By William Hepburn

This entry, from 21 June 1499, is one of several from the Aberdeen Council Registers concerning plague. It gives us clues about the town’s response to the disease. Part of this response was to set up two lines of quarantine around the town. The first was the physical boundary of the town. Aberdeen did not have an encircling city wall, so its physical boundary was made up by the town gates and the back walls of properties. This physical boundary on its own was apparently not enough to enforce a line of quarantine around the town, because people were able to jump or climb over the walls and gates. Further measures were put in place, including the employment of guards to watch the town at night and the offer of a reward to anyone who reported someone climbing or jumping the boundary. ¹

The second line of quarantine covered the town’s hinterland. The entry states that no people or goods were allowed into the town from outside of a prescribed area surrounding it unless it could be proven that they were uninfected and came from an uninfected place. The entry appears to define that area as stretching from the river Dee on the southern edge of Aberdeen, out to St Ternan’s (modern-day Banchory) in the west, and from there up through Monymusk to Strathbogie (modern-day Huntly or, more broadly, the area around the river Strathbogie). The area was enclosed to the north by a line apparently set somewhere between there and Old Aberdeen to the north of Aberdeen.

In her 2001 thesis on plague in early modern Aberdeen, Karen Jillings argued that before 1514 the town largely escaped the plague.² Measures such as the ones described in this entry may have helped to keep the plague out.

Transcription:

ACR, 7, p. 963-4, 21 June 1499

Statuta pro Custodia burgi

The saide day It was statut ordanit ande finalie concludit be the aldirman balyeis consale ande communite of this burghe opinlie warnit be the hande bell and officiaris throw the haill tone that nay manere of persone wittalis nor uthir stuf beyonde and one the southt part of the wattir of dee cum within this burghe without sufficient certificacion that thai ar clene and cumin fra clene placis. Item that nay persone off nay degre bevne Sanct Ternanys Monymusk Srabogy nor northt part wart fra ald Abirdene cum within this burghe and that the said personis cum nocht within the tone withoutin sufficient certificacion that thai ar cumin fra clen placis and that thai ar clene. Item that xxiiij personis circualy requerit and warnit personaly pas ilkan nycht to the waching of the tone and that ilke man pas for him self undir the panys of banysing. And that nane Induellar of this towne pas uteuthe to faris. Ande that nay tymmir cum within the tone. And that nane leip dikis portis nor cum in atour ony uthir place the portis vndir the pane of bannysin the tone and quhay findis ony persone lepand ony port or bak dik and schevis to the aldirman the name of the persone he sal haue v s’ to his revarde and that nay tymmir cum within this burghe.

by Edda Frankot

In the fifteenth century, new burgesses and guild brothers were admitted to the town every year. Lists of these admissions are regularly included in the Aberdeen Council Registers. A particularly good source is the Guild Court Book (ACR, volume 5-2), but lists are also included in the other volumes. The majority of the entries on these lists are for men that were admitted as both burgesses and guild brothers, but others only became burgesses. Most of the men were sons of burgesses. Another group that gained automatic entry, on payment of a fee, were those who married the daughter of a burgess. The entries of these two groups are normally very formulaic and provide little additional information beyond names and a payment.

But the entries concerning non-standard admissions can provide a lot of interesting detail on a great variety of subjects. A significant number of people were admitted ‘at instanciam’, at the insistence, of specific individuals or groups of people. Often these are local nobles, higher clergy or royal officials. In 1446-47, for example, John Matheson was admitted at the insistence of John of Mar and the Lords Gordon and Forbes. In the same year John Bullock was made a burgess and guild brother at the request of the bishop of Ross and various burgesses. In 1452 the council decided to only allow admissions of burgesses’ sons and sons-in-law for the coming year. This was either to limit the number of burgesses and guild members, or to restrict the influence of outsiders on the town. But in the admission list that follows we nonetheless find three men that were admitted at the insistence of outsiders: one after a request by the comptroller of the king’s rolls, one by Lord Crichton, the chancellor, and one by the countess of Huntly. So it appears that it was hard for the magistrates to resist such requests.¹

