’s use, one penny to the “custos monete,” and elevenpence to the master coiner and his workmen, leaving 27s. 9d. for the people. In other words the pound of silver was coined into 352 pennies instead of 240, which was the standard at the beginning of the century. The deterioration went on in the reign of Robert II., and the Act of 1367 was repeated in 1385.

♦ “aud” replaced with “and”

As yet the only coins struck in Scotland were silver pennies, with their halves and quarters, and groats and half groats. There was no gold coinage before the reign of Robert II., and the gold money in circulation in the kingdom prior to this reign were coins of other nations. According to English proclamations of 1390 and 1398 Scots money was ordered to be received for only half its nominal value. In 1393 Parliament ordered the coinage of groats, half groats, pennies, and half-pennies, equal in weight and fineness to the money of David II., and a gold coin called a lion, worth five shillings; and at the same time fixed the value of an English noble at nine shillings and sixpence, and a Flemish noble at nine shillings and fourpence. No mint records exist for the period of Albany’s regency, and no coins struck by him have been discovered.¹

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume I., pages 139, 144, 190, 207.

James I. in 1424, ordered that the coinage should be amended, and money struck of the same weight and fineness as that of England. In spite of this enactment, he further debased the coinage of the kingdom. Parliament in 1436, in order to supply gold and silver for the Mint, enacted that all exporters of merchandise should import a certain amount of bullion, while the export of gold or silver, coined or uncoined, was strictly prohibited. It is possible that part of the silver coined in the reign of James I. may have been native. In his first parliament it was declared that mines of gold and silver which produced three half-pennies of silver out of the pound of lead, should belong to the King: the King seems to have had some miners in his employment.¹ In 1428 Scots money was reckoned at half the value of Flemish money; the English noble passed current for fifteen shillings Scots, and in Flanders the English noble was current for eight shillings. A large number of Flemish, French, and English coins were circulated in Scotland, and these foreign pieces often became a subject of legislation.

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume II., pages 6, 13; Exchequer Rolls of Scotland, Volume IV.

From the accession of James II., in 1437 to 1450, the amount of gold coined at the mint of Edinburgh was 48 pounds, which was struck in demys――a coin of the value of nine shillings at the time of issue. The amount of silver coined was 563 pounds, which was struck chiefly in groats, and partly in pennies and half-pennies. During the same period there was a mint at Stirling, and in 1442 and 1443 forty-eight pounds of silver were coined there.

In 1451 Parliament resolved to issue a new coinage, conforming in weight and fineness to the money of England. Eight groats were coined out of an ounce of silver, and smaller coins――half-groats, pennies, half-pennies, and farthings, of proportional weight, and each to be equal in value to the English coin of the same denomination. The current value of the new groat was fixed at 8d. A new gold coin was struck with the figure of a lion on one side and the image of St. Andrew on the other, clothed in a side-coat reaching to his feet; the current value of this coin was fixed at 6s. 8d. An attempt was then made to fix the value of the French and other foreign coins in circulation in Scotland. The master of the mint was held responsible for all the gold and silver struck under his authority; and power was given to him to select the persons working under him, and to punish them when necessary. In 1452 Parliament fixed the value of the English penny at three pennies Scots, and in 1456 the groat of 1451 was ordered to pass current at 12d.¹

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume II., pages 39, 41, 46; Exchequer Rolls of Scotland, Volume V.

During the first nine years of the reign of James III. twenty-one pounds weight of gold were coined, and nine hundred pounds weight of silver. Among the gold coins of his reign there were two finely executed pieces, the one called the rider and the other the unicorn; their types were the King on horseback and the unicorn.

The copper coinage of Scotland commenced in 1466, according to the Act of Parliament “for the ease and sustentation of the people, and the giving of alms to the poor folk.” This copper coinage consisted of farthing pieces, four in the penny, and they were to pass current in payment of bread and ale, and merchandise up to twelve pence in the pound. The debased pennies and placks, subsequently issued, and called “black money,” consisted of copper mixed with silver. These black pennies and placks caused much discontent among the people, and in 1485 they were all recalled. At the end of the fifteenth century Scotch money was computed at somewhat less than one-third of the value of English money, one pound Scots being worth about 6s. 6d. English. There was a curious fluctuation in the value attached to Scottish coins; sometimes seven nobles Scots were said to be equal in value to one great pound of Flanders, at other times six nobles to one great pound, and in other instances eight to one, and five to one.¹

¹ Acts of the Lords of Council, pages 5, 17, 67, 143; _Acts of the Lords Auditors_, page 34.

The coinage was a matter which often engaged the attention and deliberation of the Scotch legislators. From the commencement of the reign of James I. to the end of the fifteenth century, Parliament passed upwards of forty Acts relating to the coinage, the keeping of the money in the country, and the importing of bullion into the kingdom; the Acts ordering the keeping of the money within the realm, and the importing of bullion from other countries, were often re-enacted. The Scotch legislators of this period were completely possessed with the idea that gold, silver, and copper, actually constituted wealth. But the tendency to regard gold and silver, and even a paper currency as real wealth, is very strong in human nature, although in reality they only form one of the elements of the complex whole which constitutes wealth and power; for the essential elements of the wealth and power of a nation consist in the energy, the intelligence, the industry, and the rectitude of the people, as these characteristics have always formed the essence of wealth, and thus created power.

Having indicated the external relations of the nation in the preceding pages, attention will now be directed to the internal and every-day life of the burgh communities. The life of the townsfolk throughout this period was marked by striking characteristics, and also their relations with the important Crown official, the Great Chamberlain of Scotland, present a subject of much historic interest. Some indications of the functions and the jurisdiction of the Chamberlain have already been presented in a general way, but it is necessary to offer fuller details. Among the early collections of laws relating to the royal burghs there are two which present the form of procedure in the Chamberlain’s Court, and the matters which he took cognisance of in his circuit courts throughout the kingdom. One of these belong to the reign of Robert I. and the other to the end of the fourteenth century.

The procedure in the Chamberlain’s Court was very formal, minute, and inquisitorial. The Chamberlain’s precept enumerates those who had to appear at the court, including persons in and without the burghs; then the brief to the sheriff, which gave intimation thus――“The Chamberlain to the sheriff and his deputes, greeting: We command and charge you that immediately ye attach all strangers whose names the bailies of the burgh shall present to you in writ, placing them under safe and sure pledges that they shall appear before us or our deputes one or more ... to answer to charges against them and obey the law.” The manner of holding the court was thus――“all the burgesses of the burgh ought to appear before the Chamberlain――non-residents as well as residents――which ought to be called by their names, and those that are found absent should be fined by doom, nevertheless the suits should be called and the court affirmed. Then the bailies and the officer of court should be called. Then the bailies should be asked if they have any commission or not, and by what laws they claim the King’s burgh to be governed; and after that should be called all the actions and complaints, and thereupon a good assize of the best and worthiest citizens should be formed. Then should be asked the rental of the burgh, by which they gather the King’s rents, as well of built and cultivated lands as of waste. Then should be asked in writing the names of all the burgesses of guild, both those resident in the burgh and non-resident, and the names of the other burgesses by themselves. Then the roll of the suits of court should be asked. Then ought to be asked the names of the bailies and the officers of the burgh, every one by himself in writ.”

After these formal proceedings the real business of the court was commenced. The bailies were first challenged touching the discharge of their public duties, and subjected to a searching scrutiny. It was inquired if they had always been ready to do right and reason when they were required, according to the form of their oath. If they had treated the poor and the rich with equal justice, or if they had forbore to execute the law rightly through favour, hatred, love of persons, or taking gifts. Whether they had caused the assize of bread, ale, wine, and flesh to be held, as it ought to be; and every week caused the bread and ale, the wine and flesh, and other things, in the burgh to be examined. Whether they have executed the commands of the King and the Chamberlain. If they have sold or granted the freedom of the burgh to strangers’ servants, that they may sell with the burgesses, and use and enjoy the same profit. Whether they have caused the burgh to be properly watched throughout the night, or compelled the poor to watch and not the rich. “Also if there be a just assedation and uptaking of the common good of the burgh, and if a faithful account of the same be made to the community of the burgh: and if it be not so, by whom, and in whose hands the produce has come; and if the common good is bestowed in the business of the community.”

The sergeants and officers of the burgh and their duties were then taken up, and a number of inquiries were dealt with; such as that they do not present truly all the pledges in their hands; that they do not cause the rich to take the night watches the same as the poor. That in collecting the necessary charges for the King’s Justiciary or Chamberlain they do not always act justly, but spare some of their friends, and from others of the community charge too much; and whether with regard to such charges, they have accounted for all the money which they had collected. Whether they have inspected all kinds of bread and ale as they ought to have done, or for their own profit spared some, through which the assize may not have been well kept.

Queries addressed to the public ale-tasters followed, for there were then officials of this character in every royal burgh of the kingdom. It was asked if they had been always ready to taste ale whenever the signal was put out, or if they remained in the house filling their bellies drinking instead of standing in the middle of the street in front of the ale-house, to send one of their fellows with the beadle into the ale-house to choose which pot should be tasted, and then present it to his fellows, and according to assize they should discern upon it. Whether they always presented the defaulters before the bailies at the next court, or if they held a regular assize on the ale, or only simply said it is good or it is bad. A somewhat similar set of questions was put to the public pricers of flesh, as in all the royal burghs the authorities fixed the price of all kinds of meat. The pricers of flesh were then asked, “if fleshers bought any other than sound beasts.” Whether they had been always ready to act when the signal to price flesh was put out, “as well for the profit of the flesher as for the profit of the people.” If they had attended the King’s markets every market day and observed the buying of oxen, sheep, and swine, to be eaten; and after observing the selling and buying in the market by their discretion, then the price of flesh should be fixed by an assize, at which no flesher should be permitted to act. “And that they keep the prices, that neither for gift, prayer, nor gain, they do favour in their priceing.” That they should fix the price of these things as oft as they were required.

The fleshers themselves were challenged in the Chamberlain’s court on a long list of points. “That they sold flesh against the assize of the worthy men of the town, and before it was priced. That they bought and slaughtered beasts during the night contrary to the law of the burghs, and that they forstalled the burgh by buying in the country. That they sold flesh before the signal was put forth, and that they sold the good flesh to strangers and the bad to their neighbours, and that they denied the price when it was asked.” The bakers were asked if they had more men engaged at their oven than the law allowed, which was four――the master, two servants and a boy. And if they baked each kind of bread as the law of the burgh commanded, namely, bread of the finest flour, bread of the second quality, and bread baken of whole flour; and if they baked according to price, “that is to say, penny bread, halfpenny bread, and farthing bread.” The millers were asked if they had more servants in their mills than the law allowed, “to the scath of the King and the people”; and if they take smolts in the mill stank against the inhibition of law; and if they used two measures, “one to take with and another to deliver with.” The salmon fishers were asked if they kept in the middle of the stream when fishing, according to law, and if they ceased fishing on Saturday after evening till Monday at sunrising. White fishers were asked if they sold their fish at the bank, when they ought to sell them in the King’s market under the full penalty of confiscation; and also if they sold their fish in the night and in hidden places, and not in the market, and if they broke their fish and sold them in pennyworths contrary to the King’s laws.

The brewers and ale-house keepers were asked, if they had kept the price imposed by the assize of the worthy men of the town, after the buying of the malt; if they had neglected to have their ale tasted, as it should have been according to law; and if they have the proper measures――“quart, pint, third part, and sixth part, according to the King’s money, by which measures the people may be well served.” Wine sellers were asked if they sold their wine without having it tasted by the public tasters, and whether their own measures were unproved, and if they mixed good wine with bad and corrupted it. The malt-makers were asked if they mixed good and bad malt together, when they ought to make them separate, and then sell them at different prices. That they let their malt sprout at both ends and shot out all the pith of it, “when it ought only to chip and come at one end.”

