Scotland's History, Legends, Wildlife and Hunting Practices...because the past lives in us and guides our footsteps.



We come now to the consideration
of an important subject; to make a
few remarks upon the different races
of men which appear originally to have
settled in Scotland, and the division
of orders and ranks in society into
which they came to be separated
during this remote era of our history.
At the death of Malcolm Canmore, in
1093, four distinct races were dis-

4 Cartulary of Paisley, pp. 359, 360.

5 MS. Bibl. Cotton. Tit. A. XIX. f. 78, C.
The MS. is a life of St Kentigern, written
about the end of the reign of David the First.
“ Ab illo quippe tempore in hunc diem tanta
piscium fertilitas ibi abundat, ut de omni
littore maris Anglici, Scotici, et’ a Belgicæ
Gralliæ littoribus veniunt gratia piscand: pi -
catores plurimi, quos omnes Insula May in
suis rite suscipit portibus.” Macpherson’s
Notes on Winton, vol. ii. p. 479.

ANCIENT STATE OF SCOTLAND.                             243

cernible in Scotland. There was first
the Gaelic or Celtic people, speaking
the Erse language, and inhabiting
Argyle, Galloway, Inverness, and
nearly the whole of Scotland to the
north of the Firth of Forth. Beyond
them the hardy and warlike Nor­
wegians had seized upon the Western
Isles, and colonised the extreme dis­
tricts of Ross and Caithness. In the
richer lowland counties were the
Saxons, a Gothic race, from whom
Malcolm Canmore had chosen his
queen, and whom he highly favoured
and encouraged, while the convulsion
in the sister country at the great era of
the conquest had driven many opulent
Normans to desert the service of the
conqueror, and to carry their arms and
their allegiance to a foreign prince, by
whom they were warmly welcomed.
During the long interval of a century
and a half, which elapsed between
the death of Malcolm Canmore and
the accession of Alexander the Third,
these materials became insensibly
blended and mixed into each other;
but the process was extremely gradual,
and during the whole period we can
discern distinct marks of the different
races.1 At the death of Malcolm Can-
more, an event took place which exhi­
bited in strong colours the animosity
of the Gaelic people to the Saxons and
Normans. Donald Bane, who had
taken refuge in the Hebrides upon
the usurpation of Macbeth, having
emerged from his northern asylum,
seized the throne; and his first exer­
tion of power was to expel from the
country all the foreigners who had in­
truded into his dominions.2 The fre­
quent residence of David the First, pre­
vious to his accession to the Scottish
throne, at the court of England, and
his possession of the extensive district
of Cumberland, which was exclusively
occupied by a Saxon and Norman
population, must have contributed to
soften the lines of distinction between
the different classes of his subjects
when he became king. Yet his

1 Fordun a Goodal, book viii. chap, ii., iv.,
and vi., book ix. chap, xxxiv., xlvii., xlviii.
and lxiii.

2 Chron. Johan. Brompton, p. 990. Chron.
Melrose, p. 174.

anxious efforts could not altogether
extinguish their jealous animosities,
or prevent them from breaking out on
most occasions when they were com­
pelled to act together.3 For example,
at the battle of the Standard, Malise,
earl of Strathern, a Gaelic chief, re­
monstrated with the Scottish king
against his design of placing his squad­
rons of Norman soldiers, who were
clothed from head to foot in steel, in
the front of the battle. “ Why,” said
he to the king, “will you commit
yourself so confidently to these Nor­
mans? I wear no armour, yet none
of them this day will go before me in
the battle.” Upon which David, to
prevent a rupture between the two
divisions of his army, found himself
compelled to give the post of honour
to the Galwegians, whom the Norman
historians represent as a nation of
absolute savages.4 An attention to
the arrangement of the Scottish army
in this memorable battle, and to the
circumstances under which it was
fought, will throw some light upon
the various tribes which at this time
composed the body of the nation.
After the Galwegians, who insisted on
forming the first line, and were led by
their chiefs, Ulric and Donald, came
the second body, composed of the
Norman men-at-arms, the knights and
the archers, commanded by Prince
Henry, whilst the soldiers of Cumber­
land and Teviotdale fought in the same
line, and beneath the same banner.
In the third division were drawn up
the men of Lothian, along with the
Islanders and Ketherans; and the
king himself commanded a reserve, in
which he had placed the Scots and
the natives of Moray, with a select
body of Saxon and Norman knights,
which he kept near him as a body
guard.5 There were at this time in
the English army two Norman barons,
Robert de Bruce and Bernard Baliol,
who possessed estates in Galloway,
which they held of David as their
liege lord. Before the battle, Bruce,

3 Rich. Hagulstad. pp. 318, 323. Johan.
Hagulstad. p. 262.

4 Ethelredus de BelIo Standardi, pp. 341,
342. Ricardus Hagulstad. Hist. p. 318.

5 Ethelredus de Bello Standardi, p. 342.

244                                    HISTORY OF SCOTLAND.

who had been an old and dear friend
of the Scottish king during his resi­
dence in England, requested an inter­
view, and anxiously advised him to
desist from further hostilities and to
consent to a peace. In the arguments
which he employed, as given by a con­
temporary historian,1 the enmity be­
tween the Scottish and the Norman
race is strongly insisted upon. He
paints the Scots as rejoicing at the op­
portunity of avenging themselves upon
a nation which was odious to them,
and accuses the king of extreme folly
in making war on that people by whom
he had supported his power against
the attacks of his Scottish subjects.
“Think not,” says he, “that one part
of these savage tribes will be a suffi­
cient defence against the rest; that
the Scots will be barrier enough
against the Scots; and raise not your
banner for the destruction of those
whose faithfulness in your defence has
made them to be hated by the Scottish

The two races in David’s army, thus
strikingly described, seem to have
been the Galwegians, the Islesmen,
and the Ketherans, on one hand; the
Normans and Saxons, the men of
Lothian, of Teviotdale, and of Cum­
berland, on the other. Nor is it diffi­
cult to discover the cause of their
animosity. The fact just mentioned,
that Bruce and Baliol, two Norman
barons, possessed lands in Galloway,
will guide us to it. It was the policy
of this monarch to encourage the in­
flux of Normans into his dominions,
by conferring upon them estates in
the districts which his Gaelic subjects
considered exclusively their own; and
out of this policy arose a mutual
jealousy and hatred, which it required
centuries entirely to eradicate. The
arms, the appearance, and the manners
of these Galwegians are marked by
the same author as essentially different
from the rest of the Scottish army.
When compared with the Norman
men-at-arms, they were little else than
naked savages. Their swords and a
buckler of cow hide were their only
weapons of defence against the steel