Especially fascinating are the entries that give a specific reason for the admission, or a condition. Occasionally, men were admitted as a reward for services rendered to the town, or at the request of an existing burgess who had done a good deed. In the list of 1444-45 Thomas Rutherfurd was admitted because of his role in ending the discord between Thomas and John Voket. According to the 1456-57 list Alexander Logy was admitted at the request of Patrick Piot because the latter had prevented infirm or infected outsiders from entering the town at the Green. Thomas Johnson was made a burgess and guild brother in 1498-99 because of his labours around the capturing of the killer or killers of Agnes Burges in the night. The threat of an English invasion caused the council to admit Andrew Chapman living in Loirston, in 1454-55, on the condition that he would keep a fire lit all night at the Loirston cairn and during the day would keep a watch for English enemies with two others. Men with useful professions were occasionally admitted for free: in 1451-52 a barber, a Frenchman, in 1454-55 a ‘medicus’, in 1456-57 a ‘mimus’, an actor or mime, and in 1487-88 a ‘carnifex’ were entered. The latter may have been a butcher, but because his admission specifically says ‘racione sue artis’: because of his skill or craft, perhaps we can assume he was an executioner. Apart from the doctor, these men were only admitted as burgesses, not as guild brothers.²

The fees that were paid by most of the men to be admitted could also be used for specific purposes indicated in the records. The fee paid by William Maitland, a carpenter admitted as a burgess in 1455-56 was given to Patrick Wrych ‘pro elimosina’: as alms. The year before, part of the fee paid by Alexander Chalmers would go towards the repair of the ‘key’, which is not specified further. Obviously it was clear to everyone at the time which key was meant. In 1455 the council decided that Donald of Fife, who was at that time a captive in England, could put forward a suggestion for a new burgess and guild brother ‘for his relief and ransoming’. Presumably the fee paid by this person would be used towards the payment of the ransom.³

Overall, the lists of admission provide a wealth of details for anyone with the patience to seek out the gems that are hidden within them.

 

By William Hepburn

Late medieval towns were distinct from the countryside around them because of their special legal status and their concentration of buildings. But all Scottish medieval towns were small by modern standards and late medieval records frequently remind us how blurred the boundary was between urban and rural life.

Nothing better represents this blurred boundary than the livestock kept in and around towns, which were frequently the subject of urban legislation. Aberdeen, for instance, seems to have had recurring problems with pigs roaming free around the town. These animals were referred to as ‘forboddin bestis’. In June 1465 it was ordained that the baillies would choose four men to capture any pigs causing trouble to people or running loose on the streets. These pig catchers either had to take their porcine prisoners to the master of the ‘kirk werk’ – the official in charge of building work at St Nicholas Kirk, the parish church – for a reward of 6 d. for each pig. Alternatively, they could kill the pigs where they found them and take the carcasses as rewards.

In October 1495 a similar ordinance was issued. It stated that no pigs were to be loose in the town, giving a fifteen-day deadline for pigs to be put in enclosures or removed from the town. For any pigs found loose after this point the owners would have to pay a fine of 8 shillings to the court and the pig would be confiscated from them.

Another royal burgh on the east coast of Scotland – Montrose – issued a flurry of similar legislation in 1459 and 1460.¹ It was set down in April 1459 that there would be a fine of 4 d. for each time a pig was found loose and, in October of the same year, that no one was to keep pigs in the town and if they did the pigs would be confiscated. In May 1460 it was also stated that anyone who suffered damage from a loose pig was to bring it before the alderman or bailles and half of the value of it would go to them and the other half to the common use of the town. One entry also lists a fine to be paid for disobeying swine keepers – presumably officials charged with making sure that people kept their pigs under control.

Pigs were not the only livestock to be found in and around towns. A record of a court case from Aberdeen in 1499 shows that Janet Clat and Jock Lammyntone were convicted of breaking down Andrew Gall’s door and taking sheep from his house. In Newburgh, Fife, in 1463 the baillie Thom Rogerson made an accusation that sheep kept by other townspeople were eating crops.² In Montrose in 1462 keepers of the links were appointed to keep livestock out of the area – sheeps, pigs and oxen – and fines for animals found there were listed. Another entry from 1462 shows that Montrose had a common shepherd.

