medieval-atlas/administration/201

Transcription

Baronies, lordships and earldoms in the early 15th century The following six maps deal with Scottish baronies at the beginning of the fifteenth century (but only lay ones; ecclesiastical estates, which were usually held as baronies, are not included). 'Barony' did not then have its normal modem meaning of the lowest rank of the peerage (that derives from a different, English, usage). Instead, it was an estate held in liberam baroniam, with special 'baronial' powers exercised in the barony court; this disciplined the tenants, settled their disputes, heard such criminal cases as assault, theft, and accidental homicide (with convicted thieves being put to death), and enforced various kinds of national legislation. Baronies were thus significant local administrative units. Lords exercising baronial powers were known as barons. In twelfth-and thirteenth-century Scotland the terminology had been employed loosely: all tenants-in-chief of single knight's feus probably counted as barons, and their estates as baronies, which were seen as subdivisions of the sheriffdoms. But late medieval usage was more precise: from Robert l's reign on, baronies needed either specific creation or crown ratification of their existence (which was not automatic; a number of earlier 'baronies' lapsed). Now, when an estate was erected into or recognised as a 'free barony', it gained a more permanent status, and could survive as a geographical concept even if the baronial powers were not exercised, or if its lands had been divided or had escheated to the crown. A number of the baronies shown here were actually 'in abeyance', so to speak, in the early fifteenth century. When exercised, baronial authority gave the lord considerable social status, plus considerable income from fines and forfeitures. Thus grants 'in free barony' became a significant feature of royal patronage (and not only royal: great magnates and ecclesiastical institutions also occasionally granted land in liberam baroniam). As a result, late medieval baronies proliferated, from some 2-300 in Robert I's reign to at least 400 by the early fifteenth century; and there were probably well over a thousand by the seventeenth century. Those seventeenth-century baronies, however, would be impossible to map: many were tiny individual pieces of land, many others combined properties scattered across numerous sheriffdoms. But that was the result of a trend beginning in the midfifteenth century, and around 1400 the territorial pattern is much clearer. Then, baronies did not contain lands in more than one sheriffdom. Also, in most cases they probably consisted of fairly compact and coherent blocks of land. Furthermore, many had the same names as parishes, and appear often to have covered much the same territory. Admittedly, baronies often contained lands in more than one parish, and pari.shes often contained several baronies. Nevertheless, by taking careful account of the relevant parish boundaries together with the location of the caput, an idea of the likely extent of each early fifteenth-century barony can be gained; this is done in in the first four maps. The baronies are mapped by sheriffdoms. Each barony's caput is normally indicated by a circle, with a number referring to the numbered lists ofbaronies® Often, lines radiate outwards from the circles ~, to give a rough impression of the larger baronies' lands. Where there were two separate blocks in a barony, these are linked by a dotted line; where a barony consisted of more, scattered, portions, this has been shown by locating its caput with a cross [xl; neither case is common. In the lists, each barony's name is accompanied by the name (in italics) of the medieval parish containing its caput, and if a barony included land in two or more parishes, this is indicated by + or ++; that helps to elucidate baronyparish relationships. An asterisk [*l before a barony's name shows that it was held of an earldom or provincial lordship. With baronies in Berwickshire, however, account has been taken of the 1401 en actment that if an earldom came into crown hands, all baronies in it were to be detached and held directly of the crown; that was applied at once to the temporarily forfeited earldom of March. (This is one reason why the maps are dated about 1405, not about 1400.) The first four maps also depict some 'superbaronies', the 'provincial' earldoms and lordships, which were invariably held in liberam baroniam. It should be stressed that the boundaries shown are often only conjectural and approximate. The earldoms are the thirteen old earldoms already mapped in the earlier section on 'Earldoms and "Provincial Lordships", 1124 to 1286', plus Moray (revived in 1312 and dating in the form shown here from 1372). The main changes since 1286 are the revival of Moray, the expansion ofRoss, the virtual disappearance of Buchan (suppressed after 1308, but revived in token form in 1382), and the shrinkage ofMarch. As for the "provincial lordships" mapped in the earlier section, most belonged to earls in the late Middle Ages, and ten -Annandale, Baden'och, Galloway, Garioch, Kyle Stewart, Lauderdale, Liddesdale, Lorn, Nithsdale and Skye -appear to have had a special status, indicated by the fact that their owners' titles took the form 'earl ofA and lord ofB' . Of the rest, the Stewarts' ancestral lordship ofRenfrew, and Cunningham (granted to them by Robert I), may be considered to have had the same status; the new Lordship of the Isles accounts for Islay, Garmoran, Lochaber and Knapdale; and Strathbogie was to form the core of the later lordship of Gordon and earldom of Huntly. Thus there were thirteen likely 'provincial lordships' at the beginning of the fifteenth century; the others had lapsed. The fifth map also deals with provincial earldoms and lordships, depicting them on a country-wide basis. It demonstrates how immensely important they still were in the early fifteenth century but not for much longer, for during that century most of them came into the crown's hands, radically changing the country's territorial power structure. This map also indicates the lands of the new 'honorific' earldoms of Douglas (created 1358) and Crawford (created 1398); both consisted of scattered baronies and (in Douglas's case) lordships, and foreshadow the new earldoms of the later fifteenth century. In addition, the map shows the main Stewart possessions, which in 1404 were united into a great appanage for Robert Ill's heir, Prince James. Finally, the sixth map is concerned with another type of 'superbarony', the regality. A grant of regality bestowed major extra powers: authority to deal with 'the pleas ofthe crown' (murder, rape, arson and violent robbery, which were normally reserved to the justiciar courts), and execute those found guilty; exclusive jurisdiction over the regality's tenants, so that any of them brought before another court could be 'repledged' to that of the regality; and freedom from interference by royal officers. Lords of regality thus had supreme control over their regalities, subject only to parliament and the king. Such major privileges were much more restricted than those of ordinary baronies. In the early fifteenth century there were only fifteen lords of regality, of whom several had powers confined to small areas. Others, however, held whole earldoms or provincial lordships in regality, and there were four particularly large complexes: the Stewart appanage (from 1404); the earldom of Douglas; the lands of the Douglas earl of Angus, insluding Liddesdale and Jedworth Forest; and the dozen baronies in southern Scotland held by James Douglas of Dalkeith, the richest lord in Scotland bar a few earls. Members of the house of Douglas thus had regality powers over a vast amount of territory. And, in general, it is striking how much of early fifteenth-century Scotland was withdrawn from the normal administrative structure because of the regalities. 201

  Transcribers who have contributed to this page.

None