1 Ethelredus de Bello Standardi, p, 343.

casques, the chained-mail shirts, the
cuirass, vantbrace, greaves, and iron
gloves of the English army; but their
first attack, in spite of these disad­
vantages, was so fierce as to be fre­
quently successful. On the other
hand, the Saxons and the men of
Teviotdale, Cumberland, and Lothian
appear to have been a civilised race,
in comparison with the Galwegians,
the Islesmen, and the Ketherans.2

The distinction, indeed, between
the Saxon and the Gaelic people was
as strongly marked as that between
the Normans and the Galwegians.
Malcolm’s queen was a Saxon prin­
cess, and the sister of Edgar Atheling,
the heir of the Saxon line in England.
She spoke only her own language;
and when she communicated with the
Gaelic chiefs or clergy, employed as
her interpreter the king, her husband,
who was acquainted both with his
own language and that of the English

At the coronation of Alexander the
Third, we have seen that the Gaelic
portion of his subjects claimed a part
in the ceremony, by the appearance of
the Highland bard or sennachy, who
repeated the genealogy of the king;4
and, during the long wars of the three
Edwards, the animosity of the same
people to the new race of the Saxons
and the Normans is manifested by
the constant rebellions of the Galwe-
gians and northern Scots; and the
apparent facility with which the Eng­
lish monarchs, on all occasions, sepa­
rated the lords of the isles and the
northern chiefs from the common cause
of liberty. Bruce’s expedition against
the Western Isles in 1315, which was
followed by a temporary reduction of
the chiefs, evinces the continued feel­
ings of hostility; and almost the only

2  Ethelredus de Bello Standardi, p. 345. In
Thierry’s Histoire de la Conquête de l’Angle-
terre par les Normans, a work of talent, the
author falls into an error (vol. iii. p. 24) in
describing the Scottish army as having for its
ensign or standard a simple lance. Ælred
expressly tells us that they had “Regale
vexillum, ad similitudinem Draconis figura-
tum.” De Bello Standardi, p. 346.

3  Turgot, Vita Margaretæ Reginæ. Pi
kerton’s Vitæ Sanctorum, No. 5.

4 Fordun a Goodal, vol. ii. p. 82.

ANCIENT STATE OF SCOTLAND.                      245

occasion on which David the Second
evinced a spirit worthy of his father,
was in the suppression of a serious
rebellion of the northern provinces of
his dominions.1 As to the traces of
the Norwegian or Scandinavian race
in the body of the Scottish people,
they were, although perceptible, partial
and evanescent. Their settlements
upon the mainland in Caithness and
Ross were destroyed, and the Western
Isles wrested from them by Alexander;
so that, were it not for the impression
which they have left in the Scandi­
navian names and superstitions which
are prevalent in those remote regions,
and the instruction communicated to
the Islesmen in the art of navigation,
we should not be able to discover that
the children of Odin had ever pene­
trated into our country.

In the period of a hundred and
twenty years, between the accession
of Alexander the Third and the death
of David the Second, the Norman and
Saxon population became so intimately
blended together as to appear one and
the same people ; and their superior
power and civilisation had gradually
gained, from their fierce competitors,
the Gaels, the greater and the fairer
portion of Scotland. Even in those
northern provinces, which had long
exclusively belonged to them, barons
of Norman and Saxon extraction were
settled in possession of immense
estates; and the constitution of the
government, which, there is little
doubt, had been under Malcolm Can-
more essentially Celtic, was now as
decidedly feudal, including certain
orders and ranks in society which
were clearly and strongly marked.

The king, under the feudal form of
government, appears to have been
superior to the highest nobility, in
three great characters. He was the
leader of the army in war, and pos­
sessed of the supreme military com­
mand ; 2 he was the great judge or
administrator of justice to his people,
either in person or by deputy ; and
the fountain of honour, from whose
will and authority all distinction and

1  History, supra, p. 228.

2  Simeon Dunelm. pp. 200, 210.

pre-eminence were considered as prim­
arily derived. It would be a great
mistake, however, to suppose that his
power was anything approaching to
despotic; for it was controlled by that
of the higher nobles, whose estates
and numerous vassals enabled them
almost singly to compete with the
sovereign. At the same time, there
is decided proof that ample provision
was made for the due maintenance of
the royal dignity, both in the person
of the king himself and his eldest son,
who, at a very early period, we find
was considered as entitled to the crown
by hereditary right.3

Edgar in 1106, being then on his
deathbed, bestowed upon his younger
brother David, afterwards David the
First, a large portion of his dominions,
which included the ancient kingdom
of Strathclyde, and nearly the whole
of the country to the south of the
Firths, with the exception of the
earldom of Dunbar; 4 a proof that the
personal estate of the Scottish king
was at that time great. Many other
incidental notices, which are scattered
in the pages of our early historians,
may be brought to corroborate the
same fact.

In the year 1152, the prospects of
the kingdom were clouded by the
death of Prince Henry, the only son
of David the First; upon which that
monarch, anxious for the stability of
the throne in his own family, com­
manded his grandson Malcolm, the
eldest son of Henry, to be proclaimed
heir to the crown; whilst on the
second son William, afterwards Wil­
liam the Lion, he bestowed his terri-

3  Simeon Dunelm. p. 223.

4  Ethelredus de Bello Standardi, p. 344.
Macpherson’s MS. Notes on Hailes’ Annals,
vol. i. p. 48. Hailes appears to be in an
error when he imagines that the “portio
regni,” spoken of by Ethelred, was the part
of Cumberland possessed by the Scottish
kings, as it was after this that David acquired
Cumberland from King Stephen. David,
before he was king, erected Glasgow into a
bishopric, from which arises a strong pre­
sumption that it lay within his principality ;
and we find that on his newly-erected Abbey
of Selkirk, afterwards Kelso, he bestowed the
tithes of his can of cheeses from Galloway,
from which it is evident that he was the
feudal superior of that district. Dalrymple's
Collect, p. 404.