Animals, then, were a recurring theme of fifteenth-century urban legislation and the damage they might cause to property – and perhaps also to public health – was clearly regarded as far from trivial. These records leave us with the impression that medieval Scottish towns were, in some ways, much like farmyards.

Transcriptions from Aberdeen Council Registers (ACR)

ACR, 5, p. 549, 24 June 1465

Item the chawmerlane has ordanyt the four bailyeis to cheis four men to tak all swyne that thai fande lows utow bande in ony mannis scathe or gangande on the gate and present thaim to the maystir of the kirk werke. And thai sal hafe for thair travaile of ilke swyne vj d’ or ellis sla thaim quhar thai finde thaim lous’ and tak the bodijs til eschete to thaim that slays thaim for thai ar forboddin bestis

ACR, 7, p. 670, 9 October 1495

The saide day it was statut ande ordanit be the consale that nay swyne salbe haldin within the burgh uteuth’ bande ande within fiftene dais to be removit the burgh or in bande. Ande the Joysaris of the saide swyne to pay viij s’ for the amerciament of the court and the saide swyne to be eschet and thaj be comprehendit uteuthe bande the saide fiftene dais beinge runnyn thaj beand fundin in ony mannis skath

ACR, 7, p. 953, 6 May 1499

The samyn day Jonet Clat was convikit be ane suorne assis Alexander Red forspekar for the wranguys away takin of certane scheip out of Androu Gallis hous and for the brekin of his dur for the quhilkis scho was in ane amerciament of the court and to amend as law wil and to forber in tyme to cum. Ande Jok Lammytone was convikit be the saide assis, the saide alexander Rede forspekar, for the wranguis takin of certan schep out of the saide hous and brekin of the sad dur as saide is et cetera

The saide day Jonet Clat and Jok Lammyntone was convikit tbe the saide assis Alexander Rede forspekar for the away takin of Certan Schep fra Androw Gall this day takin in his corne for the quhilkis thai war in ane amerciament of the court et cetera

by Claire Hawes

This entry, from volume 7 of the Aberdeen Council Registers, gives a rare insight into the cultural life of the burgh. It is a statute, from 18 January 1493,  which orders that all the burgesses of the town should take turns in hosting John and Robert, the burgh’s minstrels. Any burgess who refused to host would have to pay the minstrels 12 pence, for food, drink and wages. This allowed the cost of the minstrels’ board and lodging to be distributed amongst the burgesses.

The fact that John and Robert were ‘common minstrels’ suggests that they were employed by the town as a whole – the burgh corporation – rather than by individuals, hence the reason that all the burgesses had to contribute to their upkeep. It is likely that their services were required on important occasions such as feast days, meetings of the guild, and perhaps the annual head court, as well as for visits from royal officials, and even the king himself.

In 1507 James IV’s new bride, Margaret Tudor, undertook a ceremonial entry into the city. The event was recorded in verse by William Dunbar, a famous Scottish Renaissance poet. The minstrels are mentioned in the third verse – could it be John and Robert?

Ane fair processioun mett hir at the port,

In a cap of gold and silk full pleasantlie,

Syne at hir entrie with many fair disport

Ressaveit hir on streittis lustilie;

Quhair first the salutatioun honorabilly

Of the sweitt Virgin guidlie mycht be seine,

The sound of menstraillis blawing to the sky:

Be blyth and blisfull, burgh of Aberdein.

 

Transcription:

The saide day it was statutit, ordanit and grantit be the aldirman, balyeis ande divers of the consal and communite present for the tyme, that Jonhe and Robert – thar commone menstralis – sal have resonabile dietis circualie throw the nichtbouris of the towne. Ande if ony persone or personis refus to resave thame to thar dietis, it sal be lesum to thame to gif to the said menstralis xij d. on the day, batht for mett, drink, and wagis for simpile folkis.

by Edda Frankot

ACR, 5, p. 296, 25 February 1457

Item Thomas Raa in amerciamento pro iniusta perturbacione vxoris Johannis Dis’ et emendabit parti lese.

Item dicta vxor in amerciamento pro iniusta perturbacione ipsius Johannis [sic; recte: Thome?] et cetera.

Item Thomas Raa in amerciament¹ for unjust disturbance of the wife of John Dis’ and will pay amends to the injured party.