The shoemakers were asked why they made shoes otherwise than the law had ordained, “that is, the horn and the ear are alike in length.” They made shoes, boots, and other things of the leather before it was barked. “They sewed with rotten thread, owing to which the shoes were lost before they were half worn.” And when they should have given their leather good oil and tallow, they gave it only water and salt; and they worked it before it was curried, to the great scath of the community.

The skinners were asked if they had kindly worked their leather before they made gloves and other things out of it; or if they had hungered it, by not giving it enough of alum, eggs, and other things. They sewed and worked with bad thread, and assumed the position of masters when they did not know the craft. The tailors made too much refuse and shreds of men’s clothes, through haste and for lack of skill. They made men’s garments otherwise than they were ordered; they sewed with bad thread, and often failed to keep their appointments. They assumed the place of masters before they had properly learned the craft; and “they worked on holydays against the law of God.”

One of the points into which the Chamberlain had to inquire, referred to the treatment of foreign merchants――“If there be any burgesses who hardly treated foreign merchants, coming to the burghs with their goods by sea or by land, by not keeping the laws nor making payments to them as ought to be done, or doing any other injuries to them, by reason of which such merchants wholly cease to come to the burghs and ports, to the damage of our lord the King, and the manifest ruin of the communities of burghs, on account of such hard treatment.”¹

¹ Ancient Laws and Customs of the Burghs of Scotland, pages 115‒124, 132‒150.

It appears that the matters treated in the Chamberlain’s court, and the laws and customs indicated in the preceding pages, were carried into practical operation, as the records of the burghs show. In 1434 the Town Council of Aberdeen enacted that no one should sell ale dearer than fourpence or sixpence, as it should be fixed, under the penalty of the confiscation of their brewing utensils, their ale, and exclusion from the trade for a year and a day. The head court of the burgh of Peebles in 1450 appointed four men to the office of ale tasters, and other four men to fix the price of flesh, and such officials were regularly appointed. In 1458 the head court at Peebles enacted that any brewers who broke the fixed price of ale should be fined for the first offence, one gallon of ale, for the second two gallons, and for the third three gallons, and for the fourth offence eight shillings. In 1471 the local authorities of Peebles ordered that the best ale should be sold at tenpence the gallon, or cheaper if the ale tasters deemed it right, and the second quality of ale at eightpence the gallon, and whosoever broke the price of the ale should be fined ten shillings. The provost and the magistrates of Edinburgh in 1492 proclaimed that no person in the burgh should sell ale dearer than twelvepence and eightpence the gallon, under the penalties authorised by the statutes of the burgh. In 1499 the local authorities of Edinburgh enacted that no one should sell ale above sixteenpence the gallon under the penalty of having the heads of their barrels knocked off and the ale divided.¹

¹ Burgh Records of Aberdeen, Volume I., page 392; _Burgh Records of Peebles_, pages 111, 121, 128, 138, 142, 152, 158, 166, et seq.; Burgh Records of Edinburgh, Volume I., pages 62, 75.

The price of wheat, meal, and bread were all fixed by the local authorities of the burghs. In 1492 the assize of good citizens of Edinburgh ordered that the price of wheat should be ten shillings and sixpence the boll, “of good and sufficient stuff,” and the price of malt eighteen shillings the load. The good men of the assize in Peebles in 1462 statuted that whosoever broke the price of bread or ale, from him should be taken twelvepence “for the buying of a clock.” At the same time the authorities of this burgh enacted that whosoever bought skins, wool, or white woollen cloth from unfreemen either in or out of the burgh, from all citizens found guilty of this offence, there should be taken sixpence to go to the clock. In 1434 the Town Council of Aberdeen ordered that no baker should break the price and the weight of the bread which the bailies had sanctioned; and whoever contravened this, should for the first offence pay eight shillings, for the second fifteen shillings, and for the third his bread should be confiscated, his person put in the pillory, and excluded from his craft for a year and a day. Every baker was obliged to have his own mark upon his bread that it might be known, and any one who neglected to put his mark on his loaves was fined eight shillings. At the same time fleshers, convicted for breaking the price of beef and mutton, or selling flesh before it was priced, were to be fined eight shillings for the first and second offences; but in the case of a third offence, the flesh was to be confiscated, and the offender excluded from his craft for a year and a day.¹

¹ Burgh Records of Edinburgh, Volume I., page 62; Peebles, page 147; Aberdeen, page 147.

No retail dealer was permitted to buy goods before eleven o’clock, under the penalty of confiscation, and neither man nor woman was allowed to pass out of the burgh to buy anything before it was brought to the market. Salmon fishers were not permitted to sell their fish till they were shown in the market, nor to store them, but bring them to the market the morning after they were caught, under a fine of ten shillings. If the bailies and local authorities of the burghs neglected to enforce these laws and statutes, then they should be reported to the King or the Chamberlain, “and each of them fined ten pounds without remission.” In 1441 the Town Council of Aberdeen, for the good of the community, enacted that no flesher, nor any other man, should be permitted to buy any kind of fish till they came to the market; and that no one should, in the future, dare to purchase any sort of fish, and raise a dearth on the citizens, till the height of the day was passed, under the penalty of confiscating such fish, and a further fine of eight shillings. The profit of a dealer in fish was regulated in this way: if a fish cost him twelvepence, then he was allowed one penny on it; if it exceeded twelvepence he was allowed twopence, and so on, for each shilling a penny. At the same time it was enacted that no man should buy more victuals than was necessary for his own house and family; if any one bought victuals to retail, he should sell it openly on the market-day. In 1442 the guild burgesses of Aberdeen enacted that no person should give more than six shillings and eightpence for the stone of wool; and if any one bought wool at a higher price, he was to be fined forty shillings for the common good of the burgh; the price of woolfells were fixed in a similar way.¹

¹ Burgh Records of Aberdeen, Volume I., pages 391‒397.

Many of the statutes of the burghs were directed against a class of persons usually called forestallers and regraters. These were the persons who bought goods, cattle, and food, before the markets or the appointed time for selling and buying, or who purchased goods, grain, fish, and other things, and resold them at higher prices and profits than were then lawful. In the burgh records of Aberdeen, in the year 1402, there is a list containing the names of ninety-five forestallers; they were often denounced in the local statutes, and sometimes severely punished.¹ Within the boundary of every royal burgh there was a complete monopoly of manufacture and trade. Further, some of the charters granted to the burgesses a monopoly of trade throughout the neighbouring or surrounding country. Thus the trading privileges of Rutherglen included the city of Glasgow; the monopoly of Inverkeithing embraced the burghs of Kinross, Bruntisland, Kinghorn, and Dysart; Perth had an exclusive privilege of trade and manufacture over Perthshire; and Aberdeen, Inverness, and Edinburgh, had similar trade privileges in their several counties.

¹ Ibid., pages 383‒385, 445, 402; _Burgh Records of Edinburgh_, Volume I., pages 36, 97.

The acts and regulations indicated in the preceding pages were generally enforced in the royal burghs in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. At Aberdeen, in 1443, Alexander Lammynton was fined for selling flesh above the fixed price; and in 1492 three men were placed in the pillory, their pecks were broken, and each of them fined eight shillings for having pecks of too small measure. At Edinburgh, in 1495, twenty-two bakers in one day were convicted by a jury for buying and regrating French flour; and on the 8th of January, 1499, fifty “Browster Wives” were tried at once, and convicted for breaking the statutes relating to the brewing and selling of ale.¹

¹ Burgh Records of Aberdeen, Volume I., pages 398, 419; Burgh Records of Edinburgh, Volume I., pages 69, 75.

The burgesses of guild possessed a monopoly of commerce in the burghs and outside of them. Acts of Parliament, the burgh laws of the kingdom, and many local statutes of the various royal burghs, all proclaimed the exclusive privilege of the guild brethren with regard to commerce. No one was permitted to work at his craft and deal in merchandise of any description. The guild were exclusively the commercial class, and they assumed the chief offices and mainly exercised the ruling functions in the royal burghs of Scotland; but the larger body of citizens naturally began to form themselves gradually into separate associations, with a distinct view to their own special interests. The craftsmen, however, were not specially favoured by the Crown or the Parliament as the burgesses of guild had been. The Crown and the Legislature frequently interfered to protect the exclusive privileges of the guild burgesses, but no early charter from the Crown or Act of Parliament has been discovered legalising the incorporation of the craftsmen. In fact, they seem to have risen into importance by their own energy. As we have seen, they were subjected to a severe and exacting system of inspection under the authority of the Great Chamberlain. At last, when Parliament interfered with the craftsmen it was with the professed intention of guarding the nation against their encroachment, a pretext often groundlessly advanced by governments.

In 1424 Parliament passed an Act which enjoined that in every burgh each separate craft should, with the advice of the town’s officers, elect one of their own number to be deacon of their craft. The duties of the deacons thus elected were to inspect the materials and the workmanship of the craftsmen, “so that the people may not be scathed by untrue craftsmen, as they have been in bygone times.” Whether the deacons had exceeded the duties assigned to them or not, in 1426 Parliament declared that deacons of crafts should have no corrective power over the other members of the craftsmen, except to inspect their work once every fifteen days. The sworn bailies and council of every burgh were ordered to fix the price of the materials of each craft and consider the cost of the labour of the workmen, and then fix the price of the articles produced, and proclaim it to the people. The town councils were also commanded to fix the wages of craftsmen who had to work on other men’s materials, such as wrights and masons. All craftsmen who undertook more work than they could accomplish were to be punished. In 1427 Parliament repealed the above Acts, which in some degree had recognised the standing of the craftsmen, and then denounced the action of the craftsmen as injurious to the people and the whole nation, and therefore the craftsmen were prohibited from electing deacons or holding meetings. This jealousy of the craftsmen continued to manifest itself for more than another century, and till in some measure the settlement of the different classes of the burghal population was effected.

The Acts prohibiting all craftsmen from engaging in trade or dealing in merchandise were repeated in the reign of James II., James III., and James IV. In 1459 the goldsmiths were recognised and treated as an established fraternity in an Act of Parliament, but the body of craftsmen were still regarded with suspicion by the Estates of the realm. Parliament announced, in an Act passed in 1493, “that it was clearly understood by the King and the three Estates, that the deacons of the craftsmen in the burghs were extremely dangerous, and might cause great trouble by the assembling and rising of the King’s subjects, and by their statute-making against the commonweal for their own profit, which deserved severe punishment. As those craftsmen assembled and framed rules that they should have wages for holydays, or if not they would not work; and when any of them began a job and left it unfinished, then no one of his craft dare venture to complete it. Therefore, it was enacted that all the functions of the deacons should cease for one year, excepting the power to examine the materials and the quality of the workmanship. Masons and wrights, and other craftsmen, who statuted that they should have their wages for the holydays as for work days, and all the makers of such statutes, should be indicted as common oppressors of the people, and the justice-clerk should proceed thereupon and punish them as oppressors; and likewise the makers of the rules that when one man begins a job no one else can complete it, should all be punished as common oppressors.”¹

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume II., pages 8, 13, 14, 48, 234.

Still, in spite of this and other attempts to crush the fraternities of craftsmen, the custom of incorporating them gradually came to be introduced throughout the kingdom. The manner of effecting this was pretty uniform, and consisted in granting letters under the seal of the burgh court, called a “Seal of Cause.” There was some variation in the tenor of these, as some of them expressly prohibited all persons from working at the special trade but the freemen of the craft; they all, however, gave the craft the privilege of admitting new members, inspecting materials, making bye-laws, electing office-bearers, and having a fund-box or common good. Of course, in all of them, there was implied a strict monopoly within the limits of the burgh, as it stood at the date of the grant.