246                                     HISTORY OF SCOTLAND.

tories in Northumberland as the ap­
panage of the heir-apparent.1 We
know, also, that David, earl of Hun­
tingdon, brother of William the Lion,
held at the time of his death, which
happened in the year 1219, the earl­
doms of Garioch and Lennox, the
lordship of Strathbogie, the town
of Dundee, with the lands of Inner-
bervie, Lindores, Longforgrund, and
Inchmartin, in consequence of a grant
from the king his brother.2

In addition to these facts, which
prove the power and personal estate
of the king under the feudal govern­
ment in Scotland, the riches of the
royal revenue are evinced by various
pecuniary transactions of William the
Lion. It is well known that this
monarch paid to Richard the First
the sum of ten thousand marks, for
resigning the homage extorted by
Henry the Second.3 Upon another
occasion, he gave Richard two thousand
marks to make up the heavy ransom
which was exacted from the English
monarch by the emperor.4 Upon John,
king of England, he bestowed the
marriage of two of his daughters, with
fifteen thousand marks ; 5 and, if
we may believe Hoveden, the same
king offered fifteen thousand marks
for Northumberland.6 Allowing ten
pounds of modern money for every
mark of ancient, we find from these
insulated instances of the sums paid by
this monarch that he disbursed, out
of the royal revenue, two hundred and
seventy thousand pounds; and was
ready, in addition to this, to have
paid a hundred and fifty thousand for

Upon the marriage of Alexander the
Second with the daughter of Lord
Ingelram de Couci, the portion of the
youthful bride amounted to seven
thousand marks, which was given her
as a third of the royal revenue; so that
in 1239, the date of this marriage, the

1  Fordun a Goodal, vol. i. p. 296. Johan.
Hagulstad. p. 280. Grulielm. Neubrigen, p.

2  Fordun a Goodal, vol. ii. pp. 33, 42.
Fordun a Hearne, p. 724.

4  Chron. Melross, a Stevenson, p. 100.

5  Fœdera, vol. i. p. 155.
Hoveden, fol. 420.

annual revenue of the King of Scot­
land, proceeding from the crown lands
and other sources, amounted to twenty-
one thousand marks,7 somewhat more
than two hundred thousand pounds.
The same monarch, notwithstanding
the drain of the royal treasury, in
his father’s time, gave ten thousand
marks, besides lands, as a marriage
portion with his second sister; and,
on one memorable occasion, when the
Scottish sovereign paid a Christmas
visit to Henry the Third at York, in
the mutual interchange of gifts be­
tween the two kings, Alexander, for
the purpose of fitting out his royal
host for the continent, made him a
present of two thousand marks, or
twenty thousand pounds of our present
money, taking from him, at the same
time, an acknowledgment, that the
gift was never to be drawn into a
precedent, but proceeded solely from
his liberality.8

Under Alexander the Third, the
riches of the royal revenue appear to
have kept pace with the general pros­
perity of the kingdom. We have
seen that monarch obtain the king­
dom of Man and the Western Isles by
purchase from the King of Norway,
paying down for them the sum of four
thousand marks, with an annual pay­
ment of a hundred marks for ever;
and, not long after this transaction,
the same monarch, at the marriage of
his daughter to Eric, king of Nor­
way, assigned as her dower the sum
of seven thousand marks in addition
to lands worth seven hundred marks a
year.9 To give an exact account of the
various sources of the royal revenue in
those early times would require a
careful and lengthened investigation.
The rents and produce of the royal
lands and manors throughout the
country; the dues payable under the
name of can on the products of
agriculture, hunting, and fishing; the
customs on the exports of wool, wool-

7  Math. Paris, p. 411. Macpherson’s Notes
on Winton, vol. ii. p. 481.

8  Chron. de Dunstaple, MS. Bib. Cotton.
quoted in Macpherson’s Notes to Winton,
vol. ii. p. 480. Rotuli Pat. 14 Hen. III. m.
5. and 15. m. 7.

9 Fordun a Hearne, p. 1358. Fœdera, vol.
ii. p. 1079.

ANCIENT STATE OF SCOTLAND.                            247

fels, and hides ; on articles of domestic
manufacture, on foreign trade and
shipping; the fees and fines which
arose at this period in all countries
where the feudal system was estab­
lished, from the administration of
justice upon the wardship and mar­
riage of heirs, and in the escheats of
estates to the crown; the temporary
aids which the tenants and vassals of
every feudal sovereign were bound to
pay on great occasions, such as making
the king’s son a knight, the marriage
of his daughters, his own coronation
or marriage, or his ransom from cap­
tivity : these, amongst others, formed
some of the principal sources of the
revenue of the crown.1

If we make allowance for the rude­
ness of the period, the personal state
kept up by the Scottish sovereign was
little inferior to that of his brother
monarch of England. The various
officers of the royal household were
the same; and when encircled by these
dignitaries, and surrounded by his pre­
lates, barons, and vassals, the Scottish
court, previous to the long war of
liberty, and. the disastrous reign of
David the Second, was rich in feudal
pomp. This is proved by what has
already been observed as to the con­
dition of the royal revenue, when
compared with the inferior command
of money which we find at the same
era in England;2 and some interest­
ing and striking circumstances, which
are incidentally mentioned by our an­
cient historians, confirm this opinion.
As early as the age of Malcolm Can-
more, an unusual splendour was intro­
duced into the Scottish court by his
Saxon queen. This princess, as we
learn from her life by Turgot, her
confessor, brought in the use of rich
and precious foreign stuffs, of which
she encouraged the importation from
distant countries. In her own dress
she was unusually magnificent; whilst
she increased the parade attendant on
the public appearance of the sovereign,
by augmenting the number of his per­

1 Chalmers’ Caledonia, vol. i. p. 747.
Chamberlains’ Accounts, passim.

2 Gulielmus Neubrig. p. 98. Macpherson’s
Notes on Winton, vol. ii. p. 481.

sonal officers, and employing vessels
of gold and silver in the service of his
table.3 Under the reign of Alexander
the First, the intercourse of Scotland
with the East, and the splendid ap­
pearance of the sovereign, are shewn
by a singular ceremony which took
place in the High Church at St An­
drews. This monarch, anxious to shew
his devotion to the blessed apostle
of that name, not only endowed
the religious house with numerous
lands, and conferred upon it various
immunities, but, as an additional evi­
dence of his piety, he commanded his
favourite Arabian horse to be led up
to the high altar, whose saddle and
bridle were splendidly ornamented,
and his housings of a rich cloth of
velvet. A squire at the same time
brought the king’s body armour,
which were of Turkish manufacture,
and studded with jewels, with his
spear and his shield of silver; and
these, along with the horse and his
furniture, the king, in the presence
of his prelates and barons, solemnly
devoted and presented to the Church.
The housings and arms were shewn
in the days of the historian who has
recorded the event.” 4