Item the said wife in amerciament for unjust disturbance of the same John et cetera.

ACR, 5, p. 304, 15 Jul 1457

Eodem die Johannes Glenny adiudicatur in amerciamento pro iniusta perturbacione vxoris Johannis Spront et emendabit parti lese ad visum proborum.

Item Johannes Spront adiudicabatur in amerciamento pro iniusta perturbacione dicti Johannis Glenny et emendabit et cetera.

The same day John Glenny is judged in amerciament for unjust disturbance of the wife of John Spront and will pay amends to the injured party in accordance with the vision of honest [men].

Item John Spront is judged in amerciament for unjust disturbance of the said John Glenny and will pay amends et cetera.

The Council Registers include many reference to perturbatio/perturbio and, in its Scots form, strub(u)lance. This appears to have been used for a broad range of disturbances which only occasionally are narrowed down further to ‘perturbatio burgi’ (disturbance of the burgh), or ‘strublance by word’, but which stops short of including violence which resulted in the drawing of blood. Regularly, two people are convicted, one after the other, for perturbatio against the other. Generally the entries are very short, like the examples above, and include no further details on the context of the disturbance: the time, the place and the reason for the dispute. Nor do we get any sense of the seriousness of the conflict. A nice exception to this is the case of ‘strubulance and skathtinge [harming]’ from 1491 which consisted of ‘castyne of wattir and filtht in his house’.²

Usually the convicted and the victims are men, but not always. In the first example above the wife of John Dis’ is both victim and disturber. I think we can assume that the second entry is supposed to say that she was convicted of perturbatio against Thomas, not against her own husband. There is no indication from the sources which of the two may have initiated the dispute. In the second example, the wife of John Spront is the victim of John Glenny, but John Glenny himself was also convicted for perturbatio against Spront, suggesting he defended his wife against unwanted attention. A point to note is the fact that neither of the women is named. Though some women do appear under their own name in the Aberdeen records, they very regularly just appear as the wife of their husbands. In this case it is unclear whether John Dis or his wife was considered responsible for paying the amends to Thomas Raa, as the entry does not extend that far.

It is likely that many of the cases of perturbatio and strublance took place within the context of public houses, which would mainly have been frequented by men, though as said there is very little specific evidence with regards to this in the Aberdeen sources. My main point of reference are the sources from the Dutch town of Kampen from around the same period, which include a lot more detail in cases of violence. In Kampen, too, the groups of perpetrator and victims were mainly made up of men, and the majority of the violence took place in public houses. A drinking jug was a popular choice for a weapon. Unfortunately, similar details are usually lacking in Aberdeen, but these four short entries perhaps leave more to the imagination…

ACR, 8, p. 705-6 (21 June 1507)

by Edda Frankot

The Aberdeen Burgh Registers tend only to include brief statements concerning court cases that were dealt with by the burgh courts. From these, it is often difficult to establish the circumstances of a legal matter or of the parties involved in it or to draw any conclusions on the reasoning behind a certain verdict. With regards to cases of verbal or physical abuse, for example, there are often no details on who perpetrator or victim were, what their relationship was, where the abuse had taken place, what the character of it was and who had witnessed it. Of course, these registers were not written for entertainment or to facilitate twenty-first century research, but to keep a record of the decisions of the burgh courts. But one cannot help but be curious to know more.

The character of the Aberdeen records make it all the more interesting, then, when we do come across additional information in a court case, such as depositions of witnesses. It gets even more exciting when the majority of witness statements was made by women, a group generally underrepresented in legal sources. On the 21st of June 1507 fourteen depositions, nine of which were given by women, were recorded in the Aberdeen registers. These depositions concerned the age of a girl, Isabel Buchan, the heir of the late William Buchan, a burgess of Aberdeen.

There are eight entries in total concerning this case between 30 April and 21 June. From these it appears that the matter at hand was whether Isabel Buchan should still be under the tutory of one of the two parties in the case, David Colp. According to Scots law, orphaned minors (that is to say, minors whose fathers had died) were under tutory until they reached puberty. For girls this was at the age of twelve, for boys at fourteen. At that age minors would come into ownership of their property, though they would remain under curatory until they reached majority (for boys) or were married (for girls).