As illustrative of this matter, and also of the common arts of life, Edinburgh may be taken as a favourable example of the whole kingdom in the latter half of the fifteenth century. In 1473 the provost and council of Edinburgh granted a Seal of Cause to the hatmakers of the burgh, in which it was stated, among other rules, that no master hatmaker should take apprentices for a shorter period than seven years; if, however, any of the craftsmen’s sons became apprenticed, they should only be bound for three years. Further, the hatmakers considered that it was very proper and profitable that no one of their craft should, under any circumstances, sew, renew, or mend any old hats.

In 1475 the provost and council, and all the deacons of the craftsmen, of Edinburgh granted a Seal of Cause to the masons and wrights――“For the honour and the worship of St. John, and the augmentation of divine service; and for the right ruling of these two crafts, equally profitable to the workers and to all builders.” Among other rules in this deed, no master was to be permitted to take apprentices for a shorter term than seven years; and every apprentice at his entry should pay half a mark to the altar of St. John in the church of St. Giles. The same year the provost and council of Edinburgh granted a Seal of Cause to the weavers――“For the honour and love of Almighty God, and his mother the Virgin Mary, and St. Servanus, for supporting and upholding of divine service, and the appareling of their altar of St. Servanus, which was founded and upheld by them in St. Giles’ church, and for the management of their work, the good rule and worship of the kingdom, the common profit of the craftsmen, and divers other things.” In this Seal of Cause it was stated that the weavers should elect their deacon once a year, like the other craftsmen, and the deacon should rule the craft, and all the men should obey him in all honest and lawful things touching the craft. But the freemen of the craft who were burgesses should elect the deacon, and no one else should have any voice therein. No master should take apprentices for a shorter term than five years; and every apprentice should pay at his entry five shillings to the altar of St. Servanus. Every man and woman who worked at the craft should give the priest his meat, and every week give a penny to the altar, and each hired servant should give fourpence a year to the altar. All those who disobeyed the deacon, and refused to abide by the statutes of the craft, for each offence they should have to pay one pound of wax. No woman should act as a master, or hold a workshop, unless she be a freeman’s wife.

In 1483 the provost and council of Edinburgh granted a Seal of Cause to the hammermen, in which were named the blacksmiths, goldsmiths, coiners, saddlers, cutlers, bucklemakers, and armourers. There were a number of very minute rules in this deed for the regulation and the profit of the various crafts incorporated under it, and these all ran on the lines of restriction already indicated. In 1488 the magistrates and council of Edinburgh incorporated the fleshers, and the first rule in this deed was a declaration to the effect that the deacon and the principal masters of the craft in the burgh had, after mature consideration, arrived at the conclusion that it was most expedient for the common profit that all the unfreemen and boys should be expelled from the craft, unless they either bound themselves as hired men or apprentices. The coopers were incorporated in Edinburgh in 1500: and in the other burghs of the kingdom the various classes of craftsmen began to be incorporated much about the same time, or in some instances, a little later than those of Edinburgh.¹

¹ Burgh Records of Edinburgh, Volume I., pages 28‒34, 47‒55, 180‒183. An interesting and valuable _History of the Incorporated Trades of Aberdeen_, by Mr. E. Bain, was published in 1887; and in the records of other burghs much information on the subject will be found.

One characteristic of the incorporation of the craftsmen which came strikingly out, was their historic association with the prevailing religion of the period. This side of the national life will be subsequently treated.

Although it seems evident that the mechanical skill and the manipulating power of the craftsmen of Scotland in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries were not highly developed, still the persistent efforts of industry, under unfavourable circumstances, were well manifested throughout this period. It appears that the blacksmiths were unskilful at shoeing horses. In 1478 it was stated in an Act of Parliament that the smiths, through ignorance and drunkenness, hurted and crippled men’s horses by shoeing them in the quick. Therefore it was enacted that when a smith shod a horse into the quick he should pay the cost of keeping the horse till his feet be healed, and find the owner another to ride upon or labour, and if the horse be crippled beyond recovery then the smith should pay the price of the horse to the owner. In 1496 James IV. paid three shillings and fourpence for shoeing two horses, and the following year he paid sixteenpence for shoeing his grey horse in Brechin, and the same for shoeing his brown nag. It appears that the Scotch kings of this period employed a number of smiths and other craftsmen from time to time.¹

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume II., page 119; Accounts of the Lord High Treasurer, Volume I.; _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_.

The principal cities and towns of the Church during this period were St. Andrews, Glasgow, Paisley, Dunfermline, Arbroath, Brechin, Dunkeld, Dunblane, Dornoch, and a few others. St. Andrews was the residence of the metropolitan of Scotland, the chief religious centre, with a fine cathedral, castle, many churches and religious houses, and the seat of a university; it had also a considerable trade; and these together rendered it one of the chief cities of the kingdom in the period under review. It was then a comparatively populous and wealthy city.

In the latter part of the fifteenth century Glasgow was still a small city, although her great cathedral, with its many altars, the archbishop’s palace, convent, and hospital, and her university, conferred influence and dignity on the town. Glasgow was under the authority of the Archbishop, and the appointment of the magistrates remained in his hand till the Reformation. In the fifteenth century Glasgow had little trade, and had to maintain a struggle about her privileges with Rutherglen, Renfrew, and Dumbarton.

Paisley rose into a thriving town under the shadow of the monastery and the abbot. In 1488 James IV. erected Paisley into a free burgh of barony, with the same privileges as the burghs of Arbroath, Dunfermline, and Newburgh; it had two yearly markets, and the magistrates were to be nominated by the abbot. Twelve years later the abbot made a grant of the burgh to the provost, the bailies, and the community. The burgesses had the right of taking stones from the abbot’s quarries, and if they should win coal, then the abbot should have fuel from their pits.¹

¹ Register of Paisley, pages 263, 73.

Arbroath, as indicated by its custom, had a considerable foreign trade in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. About the end of the fourteenth century the abbot and the burgesses made a worthy effort to render the harbour more secure for ships, and voluntarily taxed themselves to accomplish the necessary work connected with this improvement. The burgh continued to prosper, and the port and town eventually rose to commercial and manufacturing importance.

Brechin has been repeatedly mentioned in its historic relation in preceding pages. In the period under consideration Brechin was a city with her cathedral and castle, and many historic associations. Dunfermline was a favourite residence of the Scotch kings from Malcolm Canmore onward to modern times; still, at the close of the fifteenth century, except its religious buildings, it was a comparatively small town, built of wooden houses.¹

¹ Register of Arbroath, Volume II., pages 40‒42; Chambers’ History of Dunfermline, page 327. In the fifteenth century the shirt of St. Margaret, the queen of Malcolm III., Canmore, was preserved at Dunfermline as a highly cherished relic. It was carried to Mary of Gueldres at the date of the birth of James III.; and it was also brought from Dunfermline at the time of the birth of James V. _Exchequer Rolls._

Greenock, Kilmarnock, and other towns, were as yet hardly in embryo. In short, the mineral resources of the country, coal and iron, had scarcely yet been touched.

The defence of the country constantly engaged the attention of government and consumed a large part of the nation’s energy. The habits of the people, engendered by the pressure of external enemies, and fed by internal commotions, had assumed warlike and military characteristics. Even the citizens of the burghs were often commanded to have their weapons ready, and kept beside them in their shops, to face any sudden emergency or brawl which might arise on the streets. They had to defend themselves against the attacks of external enemies, to watch and ward the burgh, maintain order and uphold the honour of the town.¹

¹ Burgh Records of Aberdeen, Volume I., pages 8, 9; _Burgh Records of Edinburgh_, Volume I., pages 68, 72.

Many Acts of Parliament were passed touching the defence of the kingdom, and ordering the sheriffs of the counties and the magistrates of the burghs to hold “wapinschaws” of the fighting men of the realm four times in the year; all those from sixteen to sixty years of age were bound to muster as fighting men. The armour and weapons of the different ranks of society were enumerated in an Act of Parliament in 1429, and again in the reign of James II. in 1456; and this matter also engaged the attention of the parliaments of James III. and James IV. The Act of 1429 enjoined that every man who had twenty pounds of yearly income, or possessed a hundred pounds worth of moveable goods, should be well horsed and fully armed. Those of lower rank, who had ten pounds of yearly rent, or fifty pounds worth of moveable property, should furnish themselves with a helmet and gorget, vambrace, breastplate, greaves to cover the front of the thighs, and iron gauntlets. Every yeoman worth twenty pounds, should arm himself with a doublet of fence, an iron hat, a bow and a sheaf of arrows, a sword, buckler, and a knife. Men worth ten pounds, should have a bow and a sheaf of arrows, a sword, buckler, and a knife. All those who could not handle the bow should have a good strong hat, a doublet of fence, a sword, a buckler, and a good axe or else a pointed staff. Every burgess worth fifty pounds was commanded to be completely armed as a gentleman ought to be; and citizens worth twenty pounds, should arm themselves with a stout hat, a doublet and habergeon, a bow and a sheaf of arrows, a sword, a buckler, and a knife; those not bowmen should have a good axe and fencible weapons. Severe penalties were to be inflicted on those entrusted with the carrying out of the acts, if they neglected to comply with their requirements.

Some of the armour and weapons mentioned above were imported. In 1425 parliament enacted that all merchants who passed to foreign countries with their ships, besides their common cargoes, they should bring home as much harness and armour, spear shafts and bow-strings, as they possibly could. The spear was for long the favourite weapon of the Scottish infantry. The length of the spear was from fifteen to eighteen feet, and the Scots handled it with great skill and remarkable effect. They were singularly deficient, however, in the use of the bow, and owing to the marked superiority of the English in this arm, the Scottish army often suffered severely. James I. and the succeeding kings saw and understood this, and earnestly endeavoured to supersede the spear in some measure by the bow; but all their efforts failed, though many expedients were tried to induce the people to use the bow. All the young men were commanded to learn the use of the bow, and butts were ordered to be erected throughout the kingdom, especially in the vicinity of the parish churches, and every man was enjoined to shoot thrice. In 1457 a pair of butts were ordered to be erected at every parish church, and shooting with the bow to be practised every Sunday. It was then enjoined that each man should shoot at least six times, under a fine of twopence on every man who was absent; and the fine money was to be spent on drink amongst those who had attended the shooting. Enactments were also passed which prohibited the national games of football and of golf, with the object of promoting the exercise of archery; but all these acts and devices were unavailing, as the Scots never acquired an aptness in using the bow.

According to feudal usage the longest term of service which the King could exact at any one time was forty days, and the more usual period of service in the field was fifteen or twenty days. The feudal army provided its own equipments and provisions, as indicated in a preceding paragraph; thus the soldiers were the vassals of their respective lords and chiefs, not the King’s men. Hence the curious social phenomena that the royal authority usually waned in the times of war and increased in the times of peace. The most daring acts of interference with the powers of the Crown occurred on the array of the feudal army. The command of the army belonged to the King, and the most experienced of the nobles led the main divisions, usually four, the right and left wings, the centre, and the reserve. The arrangement of the sub-divisions and sections of the army seems to have been by clans, in which the barons and chiefs acted as subordinate commanders and officers, often by hereditary right. The pith of the Scottish army always consisted of infantry, the Scots were never strong in cavalry; though for quickness of movement the men were often mounted on small hardy horses, which enabled them to march long distances in a short time, and this suited the object of the raids into the north of England. Each man furnished himself with a bag of oatmeal trussed to the saddle of his horse, but they mainly trusted to the pillage of the enemy’s country for food.