On another occasion, the riches of
the Scottish court, and, we must add,
the foolish vanity of the Scottish
monarch and his nobles, were evinced
in a remarkable manner. Alexander
the Third, and a party of a hundred
knights, were present at the corona­
tion of Edward the First; and in the
midst of the festival, when the king
sat at table, and the wells and foun­
tains were running the choicest wines,
he and his attendants dismounted,
and turned their horses, with their
embroidered housings, loose amongst
the populace, to become the property
of the first person who caught them,
—a piece of magnificent extravagance,
which was imitated by Prince Ed-
mund, the king’s brother, and others
of the English nobles.5

3 Turgot, Vita Sanct. Marg. apud Pinkerton,
Vitæ Sanctorum.

4 Extract from the Register of the Priory of
St Andrews, in Pinkerton’s Dissertation, Ap­
pendix, vol. i. p. 464. Winton, vol. i. p. 286-

5 Knighton, 2461,

248                                   HISTORY OF SCOTLAND.

From these facts some idea may be
formed of the wealth of the royal
court of Scotland. Like the other
contemporary feudal monarchs of Eu­
rope, the sovereign was surrounded
by certain great ministers of state,
under the names of the justiciar, the
chancellor, the constable, the marshal,
the seneschal, the chamberlain, and
the hostiarius or doorward. These
offices were held by the richest and
most powerful nobles, whose wealth
enabled them to keep up a train of
vassals which almost rivalled the
circle round the sovereign; and who,
in their own court and castle, mi­
micked the royal pomp, and were
surrounded by their own cupbearers,
constables, seneschals, and chamber­
lains.1 Next to the king, therefore,
such great officers held the highest
rank in the nation; and no correct
picture of the feudal government of
Scotland, during this early period,
can be given, without briefly consider­
ing the respective duties which de­
volved upon them.

In the history of our legal adminis­
tration, during that long period which
occupies the interval between the
accession of the First Alexander and
the First James, the office of great
Justiciar holds a conspicuous place;
although, from the few authentic
records of those times, it is difficult to
speak with precision as to its exact

It has already been remarked that,
in this early age, the king was the
fountain of justice, and the supreme
judge of his people. We are indebted
to a contemporary historian for a fine
picture of David the First in this
great character. “ It was his custom,’’
says Ethelred, “to sit, on certain days,
at the gate of his palace, and to listen
in person to the complaints of the
poorest suitors who chose to bring
their cause before him. In this em­
ployment he spared no labour to
satisfy those who appealed to him of
the justice of his decision; encourag­
ing them to enter into argument,
whilst he kindly replied, and endea­
voured to convince them of the justice
Robertson’s Index, p. 82.

of his reasons. Yet,” adds the histo­
rian, with great simplicity, “they
often shewed an unwillingness to ac­
quiesce in his mode of argument."2

The progresses which were annually
made by the king, for the purpose of
redressing grievances, and inquiring
into the conduct of his officers through­
out the realm, have been already
noticed under the reign of Alexander
the Third; but the general adminis­
tration of justice, at an early period,
seems to have been intrusted to two
great judges,—the one embracing
within his jurisdiction the northern,
and the other the southern part of
the kingdom. Under these supreme
officers, a variety of inferior judges
appear to have enjoyed a delegated
and subordinate jurisdiction, who bor­
rowed their designations from the
district in which they officiated, and
were denominated the Judge of
Gowry, the Judge of Buchan, the
Judge of Strathern, the Judge of
Perth; but of whose exact authority
and jurisdiction no authentic record
remains.3 The existence both of the
supreme and of the inferior judges
can be traced in authentic muniments,
preserved chiefly in the Cartularies,
throughout the reigns of Alexander
the First, David the First, and Mal­
colm the Fourth, during a period of
nearly sixty years, from 1106 to 1165.
William the Lion, who assumed the
crown immediately after Malcolm IV.,
appears to have changed or new-
modelled these offices, by the creation
of two great judges named Justiciars ;
the one the Justiciarius Laudoniæ,
whose authority extended over the
whole of the country south of the
two Firths; and the other the Justi-
ciarius Scotiæ, embracing within his
jurisdiction the whole of Scotland
beyond the Forth. The series of
justiciars of Scotland from the reign
of this prince, during a period of
nearly a century, has been traced
through documents of unquestionable

2 Fordun a Hearne, p. 940.

3 Chalmers’ Caledonia, p. 703, vol. i. note D
Crawford’s Officers of State, p. 431. Robert
son’s. Index to the Charters, Postscript, p.

ANCIENT STATE OF SCOTLAND.                            249

authenticity ;1 but that of the justi­
ciaries of Lothian cannot be so ac­
curately ascertained,2 while there is a
third officer of the same high dignity,
the Justiciarius ex parte boreali aquæ
de Forth, whom we find incidentally
mentioned at the same period; upon
whose authority and jurisdiction the
utmost research of our antiquaries has
not succeeded in throwing any dis­
tinct light.3 There can be little
doubt, I think, that the judicial
authority of these officers was pre-
eminent, and that it embraced a civil
and criminal jurisdiction, which was
next to that of the sovereign. At the
period of the temporary subjugation
of Scotland by Edward the First, this
monarch, in his new-modelling of the
machine of government, introduced a
change by appointing two justices in
Lothian, two others in the country
lying between the , Forth and the
Grampian range, called the Mounth,
and, lastly, by separating the great
northern district, extending from the
Grampians to Caithness, into two
divisions, over which he placed two
supreme justiciars.4

Scotland, however, soon recovered
her independence; and it seems pro­
bable that the ancient institution of
a single Justiciar of Lothian was re­
stored, along with her other native
dignities, by Robert Bruce. It is cer­
tain, at least, that the existence of a
single judge under that title can be
traced through authentic documents,
down to the period of James the Fifth.
The latter institution of Edward, re­
garding the four justiciaries of Scot­
land, who presided over the regions to
the north of the Forth, as it was sanc­
tioned by ancient usage, was preserved
by him who was the restorer of ancient
right.5 It would thus appear that,
1 Dalyel’s Desultory Reflections on the
Ancient State of Scotland, p. 43. See Cham­
berlains’ Accounts, Excerpta ex Rotulo Com-
potorum Tempore Regis Alex III. vol. i. p. 8.
The Justiciarius Laudoniæ appears in
the year 1263, under Alexander the Third.
Chamberlains’ Accounts, Excerpta ex Rotulo
Compot. Temp. Alexandri III. p. 15.