The depositions of the fourteen witnesses that appeared in court on 21 June are interesting in that they provide information on how people remembered important occurrences like births and deaths when communication was still to a large extent oral. There were no registers of births, marriages and deaths until after the Reformation, and few people beyond monasteries and burgh councils would have recorded important events.

From the statements of the fourteen people deposing in this case it appears that especially the women linked their memories to important feast days and to other memorable life events. Two of the women described their memories of Isabel’s baptism. Bessy Sibbald, Isabel’s godmother, recalled that she ‘hewf hir one monunday before festerinevine and sche dynit that day in Alexander Chameris house’. Alexander Chalmers’ wife, Isabel of Cullen, deposed that she too ‘hwyff Isabell Buchane one monunday before festerinevine’. To ‘hwuf’ means to lift a child from the font as a sponsor during the baptismal ceremony. Based on these memories Bessy thought that Isabel Buchan was at least eleven, as both Andrew Branch, the girl’s godfather, and Alexander Chalmers were still alive when she was baptised. Isabel of Cullen confirmed that her husband died when the girl was one year old, believing she was past her eleventh birthday.

According to Margaret McGlynn, who researched proof of age cases from sixteenth-century England, baptism was the ‘most common single memory of the birth’.¹ Mc Glynn noted that the lifting of the child from the font by the godparents after the baptism, the most significant moment in the ritual, stood out in people’s memories of the event. This expression of social relationships, as McGlynn called it, between the godparents and their godchild, was no doubt further enhanced by the subsequent dinner at the house of one of the couples present at the baptism in our case.

From the depositions in the Aberdeen registers, it appears that some documents were also presented in court on the 21st of June, though any details as to what they contained are lacking. However, it appears that the memories of some of the deponents were linked to the drawing up of these documents. John Moir, for example, deposed that he was bound in an obligation with Willam Buchan for his marriage goods a year before ‘yone obligacioun bundin be the prior of Monymusk’. Presumably this meant that Isabel’s parents were married about a year before this obligation was drawn up, and that Isabel herself could not have been born more than about three months before it (though this is not explicitly stated). Two of the women linked their memories of Isabel growing up to another document presented in court, a deed dated on St Catherine’s day (25 November – the year is not mentioned). Elizabeth Mowat stated that she did not know how old Isabel was but that she was not quite four when the deed was drawn up. Andrew Cullen’s wife deposed that Isabel could ‘gang, ett and drink befor the de[e]d’.

In thirteenth- and fourteenth-century England, written evidence was not seen as the most reliable. According to John Bedell in his article on memory and proof of age in that period, both judges and jurors considered written documents as inferior to memories of people who had personal knowledge of a certain event, though they were regularly presented as auxiliary evidence.² McGlynn noted that in the earlier decades of the sixteenth century very few written documents were used as evidence in proof of age cases in England. People were very aware that written sources could be lost (as well as forged) and that personal memories were more reliable in the long run. This had changed by the late sixteenth century when society as a whole had become more literate.³

That written documents in themselves were not considered sufficient proof in early sixteenth-century Scotland either, is confirmed by the deposition of John Cullen, whose only recorded statement was that he ‘trastis the writ producit under the aldermanis seill’, apparently another document that was present in court. On the whole, though, written documents do appear to have played a more significant role than was usual in England at the same time, but based on one case it is difficult to draw any firm conclusions with regards to Scottish practice in the early sixteenth century.

Relying on the evidence of witnesses and documents, the bailies concluded that Isabel Buchan was eleven years old. Though this is not stated explicitly in the verdict, this meant that she would remain under the tutory of David Colp for a further nine months or so, after which she would be able to enjoy the fruits of her inheritance (though under curatory until she married).

The observations about the functioning of memory in proof of age cases correspond to conclusions made by authors analysing similar sources. Elizabeth van Houts, for example, noted that women, especially mothers and wet nurses, were important as ‘rememberers of birth details’, as this was considered part of the female domain. In such cases women’s testimonies were vital, as is clear from our 1507 case as well.⁴

Of course, much more can be said about medieval memory in all its facets than it is possible to relate in a short post. Hopefully other proof of age cases like this will crop up as our transcription efforts continue and more research will become possible. But even if not, this case on its own has already provided us with some nicely detailed insights into the workings of memory in medieval society, especially those of women, and as such into the events that most likely mattered most to them.