In actual battle, the distinctive tactics of the Scots was the formation in deep battalions, usually circular, though sometimes inclining to the oval or square forms according to the nature of the ground and the position on which they were fighting. This compact phalanx was admirably adapted for resisting cavalry charges, or any form of attack at close quarters; but the deficiency of the Scottish army was the want of a force to meet the English bowmen, who often severely galled the ranks of the Scotch spearmen from a distance. So the fate of a battle was frequently a mere question of time, as to how long the circle of spearmen could endure the double attacks of showers of arrows and cavalry charges. Still the intense national sentiment and spirit of the Scots sustained them in fighting for centuries under these unequal conditions.

About the middle of the fourteenth century cannon began to be used in the attack and defence of fortified places, instead of the old battering ram, sow, and other engines of destruction. James I. and his successors directed their attention to the casting and forging of cannon. In 1456 parliament enacted that “It was thought expedient that the King should request certain of the great barons of the kingdom that are of any might, to make carts of war, and in each cart two guns, and each of them to have two chambers with the graith pertaining thereto, and a cunning man to shoot them. If they have not skill to shoot them now, they may learn or the time come when it will be necessary to have them.” The great barons, however, did not furnish cannon for the King’s use. Artillery was a branch which did not belong to the original constitution of the feudal army; and therefore, all the expense connected with the production of cannon, and the organisation and equipment of an artillery force to take the field, fell entirely upon the Kings themselves. The expense of the Crown for the artillery in the year 1474 amounted to £753. In the latter part of the fifteenth century there were two classes of guns used in Scotland: 1, guns of large calibre for siege operations, mounted on carriages and usually drawn by oxen; and the missiles discharged by these were mostly balls of stone called “gun-stones.” 2, Guns of smaller calibre which were intended for field operations, and were carried in gun-carts, two or more in each cart; and the missiles discharged by these were usually balls of iron or lead. But only a few of either of these guns were made in Scotland, the greater part of them were imported.¹

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume II., pages 8, 10, 18, 19, 45, 48, 100, 133, 164, 226; _Accounts of the Lord High Treasurer_, Volume I., Preface, pages 217‒219.

The houses of the people still mostly consisted of small wooden erections. The houses of the farmers, and also the trades-people of the burghs and towns, were built of wood or other slight materials, although they were not necessarily devoid of comfort. No remains of burgh architecture of a domestic character earlier than the sixteenth century now exist in Scotland.

Touching the actual number of the population of the nation in the later part of the fifteenth century, we have no data to draw a certain conclusion from; but the probable number though not the exact number may be reasonably conjectured. From the strength of the army which on the greatest emergencies assembled for the defence of the kingdom, it may be inferred with some approach to probability that the population of the country did not exceed 600,000. In the latter part of the fourteenth century Edinburgh was said to have contained four thousand small houses, which by a common mode of calculating, would make its population about 17,000; and at the end of the fifteenth century its inhabitants probably did not exceed 21,000. The population of Perth was not above 7,000 or 8,000; Aberdeen perhaps had a population of from 4,000 to 5,000; Dundee somewhat fewer, and St. Andrews about 5,000.

The roads and highways throughout the country were still very bad. Many acts relating to ferries were passed by parliament, but it seems they were little regarded, and many complaints were made that the ferryman charged double and triple fares from both rich and poor people. The establishment of inns by the road-sides and in villages and towns was encouraged by the Crown with the view of saving the monasteries and the farmers from the extortions of unwelcome guests, namely, troops of sorners, sturdy beggars, and other idle vagabonds, who infested the country. In 1424 it was enacted that in all the burghs and thoroughfares of the kingdom inns should be erected, with stabling accommodation for horses, and rooms for riders and travellers, so that men might there find bread and ale and other refreshments at a reasonable price, according to the standard charges of the country. It appeared that travellers in Scotland had been too long accustomed to live at free quarters, and did not patronise the inns. The innkeepers, therefore, complained to the King that travellers did not lodge at the inns, but stayed with friends and acquaintances. The King and his parliament then commanded that no one travelling through the country either on foot or horseback dare to lodge anywhere else but at the inns, except those with a large company, that is, the nobles, who should be free to lodge with their friends, if they sent their servants and horses to the inns.¹

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume II., pages 6, 10, 89, 107, 119, et seq.

With regard to sanitary provision the kingdom was in a wretched condition. Swine were permitted to run freely upon the streets of the burghs, and middens were allowed to lie on the thoroughfares for weeks. In 1479 one man was appointed to mend the causeways and clean the gutters for the whole burgh of Aberdeen, and he received one penny from each householder as his wages; and in 1494 there was still only one man for cleaning all the streets and lanes of the city. The state of uncleanliness in which the people lived prepared them for the ravages of disease and pestilence in every form, and so the nation was frequently visited by the pest, which from time to time carried off many of the inhabitants of the kingdom. The pestilence visited Scotland seven times from 1348 to 1499, and in fact the country was hardly ever free from it during this period. The disease of leprosy also prevailed in Scotland, and regulations relating to it were passed by Parliament in the reign of James I. Hospitals were erected on the outskirts of the principal towns for the reception of those afflicted with this malady. In the old burgh laws the leper folk were enjoined not to go from door to door and beg, but to sit at the gates of the burghs and seek alms from those that passed to and fro. At Stirling the leper hospital was at the east end of the town.¹

¹ Burgh Records of Aberdeen, Volume I.; _Burgh Records of Edinburgh_, Volume I.; Burgh Records of Peebles; _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II. The History of Leprosy in Scotland has been ably told by the late Professor Simpson, and printed in the Medical and Surgical Journal for October, 1841, and April, 1842.

During this period there was little or no medical knowledge in Scotland. The only surgeons were the barbers, some of whom practised “leechcraft.” In the fifteenth century blood-letting in the spring season of the year was universal, and was believed to be highly beneficial to the health, and to have a special efficacy against the contagion of the plague and other epidemic disease. James IV. appears to have taken much interest in surgical matters, and was himself reputed to have been possessed of some medical knowledge and some skill as a surgeon. Sometimes he bribed his servants to permit him to perform on them such operations as blood-letting and drawing of teeth. There was, however, some hope of improvement in this department, as we find from the following reference to the salary of a medical professor in King’s College, Aberdeen, in the year 1498:――“Uni medico in facultate medicine, graduato et legenti in Universitate infra civitatem veterem Aberdonensem noviter fundata, percipienti annuatim xii. libras et vi. solidos.” In 1506 the barbers or surgeons of Edinburgh were incorporated, and in their “Seal of Cause” it was provided “that no person use or practice any of the points connected with the craft of barbery and surgery within the burgh unless they were freemen and burgesses, and after being examined and passed on the following points, namely, that he knew anatomy, and the nature and complexion of every member of the human body, and likewise all the veins of the same; that he may make fly-botch well in due time, and also that he know in which member the sign has domination for the time, for every man ought to know the nature and substance of that on which he operates, or else he is negligent. That we may have once a year a condemned man, after he is dead, to anatomise upon, and whenever we have obtained experience each will instruct the others, and we shall do suffrage for the soul.” It was further provided that no apprentice or hired man should be admitted into the craft unless he could read and write.¹

¹ Burgh Records of Edinburgh, Volume I., page 102; Exchequer Rolls of Scotland, Volume XI.; Accounts of the Lord High Treasurer, Volume I.

Drinking of liquor seems to have been very common. In 1436 Parliament ordered that no man should sit in a tavern drinking wine, ale, or beer, in any of the burghs after the bell struck the hour of nine o’clock; and if any persons were found in taverns or inns after that hour then the bailies should imprison them in the King’s prison, and if the local authorities neglected to perform this duty, they themselves should be fined one shilling for each offence. The citizens of Aberdeen and of other burghs spent considerable sums of money on wine given to dignified persons. In 1453 the Countess of Huntly was presented with a lagon of wine by the people of Aberdeen, and the bishop also received a lagon; and at the feast of St. Nicholas various sums were spent for wine to Lord Forbes, Lord Erskine, the Earl of Erroll, and the Abbot of Arbroath.¹

¹ Miscellany of the Old Spalding Club, Volume V., pages 39, 40, 48; _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_, Volume III., page 424, et seq.

James IV. was unusually liberal in giving drink-money. In July, 1488, he gave Mr. William Crichton two pounds for drink; and on the 3rd of August he passed to Leith and saw the Danish ships, and gave the sailors nine pounds for drink; and the same year he gave the masons of the palace eighteen shillings “in drink silver,” and the following year he gave a like sum for drink to the masons of Linlithgow working at the palace. In 1489 the King gave the gunners who carted the great cannon “Mons,” eighteen shillings “to drink-silver,” and to the men who made the way at the Barwood for the great guns, he gave ten shillings to drink. In October, 1491, he gave the masons of the palace in drink-silver, two pounds and fourteen shillings, for the arching of three vaults; and to the workmen who made the trenches eighteen shillings for drink-silver, and to the shipmen ten shillings. In 1494 he gave the writers of the signet to their drink-silver eighteen shillings, and to the wrights a similar sum. The man who made the case to the King’s banner in 1496 got three shillings for drink-silver; and the goldsmith who made the King’s case of gold to wear about his neck, received eleven shillings and fourpence of drink-silver. In 1497 the dikers of the park of Falkland got ten shillings from the King for drink-money, and to the workmen in the Castle of Edinburgh he gave thirteen shillings and fourpence, and to the men who drew the ship nine shillings.¹

¹ Accounts of the Lord High Treasurer, Volume I.

The chief festivals of the year during this period were Yule and Easter. The festivities associated with Yule were continued over several weeks. In the Scotch court Yule was held with much ceremonial circumstance and merry-making. Early in the day the King, attended by his court and heralds, went to high mass and made his offering; and at noon in the hall the officers of arms and the trumpeters appeared before the King and received their rewards, which consisted of small sums of money. The sergeants of the town received a gratuity from the King, and alms were given to the friars of Edinburgh and Linlithgow, and James IV. frequently held his Christmas in the latter burgh. Mummings, disguisings, and plays, always formed a part of the amusements, in which professional players and minstrels often acted the leading parts. An Abbot of Unreason was annually appointed in the King’s house, in the houses of the nobles, and in the burghs, and these personages exercised sway till the Yule holidays terminated. Cards and dice were among the favourite amusements, and altogether the people at this season appear to have enjoyed themselves.

Easter was also held with circumstance and ceremonial, and amusements suitable to the season. On Easter morning the King took the sacrament early in the chapel, and gave to the officiating priest an offering which varied from eighteen shillings to twenty-four; thereafter he attended high mass, and made his usual offering of eighteen shillings; and at noon in the hall he gave the heralds and trumpeters their “Pasch reward,” which usually amounted to a sum of from six to ten pounds distributed amongst them. At the same season the King’s master cook and the court cook received their “basin silver.” Minstrels, tellers of tales, harpers, fiddlers, tabourers, and others who made pastime to the King and the court, usually received gratuities of nine to eighteen shillings each; the minstrels were always welcomed to the halls of the nobles on festive occasions, as well as to the King’s court.¹

¹ Accounts of the Lord High Treasurer, Volume I., Preface, pages 237‒246.

At this period the chief rural sports of the King and the nobles were hunting and hawking. The Kings had forests, parks, and many hunting ranges and seats; and the nobles also had hunting ranges and forests. Throughout this period the Crown had extensive hunting grounds, and falconry was also much practised in Scotland. The rights of the forest and the hunting ranges were highly valued, and many acts concerning them, and wild animals and birds, were passed by the Scotch legislature. In 1424 James I. ordered the Justice Clerk to bring to justice stalkers and their abettors who slay deer, and when any stalker was convicted of slaying deer, roe, or doe, he was to be fined two pounds, and his abettors ten pounds. An Act was passed in 1427, which prohibited the killing of “partridges, plovers, blackcocks, greyhens, moorcocks,” and such fowls, from the end of February to the month of August, under a penalty of forty shillings; and similar statutes were passed in the reigns of the three succeeding Kings. One of these Acts enjoined that no person should destroy the nests or the eggs of the wild birds, which were useful for the sustenance of man, “nor slay the birds in close time, when they may not fly.” As already mentioned, Acts of Parliament were passed in the fifteenth century, commanding the people to assemble four times in the year to hunt and destroy the wolves; and every man who at any time slew a wolf, was to receive one penny from every householder of the parish in which the wolf was killed; and every one who killed a fox and brought his head to the sheriff, baron, or bailie, was to receive sixpence.¹

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume II., pages 7, 15, 16, 51, 52, 107, 235, 251.