3 In the Excerpta ex Rotulo Compot.
Temp. Custodum Regni, p. 58, there appears
"William St Clair, Justiciarius Galwythie.”
Ryley’s Placita, p 504.
Cartulary of Lindores. p. 10. MS. Monast.

during the reign of Robert Bruce, the
civil and criminal jurisdiction of the
country was, with the exceptions to be
immediately noticed, divided between
five different Justiciars; and it is pro­
bable, although it cannot be stated
with historical certainty, that these
supreme judges acted by deputies,
who officiated in their absence, or pre­
sided in minor cases; and that they
continued to be the supreme judges in
Scotland down to the time of James
the Fifth.

The office of great justice or justiciar
was undoubtedly of Norman origin;6
and, reasoning from the analogy be-
tween the office in England and in
Scotland, it may be conjectured that
the principal duties which it embraced,
at this period, regarded those suits
which affected the revenue or emolu­
ment of the king.

The office of Chancellor, next in
dignity to that of the justiciar, is cer­
tainly as ancient as the reign of Alex­
ander the First; but the precise nature
of the authority committed to this great
officer at this remote era of our history
cannot be easily ascertained; and where
authentic records do not demonstrate
its limits, speculation is idle and un­
satisfactory. It existed at a very early
period in France, under the reign of
Charlemagne; it is found in England
in the Saxon times; but it was not till
a much later period in Scotland, when
the traces of a Celtic government be­
came faint and almost imperceptible,
and the Gothic race of the Saxons and
the Scoto-Normans drove back the
Celtic people into the remoter regions
of the country, that Herbert the chan­
cellor appears amongst the officers of
the crown.7 From this period, down
to the coronation of Bruce, the indus­
try of Chalmers has given a series of
these great officers; and without enter­
ing into any antiquarian or etymologi­
cal discussion, we have an authentic
muniment in the contract of marriage
between the son of Edward the First

Scotiæ, p. 26, quoted in Caledonia, p. 707.
Robertson’s Index, pp. 67, 74.

6  Spelman’s Glossarium, p. 399. Chamber­
lains’ Accounts, Excerpta ex Rotul. Compot
Tempore Alex. III. pp. 29, 42.

7  Crawford’s Officers of State, p. 4.

250                                    HISTORY OF SCOTLAND.

and the Maiden of Norway, by which
it appears that the custody of the
king’s seal, the examination of all
writs which received the royal signa­
ture, and the cancelling or refusing the
royal sanction to Such deeds as ap­
peared irregular, were then the chief
duties of this officer. In addition to
this, the Chancellor was the most inti­
mate councillor of the king : he was
always lodged near the royal person;
he attended the sovereign wherever he
went, both in peace and war; and was
generally witness to his charters, letters,
and proclamations.1 This great office
continued, as is well known, down to
the period of the union of the king­
doms; an existence, if we compute
from its appearance under Alexander
the First, of nearly six centuries.

It has been already observed that
the supremacy of the civil and criminal
jurisdiction of the great justiciars was
limited by some exceptions; and the
first of these is to be found in the
existence of the ancient office of sheriff,
the earliest appearance of which is to
be found in the beginning of the
twelfth century, under the reign of
Alexander the First.2 This, however,
is the very dawn of the institution;
and the division of Scotland into regu­
lar and certain sheriffdoms must be
referred to a much later era. It seems
to be a sound opinion of the author of
Caledonia, that “ sheriffdoms were
gradually laid out, as the Scoto-Saxon
people gained upon the Gaelic inhabi­
tants, and as the modern law, intro­
duced by the Saxons, prevailed over
the ruder institutions of our Celtic
forefathers.” 3 Previous to the con­
clusion of that division of our national
history, which this author has termed
the Scoto-Saxon period, extending from
1097 to 1306, the whole of Scotland,
with the exception of Argyle, Gal­
loway, and the western coast, had
been progressively divided into sheriff-

Many of these offices, the appoint-

1 Rymer’s Fœdera, vol. ii. p. 483. Balfour’s
Practicks, p. 15.

2 Dalrymple’s Collections, p. 405. Charta
Fundacionis Abbacie apud Schelechvrch. nunc

3 Caledonia, p. 715.

ment to which was originally in the
crown, had, at this early period, be­
come hereditary in certain families;
and, in imitation of the regal state,
every greater baron appears to have
appointed his sheriff,4 in the same
manner as we find many of these petty
feudal and ecclesiastical princes sur­
rounded by their chamberlains, chan­
cellors, mareschals, and seneschals. It
is certain, from the evidence of authen­
tic records, that the term schire was
anciently given to districts of much
smaller extent than the sheriffships of
the present day. In the foundation
charter of William the Lion to the
Abbey of Aberbrothoc, we find the
shires of Aberbrothoc, of Denechyn,
of Kingoldrum, and of Athyn; and in
the Cartulary of the Abbey of Dun-
fermline, Dumfermelineschire, Dolor-
shire, Newburnshire, Musselburgh-
shire, with the shires of Gelland and
Gaitmilk. Over these minute divisions
we do not discover any presiding judge
enjoying the title of sheriff. Previous,
however, to the memorable year 1296,
these smaller divisions had disappeared;
and the different enactments of Edward
the First, preserved in the volumes of
Prynne and Rymer, present us with
an exact enumeration of thirty-four
sheriffdoms, over most of which a sepa­
rate sheriff presided.5 The jurisdiction
of this judge, both in civil and in
criminal cases, appears to have been
extensive, and within his own district
nearly as unlimited as that of the
great justiciars throughout the king­

Under that savage state of feudal
liberty, which lasted for many cen­
turies in Scotland, all the higher
nobles, both civil and ecclesiastical,
enjoyed the power of holding their
own court, and deciding causes where
the parties were their vassals. The
origin of this is curious. At a very
early period, probably about the mid­
dle of the twelfth century, in the reign
of Malcolm the Fourth, the land of
Scotland began to be partially divided

4 Cart, of Glasgow, 103-5, quoted in Cale­
donia, p. 716. Cart. Newbottle, p. 89.

5 Robertson’s Index to the Charters. Notes
to the Introduction, p. xl.

ANCIENT STATE OF SCOTLAND.                            251

into royalty and regality. Those parts
which were distinguished by the term
royalty were subjected to the juris­
diction of the king and his judges; the
districts, on the other hand, which
were comprehended under the name
of regalities acknowledged the juris­
diction of those ecclesiastics or nobles
who had received a grant of lands from
the crown, with the rights of regality
annexed to it.