ACR, 7, p. 57 (14 April 1488)

by William Hepburn

1488 was an eventful year in Scotland. King James III faced the second major rebellion of his reign, led by a group of aggrieved noblemen using his teenage son Prince James as a figurehead. After a skirmish at Sauchieburn near Stirling the king was killed in unknown circumstances and his son was crowned as James IV. There is little evidence of these dramatic events in the Aberdeen burgh register entries for that year, which focus on the ongoing affairs of people in and around the town. In amongst this material, however, lies evidence for the widespread impact of one of James III’s most unpopular policies which, in combination with a range of other grievances, provoked some of the king’s subjects into rebelling against him.¹

Between 1480 and 1482 James III’s government introduced a form of debased currency known as black money, which was essentially a type of coin with the same face value as existing coins but made from lower-quality metal. According to a contemporary chronicle these coins, along with the war between Scotland and England ‘causyt baitht hungar and derth and mony pure folk deit of hunger’. This crisis led to black money being ‘cryit downe’ in 1482, meaning that it effectively lost its status as legal tender. The outcry against the black money appears to have been a contributing factor to the first major rebellion against James III.²

Elizabeth Gemmill and Nicholas Mayhew discovered many entries about black money in the Aberdeen Burgh Registers from around 1482, when the issue of the currency and its swift denunciation led to a flurry of litigation in the Aberdeen courts. They noted that cases involving black money continued into 1485 but that the issue was ‘essentially short-lived’.³ One entry, however, appears to suggest that its effects were still being felt in Aberdeen as late as 1488.⁴ It records one of the matters dealt with in a head court held before the baillies of Aberdeen in the tolbooth on 14 April of that year:

‘The samyn day Jhone of Culane Alexander Menyeis ande Jhone Wormet oblist thaim be the fathis of thar bodiis lelely and treulie to content and pay to the men of Danskin for the want of ther silver in tyme of the blak money in lentryne wair ande futvale penny and penny worthis for siclik price as fremmit mene may by it for reddy silver in hand fra merchandis of the toune.’⁵

Like many of the entries about black money from closer to the time of its demonetisation in 1482, this entry concerns the settling of debts which were complicated by the use of black money in a transaction.⁶ In this case, ‘men of Danskin’ (Danzig, modern-day Gdansk) were reimbursed by three Scottish merchants (John of Cullen, Alexander Menzies and John Wormet) for a debt incurred ‘in tyme of the black money’. The Scots were to settle the debt by handing over sheepskins (‘lentryne wair’, ‘futvale’) equal to its value.

The only other known issue of black money in James III’s reign was coined in the late 1460s.⁷ However, it seems that the 1488 entry refers to the 1480-82 coinage rather than this earlier issue.⁸ The earlier coinage was far less controversial and no trace of it can be found in the historical record for the 1470s, suggesting that it may have fallen out of use by that point.⁹ Also, the phrase ‘in tyme of the black money’ appears to refer to a well-known episode such as the notorious second issue of the coinage. ¹⁰

If the entry does refer to the infamous black money of 1480-82, what is its significance? It would be the latest-known contemporary reference to a legal case concerned with the repercussions of the 1480-82 black money issue in Scotland’s public records, showing that while this issue was largely dealt with in swift fashion, some of the problems it caused were still being resolved as late as six years after the event. Perhaps ‘the men of Danskin’ had returned to Aberdeen for the first time since they were paid in black money and took the opportunity to pursue the issue in the burgh court. Further work on the Aberdeen burgh registers may reveal more echoes of the black money crisis of 1482. It could even uncover evidence which sheds more light on this specific case.

More broadly, it links local, national and international history. Here is a case of a local court dealing with the effects of a reckless royal policy on international merchants. It demonstrates the capacity of these records to reveal detailed evidence about the affairs of Aberdeen as well providing a unique perspective on the impact of royal government and the links between Scotland and the wider world.