The outdoor amusements of the people were chiefly of an athletic character, such as fencing, wrestling, running, and leaping, and the games of football and golf. James IV. himself frequently played at football and other field sports; and he entered into more familiar intercourse with his people than any other King of the Stuart line.

Enactments for regulating the dress of the different classes of society were passed in the reigns of James I. and James II. The Act of 1457 opened with an announcement that each class of the community had impoverished itself by wearing too sumptuous clothing; both the men and the women, especially in the burghs, had passed the limits of discretion and allowance. These Acts therefore strictly prohibited the wearing of all kinds of silk dresses by the people, except the nobles and the magistracy. All other men and their wives and families were commanded to dress themselves in a fashion corresponding with their rank and condition; and which for the women should be “short kerchiefs with little hoods to wear on their heads, such as were used in Flanders, England, and in other countries; and no woman whatever should go to the kirk or market with her face covered, so that she might not be known, under the penalty of the confiscation of her kerchief and all her head gear. As to her kirtle, which covered the body from the neck to the feet, no woman should wear tails of unbecoming length, or furred round the foot, except on the holydays. The commons, husbandmen, and labourers were enjoined not to wear any other stuff on week days but white or gray clothes, and on holydays light blue, green, or red; and their wives the same colours, with kerchiefs of their own making; and the cloth worn by these classes should not exceed the price of fortypence per yard.”

An Act was passed in 1455 which regulated the official dress of the upper classes. When they appeared in parliament they should have been attired in the following style:――“The Earls to wear mantles of brown grained cloth, open in front and furred with white stuff, and with the same lined a handbreadth in front and reaching down to the belt, staid with similar furring, and with little hoods upon the shoulders. The Lords of Parliament to wear a mantle of red cloth, opening in front to the right, and lined with silk or furred with crispy grey, green, or purple stuff, and furred hoods of the same cloth on the shoulders. The Commissioners of the Burghs should each have a pair of cloaks made of blue cloth, open on the right shoulder and furred round the end, and with furred hoods.” If any of these ranks appeared in parliament or a general Council without their proper habiliments, they rendered themselves liable to a penalty of ten pounds. All the advocates were ordered to wear a tunic of green cloth, with the sleeves open like a tabard, and if they appeared in parliament without this they were liable to a fine of five pounds. Among the clergy, no one was permitted to wear a scarlet gown or furred ♦marten, except the dignitaries in cathedrals, college churches, a doctor, or a person with an income of three hundred marks a year.¹

♦ “martin” replaced with “marten”

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume II., pages 18, 43, 49, 100.

Touching the common articles of dress in use amongst the higher classes, the gown in various styles was a common upper garment of the period. The long gown was loose and reached to the feet, open in front, and sometimes worn with a girdle. Some of them had sleeves, and some not, as sleeves were often made as separate articles of dress, and thus they could be used with different kinds of garments. The long gown took four or five yards of broad cloth according to the size of those who wore them. The short gown reached to the knee, and it was lined and trimmed like the long gown, with various kinds of furs, such as marten, minever, ermine, and lambskin. The doublet was a close fitting tunic, and it was made of various kinds of cloth. The waistcoat was worn under the doublet, and it was usually made of woollen cloth. The riding or hunting coats were rather longer and fuller than the doublet. The hose were tight-fitting pantaloons and usually reached to the ankles, and they were fastened to the doublet or waistcoat by strings. There were also short hose which reached to the knee, and were worn with foot socks of cloth. The hose were made of woollen cloth of different colours, but usually of the darker hues. Over these the tippet and the cloak were worn. The tippet varied much in length at different times, and it was made of various kinds of material. The cloaks worn in the latter part of the fifteenth century were short and reached to the haunches. James IV. had a cloak made of eighteen yards of velvet, lined with satin and bordered with crimson satin, and it cost £110.

Bonnets, caps, and hats of various styles were worn. The bonnets were usually made of black or scarlet cloth, and the price of them varied from ten to eighteen shillings. Hats also varied in price from four shillings to fourteen. Boots and shoes of various kinds were worn. A pair of shoes cost one shilling, and a pair of pattens――shoes with wooden soles――cost sixpence. French shoes cost four shillings, and a pair of half-boots eight shillings.¹

¹ Accounts of the Lord High Treasurer, Volume I., Preface, pages 168‒179.

Touching the domestic arrangements and the household goods and utensils of the body of the people, there seems to be evidence of considerable advancement during this period, notwithstanding the long war and all the internal commotions and disturbances in the nation. Although it was already stated that the houses of the rural population were of a small and slight description, and that the greater part of the houses in the burghs were built of wood and other light materials which were easily procured, still their houses were better furnished than the state of society would naturally have led us to conclude. Glass windows were in general use in the houses of the nobles and the rich; as yet, however, they were costly. In 1328 glass was put into the windows of the new chamber which Robert I. had erected at his manor of Cardross; and in 1389 thirty pounds were paid for glass to the windows of the Abbey of Paisley. In 1447 a quantity of glass was purchased for the repair of the King’s chamber in Stirling Castle; and in 1501 nine pounds were paid for glass to repair the windows of the Gray Friars Church in Stirling. Still comparatively few of the houses of the people had glass windows at the end of the fifteenth century. Grates were little used, and bathrooms were rare even in the houses of the nobles.¹

¹ Exchequer Rolls of Scotland.

It seems curious that the legislature considered it necessary to pass enactments for repressing extravagance in dress. If the people had been very poor, then there could have been no need for such enactments; and thus the historic interpretation appears to be that these sumptuary acts indicate an advance in the civilisation of the people. In the national records many notices of workers in gold and silver, of gold chains, collars, signets, crosses, pins, rings, and other ornaments and articles occur; and silver was more used in the form of seals, beads, rings, book-clasps, belts garnished with silver, and many other ornaments; and also as plate, silver basins, goblets, stoups, cups, and spoons. Pearls were comparatively common.¹

¹ Exchequer Rolls of Scotland; Acts of the Lords of Council, pages 9, 87, 98, 135, 176, 199, 220, 228, 287, 430; _Acts of the Lords Auditors_, pages 14, 65, 55, 62, 67, 91, 129, 136, 146, 159.

The price of the staple necessaries of life in this period may be briefly indicated. In 1330 the price of an ox was 8s. 7d., of a sheep 1s. 9½d., the chalder of oats £1 1s. 4d., the chalder of oatmeal £1 12s., and the chalder of wheat £1 16s. In 1372 the price of an ox was 4s. 11d., of a sheep 1s 2¼d., the chalder of oats £1, the chalder of oatmeal £1 8s., and the chalder of wheat £2 1s. 4d. These prices varied from time to time, but except in years of dearth they did not rise very high. From the middle of the fifteenth century to its close the price of oxen ran from 5s. to 18s. a head, sheep from 1s. 6d. to 3s., and oatmeal from 4s. to 7s. per boll.¹

¹ Exchequer Rolls of Scotland.

A comparatively large number of the people lived on the land and cultivated it, under various forms of tenure, and, as labourers, as has been indicated in preceding pages. The wages of agricultural labourers during this period has not been accurately ascertained, but it may fairly be assumed that their wages were, for the most part, paid in produce. Thus the agricultural labourers would usually have had a supply of food, whatever else they might have lacked in the form of money wages; and it seems probable that this class enjoyed a tolerably comfortable life. No doubt there were exceptions, and the labourers on some estates might have been much harder treated than those on other lands; there were the Crown lands, the Church lands, the wide possessions of the nobles, and the estates of the small barons, on all which agricultural labourers were employed. It appears from several distinct indications that after James I. assumed the reins of government the labourers on the Crown lands obtained a considerable improvement in their condition, as this able and enlightened prince understood the source of wealth, and encouraged industry; while at the same time he curbed the power of the nobles. One immediate result of his action was that a large extent of lands was forfeited to the Crown, and thus it was that a considerable number of agricultural labourers, soon after his accession to power, found themselves under a juster and wiser master than heretofore. The other grades of vassals, tenants, and farmers, in the earldoms and lands which James I. annexed to the Crown, also found themselves relieved from an oppressive form of tyranny and anarchy, and they were permitted during his reign to follow the ways of peace, order, and industry. On the Crown lands a practice very generally prevailed of allowing tenants to occupy their holdings rent free, either on account of some office, of which the rent was considered as the fee, or as a reward for some important service rendered to the nation. It also appears that tenancies thus occupied were from time to time converted into feu-tenure or blanch holdings, and the occupiers then received charters, and thus became Crown vassals instead of tenants.¹ No doubt between the accession of James I. and the end of the fifteenth century a number of the labourers on the Crown lands became tenants and farmers under the Crown, and even some of those whose ancestors were serfs in the thirteenth century might have obtained feu-tenure and blanch holdings by charter from the Crown before the close of the fifteenth century. It thus becomes manifest that the right of the Kings of Scotland to forfeit the lands of a disobedient and rebellious noble often had a most salutary and beneficial tendency; although the historian must recognise that this right of the Crown was sometimes unjustly, and even cruelly, exercised by some of the Scotch kings, while at other times it was not exercised when it should have been.

¹ Exchequer Rolls of Scotland.

In the latter part of the fifteenth century the wages of common labourers were about one shilling a day. Masons, carpenters, smiths, and quarrymen, when employed on special service received from nine to ten shillings a week, and highly skilled artificers and workmen sometimes received from three to five shillings per day. Shipwrights engaged on work which had to be completed at a specified time, received one shilling and sixpence per day; the weekly wages of a gunner, who was also usually a smith or carpenter, were thirteen shillings and fourpence a week. Workmen had two weeks of holidays at Christmas, and nine or more other holidays during the year.¹

¹ Ibid. Accounts of the Lord High Treasurer, Volume I.

Turning to the custom of begging which prevailed, and the state of crime in the nation, matters connected with the administration of justice, and the means of prevention, detection, and punishment of crime, will be considered. Beggars, thiggers, sorners, masterful robbers, oppressors, and other vagabonds, were numerous in the country. Begging under certain limits was authorised by Act of Parliament in 1424. This Act prohibited all persons between the age of fourteen years and sixty years from begging, unless it was found that they could not live by any other means; such helpless persons were to receive a token from the sheriff of the district, and in burghs from the bailies, and those thus provided with tokens were then allowed to beg; all other idle persons were commanded by proclamation to betake themselves to honest labour and earn their living by their own efforts, under the penalty of burning on the cheek and banishment from the kingdom. This Act was often re-enacted with additions, still the beggars continued to multiply. In 1425 James I. passed another Act of Parliament, which ordered the sheriffs and the bailies to make enquiry concerning all the idle men in the respective bounds of their jurisdiction, and having ascertained those who had nothing of their own to live upon, then such men were to be arrested and kept till they found caution not to injure the country, but they were to be allowed forty days to find masters or to engage themselves at some lawful work. When the forty days had run, if they were still idle, then the sheriffs were directed to re-arrest them, and send them to the King, who should punish them as he thought fit. It seems highly probable that James I. might have found employment for some of these men as labourers on the Crown lands.