The clergy appear to have been the
first who, in the charters of lands
which they often procured from the
crown, prevailed upon the sovereign
to convey to them the right of hold­
ing their own courts, and to grant
them an immunity from the jurisdic­
tion of all superior judges. As early
as the reign of Alexander the First, a
royal charter conferred upon the monks
of the Abbey of Scone the right of
holding their own court in the fullest
manner, and of giving judgment either
by combat, by iron, or by water;
together with all privileges pertaining
to their court; including the right in
all persons resident within their terri­
tory of refusing to answer except in
their own proper court.1 This right
of exclusive jurisdiction was confirmed
by four successive monarchs. The same
grants were enjoyed, as we know from
authentic documents, by the Bishop of
St Andrews, and the Abbots of Holy-
rood, Dunfermline, Kelso, and Aber-
brothoc, and, we may presume, on
strong grounds, by every religious
house in the kingdom. These powers
of jurisdiction excluded the authority
or interference of every other judge,
of which we have decided proof in the
Cartulary of Aberbrothoc.2 It appears
that in the year 1299 the abbot of
that house repledged from the court
of the king’s justiciar, which was held
at Aberdeen, one of his own men,
upon pleading the privilege of the
regality of Aberbrothoc; and in imita­
tion of the clergy, the higher barons
soon procured from the royal fear or
munificence the same judicial rights
and exemptions, which they in their
turn conveyed to their vassals.

1 Cartulary of Scone, p. 16.

2 Cartulary of Aberbrothoc, p. 19.

A superior baron in those ancient
times was thus in every respect a king
in miniature. Surrounded by the
officers of his little feudal court, he
possessed the privilege of dispensing
justice, or what he chose to term jus­
tice, amongst his numerous vassals;
he was the supreme criminal judge
within his far-extended territories,
and enjoyed the power of life and
death, of imprisonment within his
own dungeon, and of reclaiming from
the court, even of the high justiciar,
any subject or vassal who lived upon
his lands. Can we wonder that, in
the course of years, men, possessed of
such high and independent privileges,
became too powerful for the crown
itself ? It was in consequence of this
that Bruce, in the disposition of many
immense estates, which were forfeited
for their determined opposition to his
claim to the crown, bestowed them in
smaller divisions upon new proprietors,
who rose upon the ruins of these
ancient houses.3 The frequent grants
of these estates by Bruce diminished
the strength of the ancient aristocracy ;
but it is evident, at the same time,
that, as the new charters frequently
conveyed along with the lands the
rights of holding their own court, the
power which had controlled the crown
during the struggle of this great prince
for his kingdom was rather divided
than diminished; so that the new
barons, under the weak reign and long
captivity of his successor, became as
independent and tyrannical as before.
When we come to consider the origin
of the royal burghs, and the privileges
conferred upon them by the sovereign,
we shall discover a different and infe­
rior judicial power, which extended to
the determination of all causes aris­
ing within the limits of their jurisdic­

In this brief sketch of our civil
history it is impossible to enter into
details upon the great subject of the
law of the kingdom, as it existed dur­
ing this remote period; but it may be
generally remarked, that in the courts
of the great justiciaries, as well as in

3 Robertson’s Index, Charters of Robert
the First.

252                               HISTORY OF SCOTLAND.

those held by inferior officers of jus­
tice throughout the realm, most causes
of importance appear to have been
determined by the opinion of an assize,
or an inquest; a mode of legal deci­
sion which we can discern as early as
the reign of William the Lion. In the
year 1184, we find an inquest appointed
to decide a dispute regarding the pas­
turage of the king’s forest, which had
arisen between the monks of Melrose
and the men of Wedale. The inquest,
which consisted of twelve “good men,”
fideles homines, and Richard Moreville
the constable, were sworn on the relics
of the Church, and sat in presence of
the king, his brother David, earl of
Huntingdon, and the prelates and
nobles of the court. It is probable,
although it cannot be affirmed with
certainty, that, even at this early age,
the opinion of the majority of this
jury of thirteen decided the case, and
that unanimity was not required.1

In an inferior dispute, which seems
to have arisen between the monastery
of Soltre and the inhabitants of the
manor of Crailing, in the year 1271,
regarding the right of the monks to
a thrave of corn every harvest out of
the manor, the cause was determined
by a jury summoned from the three
contiguous manors of Eckford, Upper
Crailing, and of Hetun, who, under
the title of Antiquiores patriœ, decided
it in favour of the monks of Soltre.2

The office of constable, which ap­
pears in Scotland as early as the reign
of Alexander the First, was exclu­
sively military, and undoubtedly of
Norman origin. This great officer was
the leader of the military power of the
kingdom. In England, we find him
in 1163 denominated indiscriminately
constabularius and princeps militiœ;3
and there is every reason to believe
that the province of the constable, as
head of the army, was the same in
both countries. What was the exact
distinction in our own country be­
tween the office of the mareschal and
the constable it is not easy to deter-

1 Chron. Melrose, p. 176. Cartul. of Mel-
rose, p. 64. Chalmers’ Caledonia, pp. 752, 753.

2  Cartul. of Soltre, No. 17.

3  Math. Paris, p. 1028, 1. 63, 1. 11. Twys-
den, x. scrip, vol. ii. Glossary.

mine. That they were different ap­
pears certain from the fact that we
find a mareschal and a constable under
the same monarch, and held by dif­
ferent persons; but we have no au­
thentic record which describes the
nature of the duties which devolved
upon the mareschal, although there
is no doubt that both offices, at an
early period, became hereditary in cer­
tain great families.4 The offices of
the seneschal, or high steward, and of
the chamberlain, belonged to the per­
sonal estate of the sovereign; and
those who held them enjoyed the
supreme authority in the management
of the kings household, and in the
regulation of the royal revenue. Both
are as ancient as the reign of David
the first; and the rolls of the royal
expenditure, and receipts of the vari­
ous items and articles of revenue,
which were kept by the chamberlain,
in his capacity of treasurer, still for­
tunately remain to us,—a most curi­
ous and instructive monument of the
state of the times. The offices of
inferior interest, though of equal anti­
quity—the panetarius, or royal butler;
the hostiarius. or keeper of the king’s
door; the pincerna, or cupbearer; to
which we may add the keepers of the
king’s hounds, the royal falconers,
the keeper of the wardrobe, the clerk
of the kitchen, and various other in­
ferior dignitaries—sufficiently explain
themselves, and indicate a consider­
able degree of personal state and splen­

To whatever spot the king moved
his court, he was commonly attended
by the great officers of the crown,
who were generally the richest and
most powerful nobles of the realm. It
will be recollected also that such high
barons were, in their turn, encircled
by their own seneschals, chamberlains,
constables, and personal attendants,
and brought in their train an assem­
blage of knights, squires, and inferior
barons, who regarded their feudal
lord as a master to whom they owed
a more paramount allegiance than
even to their king. To these officers,
knights, and vassals, who, with their
Chalmers’ Caledonia, pp. 709, 710.