In the fifteenth century many Acts of Parliament were passed against masterful beggars and sorners. The sorners and masterful beggars were described, in an Act passed in 1449, as persons who travelled through the country in bands, accompanied by horses and hounds, and lived at free quarters on the people, and consumed the fruits of their industry and destroyed the growing crops. The Act directed that the sheriffs and other Crown officers, the barons, and the bailies in burghs, should make inquisitions concerning these sorners and masterful beggars at all their courts, and if any of them were found, then their horses and hounds and their other goods were to be confiscated to the King, and their persons imprisoned till the King announced what should be done to them. The Crown officers were also ordered to make inquiry at every court if there were any persons who pretended to be fools, or bards, “and such like runners about;” and if any of these were found, then they should be imprisoned and detained as long as they had anything of their own to live upon; when that was consumed, then their ears should be nailed to the trone and cut off, and themselves banished from the country; and afterwards if they were found in the kingdom, then they should be hanged. But this did not extinguish the sorners nor “the runners about”; for six years later another Act was passed against them, which ordered that whenever sorners were taken they should be delivered to the sheriffs, and forthwith the King’s justiciary should execute the law upon them as robbers and thieves; yet this seems to have been ineffectual, for in 1457 it was ordered that an inquisition should be made of the sorners, masterful beggars, feigned fools, and bards, and that all those found, should be banished from the kingdom or sent to the King. Still, in 1478, it was enacted that “for stanching the sorners and masterful beggars who daily oppressed and harried the King’s poor subjects, the Acts before passed should be put into sharp execution, which was to say, that wherever sorners were captured they should be delivered over to the sheriffs, and the law executed upon them as on common thieves and robbers; and also that indictments should be framed upon this class of crimes every year in the Justiciary Circuit Courts, and that due punishment should follow accordingly.”¹

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume II., pages 8, 11, 15, 36, 43‒45, 49‒51, 119, 251.

It was one of the sheriff’s duties to report and indict all persons charged with crimes which came within the Justiciary’s jurisdiction. The indictments were delivered to the Justice Clerk, and when he made up his roll it was the duty of the coroner to arrest all the persons named in it. Although there was a Justice Clerk and also a King’s Advocate, there was as yet nothing which could be called a regular system of public prosecution, as the right to prosecute belonged to the injured person or his relatives. Besides the compensation to the injured party, there was a fine due to the Crown, for which the sheriff was held liable, not only for the cases tried in his own court, but also for the fines and escheats of the Justiciary Circuit Courts. Moreover, unhappily, the sheriffs of the period had many fiscal duties to perform; they had to render accounts of all the casualties of lands held by feudal tenures from the Crown, and often to render accounts of the rents of Crown lands. Thus it happened that only a portion of their time and attention could be devoted to their judicial functions either in the criminal or civil departments. Then there were the anomalies of all the separate jurisdictions connected with earldoms, baronies, and regalities, as explained in preceding pages, which greatly hampered and retarded all efforts to improve the administration of justice.

Murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, and theft, were rather common throughout the kingdom. Many Acts of Parliament were passed for stanching and punishing these crimes, but they seem to have produced little effect. When criminals were convicted, they were often pardoned, and many remissions of crimes and of fines were given every year. In 1487 Parliament enacted that no remissions for the crimes of treason, murder, rape, slaughter, violent reft, theft, and false coining, should be granted for seven years. It appears that among the barons there was a custom of selling thieves, that is, saving them from punishment under certain conditions. In 1491 it was enacted that “when any man happens to be slain in the kingdom then without delay, and as quickly as the sheriff, steward, or bailie of regality can be informed thereof, either by the party complainant or in any other way, he should immediately pursue the slayer and raise the King’s horn on him, and raise the people in his support, until the criminal be overtaken; and if he be captured, he should be brought to the King, or else kept in custody till the King has been informed, and returned an answer as to what should be done thereon. If the murderer escape from the sheriffdom in which the crime was committed, then the sheriff should send one of his officers to the sheriff of the next county and inform him of this man who is a fugitive from the law. Then that sheriff should immediately pursue the criminal through his sheriffdom, and so on from sheriffdom to sheriffdom till he be taken or driven out of the country. But when the murderer had fled out of the royalty and into the regality, the sheriff should immediately inform the lord of the regality and his bailie, and they should pursue the criminal as the sheriffs had done; and wherever the criminal chanced to be taken, the sheriff or the bailie of the regality should send him to the next sheriff, and so on from sheriff to sheriff till he be returned to the shire in which the crime was committed, and there justice should be executed. When any of the sheriffs or officers neglect their duties in cases of this character, if they be hereditary they should forfeit their offices for three years, but if they held their offices by appointment they should lose them for ever.”¹

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume II., pages 23, 176, 256, 225; Exchequer Rolls of Scotland.

Thus we see that at the end of the fifteenth century the sheriff and other Crown officers could not follow even a murderer through a regality. The practical result was that a powerful lord of regality, whenever it suited him, could screen from the hand of justice the greatest criminal in the kingdom; and this, in fact, frequently occurred. Many of the sheriffs held office by hereditary right, and the feebleness of the Crown appears from the trifling penalties attached to the malversation of hereditary officials. Criminals who had been captured were sometimes imprisoned in the castles of the barons of the district, who were held responsible for their escape. Lord Kennedy refused, on two different occasions, to imprison four criminals in his castles when required by the Crown officer to do so; for this he was fined forty pounds, but his lordship never had to pay the fine as he received a remission.

The Earl of Bothwell was Warden of the west and middle marches, and also Lord of Liddesdale. In 1498, in a Justiciary Court held at Jedburgh, Bothwell was fined £550 as pledges or bail for a number of persons dwelling in Liddesdale, and in the Justiciary Court held in 1500 he was again fined a similar sum of £550, which made his total liability to the Court £1,100. Now, this sum represented the bail and fines of fifty criminals, whom Bothwell had enabled to escape by becoming security for them. But did Bothwell actually pay this sum of money to the Crown? No! the whole of it was remitted by letters under the Privy Seal. The ground of the remission was stated to be “the good services done by the Earl of Bothwell in many ways, and especially in settling the district which the aforesaid persons and other undaunted people inhabited.”¹ This is simply an example of what occurred more or less frequently in every quarter of the kingdom.

¹ The Sheriff Courts of Scotland, by John D. Wilson, LL.D., Introduction; Exchequer Rolls, Volume V. and XI.

In the burghs criminal cases were mostly decided by a jury, which varied in number from five to twenty. Their verdict settled the truth of the assertions and averments of the parties to the action, and then the judge applied the law to the fact. The adjustment of the issues seems to have been pretty rapid. This system of burgh law is now obsolete, though fragments of it, under more or less disguise, survived till recently.

There were various modes of punishment, such as fines, banishment from the town, burning on the cheek, cutting off the ear, and penance performed in the church, were common forms of punishment. The forms of torture were connected with the jougs and the branks, very old instruments. The usual form of the jougs consisted of a flat iron collar with distended loops, through which a padlock was put to secure the culprit in his ignominious durance. The branks were somewhat like a skeleton iron helmet with a gag, which entered the mouth and bridled that unruly member, the tongue. They were chiefly used as an instrument of ecclesiastical punishment, for the correction of female scolds, and those convicted of slander and defamation. The branks seem to have been used at a very early period, and sometimes might have been cruelly applied.¹

¹ Burgh Records of Aberdeen, Volume I., pages 24, 46, 319, 390, 402, 412; Burgh Records of Peebles, pages 127, 132, 146‒147, 164‒167; Burgh Records of Edinburgh, Volume I., page 86.

As penance was frequently applied as a punishment for common offences, an instance may be stated. In 1492 “Philip Whithede was fined in the burgh court of Aberdeen for the wrongous disturbance of Thomas Bard, and Thomas also was fined for the disturbance of Philip. Moreover, the court ordered that Philip, on the following Sunday, should go to the church in the time of high mass, with a candle of one pound weight of wax in one hand, and his knife in the other hand, drawn, and holding it by the point; and then in the church deliver his knife to Thomas and ask of him forgiveness, and beseech the worthy men present to pray that Thomas might remit the offence done to him; and then offer the wax candle to the Holy Light at the altar.”

Assaults and fights were common in the burghs, and many bye-laws were enacted to suppress them. In 1398 the town-sergeants of Aberdeen were charged with rebellion, and the following year the bailies of the burgh were charged with rebellion. In the latter year a man was fined for cursing and beating a woman, and another man was fined for beating his own wife. Many notices of persons breaking the peace of the burgh were recorded; and cases were frequently postponed owing to the weakness of the court, which meant the weakness of the law. A number of persons were fined for speaking aloud and cursing in the burgh court without licence; and one woman was banished from the town. About the year 1411 a list of thieves and receivers of stolen goods was drawn up, and in it there were enumerated twenty-three persons, male and female. Considering the comparative smallness of the population of Aberdeen at that period, the number of known thieves in the burgh suggests a state of crime much greater than prevails at present.

In 1436 the provost and bailies of Aberdeen assembled to consider how they could most effectively punish and extinguish robbers. All the citizens of the town, freemen and unfreemen, were then bound to assist the magistrates and the officers of the city in the maintenance of order, and to turn out immediately when the common bell was rung, or any sudden affray happened on the streets, and when they knew or apprehended any scath to the town impending, or any duels to be fought in it, they should instantly warn the authorities. At this period there were no regular police, but in times of threatening disturbance, or of war in the neighbourhood, a number of the citizens were appointed as a night watch for a time.¹

¹ Burgh Records of Aberdeen, Volume I., pages 3, 4, 6, 8, 38, 60‒63, 68, 73, 373, 377‒379, 382, 392, 421, 422.

Touching social vice, illegitimacy was prevalent amongst the royal family, the nobles, the clergy, and the people. Robert I., Robert II., Robert III., and James IV., had many natural children, and many of the highest nobles had natural children. In the fifteenth century, clandestine espousals and marriages were common among all classes in Scotland; but “espousals, however secret, if followed by sexual intercourse, might annul the subsequent marriage of either party so long as the other was in life.” This sometimes led to much heart-burning, serious crime, and strife; and this was especially the case in the royal family of Stuart in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. The Crown was much weakened owing to the large number of children which Robert II. had by his two wives, and his natural sons and daughters. One form of irregular cohabitation was called “Hand-fasted,” but not married. Early in the sixteenth century a statute of Archbishop Forman enacted “that clandestine espousals should be denounced, under the pain of excommunication, four times a year in every church in his diocese.” This statute ordered the same denunciation to be fulminated against those who after espousals lived together as man and wife without celebrating marriage openly and in the face of the church. Brothels were common in the burghs in the fifteenth century.¹

¹ Statuta Ecclesiæ Scoticanæ, Volume I., pages 86, 87, 275‒277.

The castles of the thirteenth century were briefly noticed, and some of them became associated with the struggle of Independence, and were embalmed in the history of the nation. The square towers which were erected in the latter part of the fourteenth century, but mostly in the fifteenth century, were characteristic of the state of society. The square towers of this period were stern keeps which rose storey above storey to a considerable height, and each storey usually consisted of a single apartment; the walls were very thick, and the entrance door was placed high for security, and the window-openings narrow. The floors of the apartments were strewed with bent, grass, or rushes mingled with sweet herbs. Such were the abodes in which the barons and their families and servants lived, and assembled together in the hall to take their food and enjoy their drink. There were no separate apartments for the women but their sleeping-rooms. The square tower usually contained a dungeon in which the prisoners were kept, partly underground.

Although towards the end of the fifteenth century a few good castellated edifices were erected, nearly another hundred years, however, elapsed before a radical improvement was effected in the dwellings of the Scotch nobles.