ANCIENT STATE OF SCOTLAND.                            253

own soldiers and martial dependants,
constituted what was termed the “ fol­
lowing” of every great baron, his voice
was, in the most strict and literal
meaning, a supreme law, his service
their only road to distinction. This
has been sometimes called the prin­
ciple of honour; but as their neglect
was sure to be visited with punish­
ment, if not with utter ruin and de­
gradation, it was, in truth, a lower
principle—of selfishness and necessity,
which limited their duties to the single
business of supporting their liege lord
against those whom he chose to esteem
his enemies. None, indeed, can atten­
tively read the history of those dark
times without being aware that the
immense body of the feudal vassals
and military retainers throughout
Scotland regarded the desertion of
their king, or their leaguing themselves
against the liberty of their country,
as a crime of infinitely lighter dye
than a single act of disobedience to
the commands of their liege lord; and,
considered in this light, we must view
the feudal system, notwithstanding all
the noble and romantic associations
with which it has invested itself, as
having been undoubtedly, in our own
country, a principal obstruction to the
progress of liberty and improvement.
We shall conclude our remarks upon
the distinction of ranks in Scotland by
some observations upon the state of
the lower classes of the people during
this important period of our history.

These classes seem to have been
divided into two distinct orders. They
were, first, the free farmers, or tenants
of the crown, of the church, and of
the greater or lesser barons, who held
their lands under lease for a certain
rent, were possessed of considerable
wealth, and enjoyed the full power of
settlement in any part of the country
which they chose to select, or under
any landlord whom they preferred.
This class is generally known in the
books of the Chamberlains’ Accounts
by the title of “ liberi firmarii;“ and
a convincing proof of their personal
freedom at an early period is to be
found in the fact, which we learn from

the same curious and instructive re­
cords, that the farmers of the king
possessed the full power of removing
from the property of the crown to a
more eligible situation. During the
minority of the Maiden of Norway a
sum of money was advanced to the
farmers of the king, in order to pre­
vail upon them to remain on the
crown lands of Liberton and Laurence-
town, which they were about to de­
sert on account of a mortality amongst
their cattle.1 It was, I conjecture, this
free body of feudal tenants who were
liable to be called out on military ser­
vice, and formed the great proportion
of the Scottish infantry, or spearmen,
in the composition of the army.

Very different from the condition of
this first order was the second class of
cottars, bondsmen, or villeyns. Their
condition forms a marked and extra­
ordinary feature in the history of the
times. They were slaves who were sold
with the land ; and their master and
purchaser possessed over their persons
the same right of property which he
exercised over the cattle upon his
estate. They could not remove with­
out his permission; wherever they
settled, his right of property attached
to them ; and, whenever he pleased,
he could reclaim them, with their
whole chattels and effects, as effectu­
ally as he could seize on any animal
which had strayed from his domain.
Of this state of slavery innumerable
examples are to be found in the Cartu­
laries, establishing, beyond contro­
versy, that a considerable portion of
the labouring classes of the community
was in a state of absolute servitude.

We find, for example, in the Cartu­
lary of Dunfermline, that three bonds­
men, Allan, the son of Constantine,
with his two sons, had in 1340 trans­
ferred themselves from the lands of
the abbot of this religious house to
some other habitation, under pretence
that they were the villeyns of Duncan,

1 “Item firmariis regis terre de Liberton
et Laurancyston quorum animalia anno pre-
dicto moriebantur ad valorem x librarum iii.
c. de gracia ad presens, et ne exeant terrain
regis in paupertate, et ne terra regis jaceat
inculta.”— Chamberlains’ Accounts, Temp,
Custodum Regni, p. 65,

254                                     HISTORY OF SCOTLAND.

earl of Fife. On being ordered to
come back to their own master they
had refused, upon which an inquest
was summoned, for the purpose of de­
termining to whom Allan, the son of
Constantine, and his sons, belonged;
when it was found that they were the
property of the abbot.1

So early as the year 1178, William
the Lion made a donation of Gillan-
drean M’Suthen and his children to
the monks of Dunfermline for ever.2
We find that David the First, in 1144,
granted to the Abbot of Kelso the
church of Lesmahago, along with the
lands of the same name, and their
men ; and still later, in 1222, the Prior
and the Convent of St Andrews, by
an express charter, which is still pre­
served, permit a bondsman and his
children to change his master, and to
carry his property along with him.3
In the year 1258, Malise, earl of
Strathern, gave to the monks of Inch-
affray, for the safety of his own soul
and the souls of his ancestors and suc­
cessors, John, surnamed Starnes, the
son of Thomas, and grandson of Thor,
with his whole property, and the
children which he had begotten, or
might beget;4 and this for ever.

When a grant of land was made by
the king, or by any of his nobility,
either for military service or to be
held blench for the payment of a
nominal feu-duty, it carried along with
it to the vassal the power of remov­
ing the tenants, with their cattle, pro­
vided they were not native bondsmen.
The right to these, and the power of
reclaiming them, remained in the per­
son of the lord of the soil, or feudal
superior. Thus, in a valuable col­
lection of ancient papers, we find a
charter by which one of the Roberts

1 Cartulary of Dunfermline, p. 654. M’Far-
lane’s Transcript. The folio in the original 98.

2  Ibid, folio 13.

3 MS. Monasticon Scotiæ, p. 33 ; quoted in
Chalmers’ Caledonia, vol. i. p. 720, and MS.
Original Charters in Advocates’ Library, No.
27. See Dalzel’s Fragments of Scottish His­
tory, p. 26. See also Cartulary of Kelso, p. 9,
as to the bondage of the labourers in the time
of Alexander the First, and the Cartulary of
Dunfermline, M’Farlane’s Transcript, pp. 592,

4 Cartulary of Inchaffray, p. 36 ; quoted in
Annals of Scotland, vol. i. p. 304.

confers upon Maria Comyn certain
lands, “ cum licentia abducendi tenen-
tes, cum bovis suis, a terris, si non
sint nativi et ligii homines.”5