David II. in the latter part of his reign restored Edinburgh Castle, and made extensive additions to it, including the great tower, which was known as the Wellhouse Tower, and also the passage which formed the communication between it and the castle. The buildings were kept in repair and added to by succeeding kings, and thus it became a royal residence as well as one of the chief strongholds of the kingdom. James I. made considerable repairs on the castle and some additions. There was a royal castle at Linlithgow in the twelfth century, and Edward I. built a tower or peel there. Robert II. and Robert III. frequently resided at Linlithgow, and small sums were expended on this residence towards the close of the reign of the latter King. Shortly after the return of James I., the town, the palace, and the nave of the church of Linlithgow were destroyed by fire. James I. immediately commenced to re-build the palace in a new form and style, and the work of building and finishing the palace, and the park and fish ponds connected with it, were going on during the greater part of his reign. He expended a considerable sum of money on the works; and after his death the work of completing the building of the palace proceeded till 1451, when it appears the west side, and probably a part of the north side, were then erected. In 1467 the work was resumed, and during the succeeding four years a large sum of money was expended on it; and in 1468 the grounds around the palace were extended. Between the years 1488 and 1496 the south side of the palace seems to have been erected; and operations at the palace went on into the succeeding century. There was a garden at the palace and extensive grounds.

The erection of the quaint building in the Castle of Stirling known as the palace, seems to have been commenced in 1496; and about the same time a large kitchen garden was formed, perhaps in the valley on the south side of the castle rock. The garden was well stocked with trees. It appears that the south front of Falkland palace as it now stands, was built in the early years of the sixteenth century. There were extensive grounds around Falkland Castle in which deer were kept, and there was also a garden.¹

¹ Exchequer Rolls of Scotland; Accounts of the Lord High Treasurer, Volume I., Preface, pages 263‒267.

A considerable number of churches were built in the latter part of the fourteenth century and in the following one. David II. built and endowed the church of St. Monance in Fife. Most of the churches erected in Scotland during this period were of the decorated flamboyant style, and the polygonal apse was introduced from France. This class of churches generally ran into the three-sided apse, and double doorways with flattened heads which enclosed a pointed arch; battlements were rare, and the corby-stepped gable and saddle-backed towers began to appear before the close of the period. Portions of these decorated churches still remain in Scotland, and specimens may be seen in the nave of the Cathedral of Glasgow, the churches of Linlithgow, Perth, Stirling, and others. In some of these churches the details were admirably worked out, and the tracery of the windows very fine. The most striking characteristic of this style was its surface ornamentation, which was well calculated to arrest the eye of an onlooker. The walls were covered with a profuse variety of embellished devices, the stained glass glowed with variegated figures, and the screens, founts, and altars, were all wonderfully posited for producing effect. The whole accessories presented much artistic skill, a mastery of design, details, and execution of a high order.

Very few specimens of the woodwork of the churches of this period now exist, but some examples of the woodwork of the sixteenth century have been preserved.

The flamboyant style, which was partly initiated in Scotland, was excessive in its ornamentation. “Its essence seems to be elaborate and minute ornament, and this continues till the forms and combinations are sadly debased, and a strange mixture of Italianism jumbles with it. Its combinations in the earlier part of the style, for richness, elaborate ornament, and magnificent design, are admirable; and no one can visit Rouen, where there are many churches still used, and others now deserted, and contemplate leisurely the beautiful church of St. Maclou, without feeling the beauty of the style, and also the value of that fine stone which seems to have encouraged the flamboyant architects to vie with each other in elaborate decoration. The portals of Abbeville, Beauvais, Evreux, and St. Maclou at Rouen, parts of Caudebec Church, and various others, are some of the finest specimens of this style.”¹

¹ Rickman; The Ancient Church of Scotland, by Walcott.

Many notices of the workmen engaged in the building of these churches occur in the records, and some of them were a long time in process of building. The Cathedral of Aberdeen was more than a hundred years in building, and the choir of St. Nicholas more than half a century; while many of the fines imposed by the bailies in the burgh court, were ordered to be applied to the building of the same cathedral.

The Church still possessed extensive tracts of land which yielded a large income, and considering the other sources of her revenue, such as tithes, offerings, and the sums of money accruing from the Church courts in the form of fees and fines; and recalling the fact that the clergy were the best educated party in the kingdom, it seems that they could not have failed to command power and influence in the nation. The occasional efforts made by the Crown to limit the power of the Church only showed its own weakness, and the Scottish Kings usually found it more in harmony with their own interest to recognise and support the claims and privileges of the Church. The attempts of the Crown to recover the patronage of benefices failed, for at the Reformation, out of nine hundred and forty benefices, six hundred and seventy-eight were under the control of the Church.¹

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume II., pages 83, 85, 99, 133, 141, 166, 173, 183, 209, 232, 237.

Originally the monasteries tended to advance the progress of the country, as the monks for a long time took the lead in agricultural improvement and in dairy produce; but the principles on which the monasteries were established only harmonised with a comparative rude stage of civilisation, and in the fifteenth century they showed signs of decay. The chief religious houses in Scotland were very rich, and they had for a long period absorbed the greater part of the revenue of the parish churches. The result was that the religious instruction of the people was neglected, while the abbots and monks were rolling in wealth.

Instead of dealing with a number of religious houses and entering into needless details, I will present a brief account of a typical monastery. Such monasteries as Melrose, Kelso, Holyrood, Paisley, Arbroath, Scone, and others, had each a greater or less number of parish churches attached to them; and taking the monastery of Arbroath, which was richly endowed, the working of the system can be realised. This religious house had lands in various districts, besides upwards of thirty parish churches. In the Highlands it had the church of Inverness, the churches of Banff and Aberchirder in Banffshire, the church of Fyvie in Buchan, Aberdeenshire, and churches in other places widely apart and far from Arbroath. It was then the duty of the Abbot of Arbroath to pay the vicars or pastors of these parishes, as they were impropriated to the monastery; thus the proceeds of such benefices were paid to the monastery, and the abbot might pay the vicars or not as he thought fit. The practical operation and the results of such a system can be easily realised.

The lands of the monastery of Arbroath and the benefices attached to it, brought in a large quantity of grain, and great numbers of cattle, sheep, swine, poultry, and fish, and other provisions of all kinds. In 1489 the annual consumption of this monastery stood thus:――30 chalders of wheat, 40 chalders or 640 bolls of oatmeal, and 82 chalders of malt; 800 fat sheep, 180 head of fat cattle, a number of lambs, a quantity of veal, and 24 swine; a large number of chickens and geese, and immense quantities of butter, cheese, and eggs; 12,000 dried haddocks and speldings, 1,500 ♦keelings, and about the same number of fresh fish, besides 9 barrels of salmon; 6 gallons of honey, a quantity of fruit, almonds, and raisins, and a large supply of wine and ale.¹ This monastery was a very large establishment, as its massive ruins still attest; yet it is somewhat difficult to understand how the monks and inmates of the monastery could have consumed such an enormous amount of food and drink, even after making an ample allowance for the visits of the King and the lords of the realm, the archbishops, and others, who occasionally sojourned at the establishment. It seems probable that there was a considerable waste of the gifts of nature and of industry in such establishments towards the close of the fifteenth century. Several of the other monasteries were as rich as that of Arbroath, perhaps one or two might have been even richer, so that at the period under consideration it was a fair specimen of the great monasteries of the kingdom.

♦ “kellings” replaced with “keelings”

¹ Register of the Monastery of Arbroath, Volume I., pages 3, 8, 31, 37, 41, 93, 212, 262‒263.

Nunneries were not numerous in Scotland, and were classed according to their rule, like the monks. At Coldstream there was a convent of Cistercian nuns, and a register of their house has been preserved. There was another convent of the same order at Haddington, which received forty shillings annually from the rents of the burgh. There was a nunnery in the vicinity of Perth, one in Aberdeen, and a few in other places.

The friars were a distinct class, and differed from the endowed monks and regular canons. They were a somewhat later offspring of the Church of Rome, having come to Scotland in the thirteenth century. The friars professed the rule of poverty, and practised begging; according to law they could not hold property, except their church and place of residence, which might include gardens. Unlike the monks, the friars usually settled in towns amid the busy haunts of men; they had no vows of seclusion, and some of them were very active men, and attained distinction as popular preachers.

The Dominicans were called “black friars” in Scotland from their dress; and in other countries this order was entrusted with the inquiries connected with the Inquisition, but it does not appear that they exercised this function much in Scotland. They had a large house in Edinburgh, which was frequently used for the assemblies of the National Church. Their establishment at Glasgow was very extensive; and there they had fine gardens and a cemetery. They had churches in Perth, Aberdeen, and in other places. The Franciscans, or the grey friars, professed to follow the strict rule of their order, which enjoined chastity, poverty, obedience, and simple food. They had churches in Glasgow, Lanark, Haddington, Ayr, Dundee, Perth, Elgin, and elsewhere. Their establishment at Lanark was a large one; and in 1496 a meeting of all the Franciscan brethren in Scotland was held in it. The Carmelites were called white friars from their habit. They were very strict in their rule of life, and had churches in Dundee, Irvine, Linlithgow, Aberdeen, Banff, and other places.

Hospitals were pretty numerous, amounting to upwards of eighty, but they were poorly endowed. They were intended for various purposes, such as infirmaries for the sick and the aged, as hostels for pilgrims and travellers, or homes for those afflicted with leprosy. They were placed at the gates and in the vicinity of towns, at the river-side beside the ferry-boat, and in the mountain passes. The foundation of an hospital usually maintained a few brethren, who devoted themselves to the care of the sick and the poor; and sometimes small grants of money from the public revenue were given to them. Amid all the rudeness of the times the poor and the infirm were not altogether neglected; but many abuses prevailed in the hospitals, and Acts of Parliament were passed for visiting and reforming them.¹

¹ Exchequer Rolls of Scotland; _Origines Parochiales Scotiæ_, Volume I., pages 6, 463, 464, 120; _Burgh Records of Peebles_, pages 146, 151, 170; _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages 7, 16, 49, 86, 97; ♦Walcott’s Ancient Church of Scotland, pages 339‒342, 376‒383, 343‒348.

♦ “Wallcott’s” replaced with “Walcott’s”

It is quite evident that the body of the people were firmly attached to the prevailing religious creed. They manifested their religious feelings in many ways. As already indicated, the craftsmen were closely associated with their special chapels, altars, and saints, and contributed a part of their means to uphold and adorn their favourite chapels and altars. Thus the special and personal form of their worship greatly intensified their religious feelings, and it became engrained into the very tissues of the nation’s life, and though time might change its form, its spirit and force endured.

A few examples of the avowed motives which induced men to assign property to the Church, may be presented. In 1321 Robert I. granted the church of Kirkmacho to the monastery of Arbroath――“For the health of his soul, and the souls of his ancestors and successors, Kings of Scotland, and especially for the souls of those whose bodies rest within the church and its cemetery.” In 1327 David Lindsay, Lord of Crawford, granted to the monks of Newbottle a tract of land in the territory of Crawford――“For the weal of his soul and the soul of Mary his wife; and with all the escheats which belonged to the land and the men dwelling on it: and transferred to the monks the right of pit and gallows, sock and sak, tol and them, infangtheft, and all the rights and the privileges which belonged to a baron’s court.” About the year 1358 Roger of Auldtion, a gentleman on the Borders, granted property and lands to found a chantry in the church of St. James at Roxburgh. His testament runs thus: “This is the form in which Roger of Auldtion founded the chantry of his chaplain officiating at Roxburgh in the church of Saint James; and this also is the form in which he ordained all alms and pious deeds which he has done, or in future may do:――First, namely, for the love of God, and the Blessed Virgin Mary, the mother of the same, and of all the saints; and also for the weal of his own soul and of the souls of Margaret and Felix, his successive wives, and for the souls of all to whom he is beholden and indebted, and for the souls of all against whom he has offended, and whose goods he has unjustly had or possessed, and for the souls of all the faithful departed, that the Lord may pardon them and bring them to eternal life. Amen.”¹

¹ Register of Arbroath, Volume I., pages 212‒213; _Origines Parochiales Scotiæ_, Volume I., page 168; _Register of Kelso_, pages 397, 370‒375.