In consequence of this certain and
acknowledged right, in the feudal
landlord or baron, to the property of
his bondsmen, with their children and
children’s children for ever, it became
a matter of great consequence to ascer­
tain with exactness, and to preserve,
the genealogy of this unfortunate class
of men, in order that, upon any deser­
tion or removal, the power of reclaim­
ing them might be exerted with cer­
tainty and success. Accordingly, the
Cartularies present us with frequent
examples of genealogies of this sort.6
The names of these bondsmen are
essentially different from the free-
born vassals and tenants, who com­
monly took their names from their
lands. In an ancient deed, entitled a
perambulation to determine the bound­
aries between the lands of the Abbot
of Dunfermline and those of David
Doorward, which took place in the
year 1231, under Alexander the Se­
cond, the names of the landholders
and minor barons, and of the bonds­
men who attended upon this occasion,
are easily distinguishable from each
other. We meet with Constantine de
Lochor, and Philip de Loch, and many
others, after which occur such uncouth
appellatives as the following :—Gille-
costentin, Bredinlamb, Gilleserfmac
Rolf, Gillecolmmacmelg, John Trodi,
Riscoloc, Beth MacLood, Gillepatric
Macmanethin; and it may be noticed
as a singular circumstance, which
proves how different were the habits
and customs of this degraded class
from the freemen of the same coun­
try, that the father does not seem to
have transmitted his name or surname
to his children, or, at least, that this did
not necessarily happen. In the genea­
logy of John Scoloc, which is preserved
in the Cartulary of Dunfermline, the
son of Patrick Stursarauch was Allan
Gilgrewer, and the son of Allan Gil-

5  Haddington’s Collections, quoted by Dal-
zel, Fragments, p. 27.

6  Cartul. of Dunferm. pp. 145, 146. See
Illustrations, letters PP

ANCIENT STATE OF SCOTLAND.                            255

grewer was John Scoloc.1 It seems
certain that no change in the situation
of these bondsmen, by which they
rose in eminence or opulence, could
have the effect of removing them
from their original degraded condi­
tion. They might enter the Church
and become clerks, or continue lay­
men, and pursue a successful career as
artisans or merchants, but they were
still as much slaves as before; and,
till the time they purchased or pro­
cured their liberty by the grant of
their master, their persons, profits,
and whole estate belonged exclusively
to him. This is strikingly exemplified
in a convention preserved in the Car­
tulary of Moray, which took place be­
tween Andrew, the bishop of that see,
and Walter Comyn. It was agreed, in
this deed, that the Bishop of Moray
and his successors in the see should
have all the clerks, and two laymen,
whose names were Gillemalavock Mac-
nakengello, and Sythach Macmallon;
these clerical and lay bondsmen, the
deed proceeds to say, are to belong to
the bishop and his successors, with
their cattle, possessions, and children
for ever; while the Lord Walter Comyn
is to have all the remaining lay bonds­
men of the lands of Logykenny and
Inverdrummyn.2 It may perhaps be
doubted whether the clerici nativi
here spoken of do actually mean
bondsmen who have become clerks, or
may perhaps merely signify bondsmen
belonging to Church lands. Yet the
words of the deed, and the marked
opposition in which we find the words
clerici et laici nativi, seem to favour
the meaning here attached to it.

In England, under the government
of the conqueror, it was the mark of
freemen that they could travel where
they chose; and exactlv the same
criterion was established in our own
country. In Doomsday Book, a Nor­
man baron, Hugo de Port, is men­
tioned as the master of two tenants,
who, in the days of Edward the Con­
fessor, might go where they pleased

1 Cartulary of Dunfermline, p. 145. M’Far-
lane’s Transcript. See Illustrations, letters

2 Cartulary of Moray, pp. 53, 54. See Illus­
trations, letters PP. Caledonia., p. 721.

without leave. In like manner Robert
Bruce, in the year 1320, grants a
charter to Ade, the son of Aldan, in
which he declares that it had been
found, by an inquest held before his
chamberlain and justiciary, that this
person was not the king’s slave or
bondsman, but was at liberty to re­
move himself and his children, with
their goods and chattels, to any part
of the kingdom which he might select,
at his own will and pleasure, without
molestation by any one: on which
account the king declares the said Ade,
with his sons, Beth, John, Ranald,
and Duncan, to be his freemen, and
as such not subject to any yoke or
burden of servitude for ever.3 As the
master could reclaim his fugitive bonds­
man from any place to which he had
transferred himself, so it was in his
power alone to make his slave a free­
man whenever he pleased. Thus, by
a charter, dated at Perth on the 28th
February 1369, David the Second in­
timates to all concerned that he has
made William, the son of John, the
bearer of these letters, who was his
slave and bondsman, his freeman, and
had emancipated all his posterity; so
that he had full right, without trouble
or molestation, to travel with his pro­
perty and his children to whatever
place he chose, and there take up his
abode.4 Many examples of the manu-
mission of such unfortunate persons
by their baronial masters, and still
more frequent instances of the gift of
freedom, conferred by the rich eccle­
siastics and religious houses, are to be
found in records of undoubted authen­
ticity.5 But the progress of freedom
amongst the labourers of the soil was
exceedingly slow and gradual; the
names which are indicative of this
degraded condition, such as nativi,

3 Henshall’s Specimens, p. 74. “ Præter hoc
habet Hugo duos homines tenentes dimidium
solinum, qui poterant tempore Regis Edwardi
ire quolibet sine licentia.” Doomsday Book,
601. Robertson’s Index to the Charters,
Postscript, p. 54, and Index, p. 16, No. 26.
In Robertson’s Index, P.S. p. 54, will be
found another curious deed, illustrative of
the condition of the “ nativi homines,” which
is taken from an original in the Advocates’

4 Robertson’s Index, pp. 89, 47, 66.

5 See Illustrations, letters PP.

servi, villani, homines fugitivi, bondi,
mancipii, occur throughout the whole
period of the thirteenth and fourteenth
centuries; nor is it prior to the
fifteenth that we can discern the ex­
tinction of slavery, and the complete
establishment of individual freedom.
In Scotland, bondage appears to have
been sooner abolished than in the sister
country. It continued in force in
England as late as the year 1536 ; and
its last traces are still discoverable in
1574, when a commission was issued
by Elizabeth for the complete manu­
mission of the last relics of bondsmen
and bondswomen in her dominions.1

But first, if you want to come back to Scotland's History and Legends again, just add to your bookmarks or favorites now! Then you'll find it easy!

Also, please consider sharing our Scottish History and Legends website with your online friends.

Our Privacy Policy can be found at
Copyright © 2000-present Donald Urquhart. All Rights Reserved. Designated trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our legal disclaimer.