The will of Sir James Douglas of Dalkeith, executed about 1390, contains some very curious items. “He gave the half of all his free goods for his funeral, and for masses and alms for the weal of his soul; and also his best horse and his arms as a funeral offering to the Vicar of Lasswade.... He bequeathed a chalice and missal to the chapel of St. Nicholas of Dalkeith, a small sum of money for the support of the fabric of St. Andrew, and a jewel of St. John, worth forty marks, to the church of Newbottle. He gave for the building of the church of Newbottle and the wages of the masons twenty-three pounds, six shillings for the use of the refectory, and other sums to the monks to pray for his soul. He left twenty pounds to the monks of Kelso ... and legacies to the friar preachers of Edinburgh and Haddington.... His robes of cloth of gold and silk and his furred robes were to be given to the church of St. Duthac at Tain, the chapel of Dalkeith, and to other churchmen.... He left his third best horse to the Monastery of Newbottle, and vestments to each of the churches of Lasswade, Newlands, and St. Fillans’ of Aberdour.” Sir James lived many years after he had made this testament.

In 1349 Adam Urquhart of Inchrory, sheriff of Cromarty, granted five marks annually from the rents of the lands of Inchrory, and a croft called the Alehouse in the same territory, for a perpetual chaplain officiating in the chapel of St. Mary at Inchrory――“to pray for the souls of William Earl of Ross and his parents, and for his own soul and the souls of his parents, and all the faithful departed.” Adam reserved to his heirs the right of patronage, and of giving instructions to the chaplain. In 1456 Alexander Sutherland of Dumbath bequeathed six marks annually from the rents of the lands of Easter to a priest to celebrate mass continually for his own soul and the soul of his wife in the chantry of Ross; and of thirty trentals for his soul, he ordered eight to be said at Ross, four in Tain, four in Fearn, and four in Dornoch. He also left six marks to the chanter of Fearn for celebrating mass, with a note of the requiem, and other sums for religious purposes. In 1451 Robert Sutherland, the son and heir of John Sutherland of Fors, granted to the chaplain of St. Andrew’s Chapel of Golspie forty shillings annually from the rents of the town of Drommoy――“to pray for me and the souls of my forefathers and successors.”¹

¹ Bannatyne’s Miscellany, Volume II.; Origines Parochiales Scotiæ, Volume II., pages 239, 416, 436, 607, 843, 650.

In 1487 James III.――“for the weal of his own soul and the souls of his ancestors and successors, Kings of Scotland, and all who had contributed to the foundation, erected the church of St. Duthac of Tain into a collegiate church for a provost, five canons, two deacons, a sacrist, and three singing boys.” James II. had founded a chaplainry at Tain, and endowed it from the lands of Dunscathe and the ferry of Cromarty; and in the reign of James IV. a sum of five pounds a year was paid to Sir Donald Rede, chaplain, appointed to sing for the soul of James III. in St. Duthac’s Church. James IV. also paid for masses for his own soul in St. Duthac’s Church.¹

¹ Exchequer Rolls of Scotland; _Registrum magni sigilli regum Scotorum_, Book X., n. 109; _Accounts of the Lord High Treasurer_, Volume I.

All classes of the people gave liberally to the Church, some for one purpose and others for different purposes. In 1363 William Soreys, a burgess of Elgin, granted property to the altar of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the cathedral of Elgin――“for the safety of his own soul and the souls of his ancestors and successors, and all the faithful departed.” The same year William Pope, also a burgess of Elgin, granted the rents of several crofts and portions of land in the vicinity of the city to the Church, under the condition of praying for his own soul and the souls of his kindred, and all the faithful deceased. In 1365 Richard, son of John, burgess of Elgin, bequeathed one hundred shillings sterling from the rents of Bortharum to the altar of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the cathedral of Elgin――“for a perpetual celebration of mass for his own soul and the soul of Eliza, his wife, and the souls of John and Emma, his father and mother, and the souls of all the faithful departed.” In 1495 George Spalding, a burgess of Dundee, “of his own good mind, and in honour and love of God Almighty, and his mother the blessed Virgin Mary, and all the saints of Heaven,” bequeathed through the provost, bailies, council, and the community of the burgh, a number of articles for adorning the Lady Church of Dundee. Among other articles there were a great bell, a silver chalice gilted over, a new mass book, a new ward stall for the vestments of the high altar, and twenty shillings of annual rent. Very minute and curious conditions were framed for carrying into effect the intention of the donor. It was enjoined that the provost, the council, and the community of the burgh, and their successors, should for ever cause the priest officiating at the altar of the Lady Church to exhort all the people present to pray for the soul of George Spalding, and the soul of his wife, and the souls of their ancestors and successors. Further, there were directions to go to his grave and his wife’s and then “say psalms and cast holy water on them.” The documentary deed itself was written in the vernacular, of which the following is a sample: “For the said George hys sowll, hys wyf, and yar antecessowris and successowris.”¹

¹ Register of the Diocese of Moray, pages 312‒314; _Register of the Diocese of Brechin_, Volume II., pages 316‒317.

The preceding examples were drawn from a class of documents which are very numerous in the religious records of Scotland, and they cover a period of nearly two centuries. It should be observed that the historic value of these indications of the religion of the people consists partly in its relation to the worship of ancestors, which prevailed in prehistoric times. The most characteristic thought and sentiment in these writings was “the souls of their ancestors, and the souls of all the faithful departed.” It thus appears that the worship of ancestors, though associated with other elements, still survived in Scotland.

Another important phase of the religious feeling of the people manifested itself in the pilgrimages. Pilgrims sometimes travelled in companies to places that were esteemed holy, and during the journey they were under the special protection of the King’s peace. In the fifteenth century Whithern, the shrine of St. Ninian, Tain, Dunfermline, Scone, Paisley, and Melrose, were among the chief places of pilgrimage in Scotland. In 1473 the Queen, accompanied by her husband James III. and a suitable retinue, made a pilgrimage to the shrine of St. Ninian at Whithern; and on this occasion ten pounds and ten shillings were paid for livery gowns to six ladies of the Queen’s chamber, which were made of grey cloth bought from David Gill at ten shillings per yard; and the Queen’s riding gown for the pilgrimage was made of black cloth, and cost six pounds and six shillings. James IV. had a habit of going often on pilgrimage to the tombs, the shrines, and altars of the saints throughout the kingdom. He often went to Whithern and usually made offerings varying from ten to eighteen shillings. He also paid considerable sums of money for masses; in 1497 he gave ten pounds to the church of Whithern for ten trentals of masses. During his reign he made offerings at the following sacred spots connected with St. Ninian:――The outer kirk, the rood altar, the high altar, our lady’s altar, the reliques, and at the feretrum in the outer kirk, so it appears that the shrine――feretrum――in which the actual remains of the saint were supposed to be kept, was placed in the outer kirk of Whithern; and no doubt it was an object of extreme devotion to the people. James IV. also made offerings at the Lady’s Kirk of Kyle, and gave five pounds for five trentals of masses for his own soul; in Glasgow he made offerings, and also paid for masses in our Lady’s chapel at the end of the burgh of Dumfries, in the Cross Church of Peebles, in St. James’ Chapel of the Craig of Stirling, in the chapel of St. Mary at Perth, and in many other churches James made offerings and paid for masses.

James IV. was born in Tain on the 17th of March 1473, and St. Duthac’s Church of Tain was his great favourite place of pilgrimage. He made many pilgrimages to this place, and always made offerings of ten to eighteen shillings to St. Duthac’s Church, and he usually gave a gratuity to the man who bore St. Duthac’s bell.¹

¹ Accounts of the Lord High Treasurer, Volume I.; Origines Parochiales Scotiæ, Volume II., page 453.

On the great saint’s days processions were held and the day spent as a holiday. The different classes in the burghs, the provost and bailies, the burgesses, and the craftsmen, turned out and assembled at the appointed place, and each class and craft, with their distinctive emblems displayed, then formed into marching order and paraded the streets, accompanied by music and shouts of joy and mirth. These commemorative displays were performed with all the circumstance and spirit which the nation could command; but it appears that these rejoicings and processions sometimes terminated in a somewhat rough fashion.

The shrines and the wells of the saints were regarded with much devotion, while their relics were objects of extreme veneration, and it was believed that they possessed marvellous virtues. The continuator of Fordun, who wrote in the first half of the fifteenth century, gave an account of a cross which was found when the church of Peebles was founded in the reign of Alexander III.; and he then tells that, “In the place where the cross was found frequent miracles were worked by it, and are still worked, and multitudes of the people flocked thither, and do still devoutly flock, making their oblations and vows to God.” The relics of St. Fergus were preserved at Scone, where they performed many famous miracles; and the bones of one of the arms of this saint were preserved in the cathedral of Aberdeen. The relics of St. Fillan were in great repute, especially his crosier, which was believed to possess many rare virtues, the most singular of which was its power of tracing stolen cattle and goods. James IV. had a relic of St. Duthac set in silver, which was preserved for its miraculous power of healing.¹

¹ Burgh Records of Peebles, pages 152, 156; Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume II., page 97; Origines Parochiales Scotiæ, Volume I. page 229; Pitcairn’s Criminal Trials, Volume I.

The ideas concerning the sacredness of Sunday which subsequently obtained currency, were totally unknown in Scotland in the fifteenth century. Sports and amusements were openly and freely practised and enjoyed, and shooting at the butts on Sunday in every parish of the kingdom was commanded by Act of Parliament.

In closing this account of the social condition of the people during a period of two centuries, the chief subjects touched on may be briefly recapitulated. The chapter commenced with a statement touching the origin, the development, and the peculiarities of parliament, and the functions which it assumed and exercised. After a brief reference to the law courts of the kingdom, subjects connected with the land were taken up. It was stated that from the accession of David I. to the termination of the War of Independence, the greater part of the land of the country had changed owners many times, and that new families had risen to power; but it was observed that Robert I. rather increased than limited the feudal privileges of the nobles, and consequently their power soon overshadowed the authority of the Crown, and they became oppressive and anarchial. The state of the occupiers and the tillers of the land was indicated; and a reference was then made to the extent of the Crown lands in the fifteenth century, and the tenants and occupiers of these lands. The condition of the labourers of the land; and the causes of the emancipation of the bondmen and serfs were treated. The burghs of the kingdom and the communities inhabiting them were handled at length, and the custom, the revenue, the commerce, and the coinage of the kingdom were noticed. The internal and every day life of the burgh communities were then treated in detail, and many interesting particulars and points were narrated, including the incorporation of the different craftsmen of Edinburgh. A brief notice of the burghs which belonged to the Church was presented. The military characteristics of the people, their armour, weapons, and tactics, and the introduction of cannon, were described. The probable number of the population was indicated; and the state of the roads, the establishment of inns, the sanitary condition, and the want of medical science, was pointed out. Drinking customs, festivals, and the amusements of the people were handled; the dress of the people, and of the different ranks of society, sumptuary laws, and ornaments, were described. The price of the staple articles of food during the period was indicated. After careful consideration, I then made a statement touching the condition of the tenants and the labourers on the Crown lands, embracing the period from the return of James I. to the end of the fifteenth century. Having indicating the wages of tradesmen and labourers, the custom of begging, the state of crime, the defects in the administration of justice, and the forms of punishment were handled and explained. Social vice was touched on. The dwellings of the nobles, royal palaces, and the church architecture of the period were briefly treated. Monasteries, nunneries, the different orders of friars, and the hospitals, were handled concisely; and finally, the religious feeling and sentiments of the people were dealt with, and various forms of their practical manifestation were presented.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us