Lastly, there is a kind of poetic symmetry to this case taking place in 1488. Two months later, James III died at the battle of Sauchieburn on 11 June. After the battle, hoards of treasure belonging to the king were found in Edinburgh and in chests abandoned on the field – treasure which may have been amassed, at least in part, as a result of stowing away coins made of precious metals which he swapped out for the debased black money.¹¹ If the fatal skirmish at Sauchieburn was a lightning strike at the heart of the storm created by James III’s reckless approach to kingship, the case of the black money cleared up by the magistrates of Aberdeen was a raindrop at its outer edge.

ACR, 6, p. 904 (11 February 1485)

by Edda Frankot

The port of Aberdeen in the later fifteenth century was not nearly as busy as it is today. Exactly how many ships docked at the medieval quays in an average year is unknown, but in the first half of the fifteenth century less than ten ships sailed abroad in most years.¹ How many more would have had other Scottish ports as their destination is impossible to say, as a thorough port administration is simply not available. Thankfully, the Aberdeen Council Registers do offer a lot of qualitative information on shipping to and from Aberdeen and on the administration of legal cases between the various parties involved in this business. Such cases could be dealt with by different courts: there are instances of legal matters being administered in bailie courts, guild courts and by admirals depute in an admiralty court.²

On 11 February 1485, in a court held by the bailies in the tolbooth, an assize (a jury) of twelve sworn men passed judgement in a case concerning the casting of goods from a buss (‘busch’, from the Dutch ‘buis’, originally a herring fishing vessel). The entry in the Aberdeen records is quite short, but offers a few interesting insights into the administration of law in the burgh and into maritime legal practice.

Many cases that were dealt with by the Aberdeen courts were decided by assizes. Sometimes the members are mentioned by name, but often also they are not. In this case twelve names are listed, but assizes in other examples range from between nine and fifteen, and usually an uneven number appears to have been preferred.³ In most cases there are no further indications as to who the members of the assize were and why they were chosen (though it will surely be possible to find out more about individuals when this project is finished and the corpus can be searched for names). An interesting exception is a case from 1449 in which seven members of the assize are identified as ‘mercatorum’, merchants, and the other eight as ‘nautarum’, skippers.⁴ In the case discussed here, too, three men are identified as members of the maritime community: Peter Andreis is the skipper of the buss in question, Copryng is his ‘stereman’, helmsman, and Michael is the helmsman of a ‘kervel’, a carvel that was most likely anchored in port at the time. As in many other examples, the ships are only identified as ‘the busch’ and ‘the kervel’, suggesting that only a small amount of vessels were docked at the quay at any one time. Sometimes names are mentioned, such as the James of Veere and the shipwreck of the Mary Grace, both with Dutch skippers, in an entry of 6 February 1482 and the Maryknight from Aberdeen in 1461.⁵

It is likely that the men elected onto the assize were in some way knowledgeable in sea law because they themselves were part of the maritime community. Normally one would only expect men of some authority and standing to be involved, as assizes were often specified to consist of ‘worthy men’ or ‘proborum virorum’, which in maritime cases would mean merchants, shipowners and skippers. But in this case two helmsmen were elected too. What is even more remarkable, though, is that two of the men specified were actually on the ship that was the subject of the lawsuit. What is more, Peter Andreis even passed judgement at his own expense (or rather that of the shipowners which he represented). One would think that this was highly unusual (and irregular), but in another case, between the earl of Orkney and merchants from Aberdeen, the matter was referred to the meeting of the commissioners of all the burghs in Edinburgh. The reason given was ‘… sen the mater langis thaim, thai arre lath to be jugis in their awne cause’.⁶ In that case too, it appears, the merchants involved would have been asked to judge their own case.

The assize decided that Walter, a merchant whose goods had been cast overboard, presumably in order to save the ship in an emergency situation, though this is not specifically stated, would be compensated for his losses. The other merchants would ‘lott’ with him. In addition, the skipper would ‘lott’ with the merchants whose goods had been cast with either his ship or his freight. To lot means to contribute a proportionate share to a common payment. This was the usual way in which the sacrifice made at sea to save the whole vessel, its goods and its passengers (in legal terminology: general average) was compensated in most of northern Europe in this period (with some variation). It is also in accordance with the Rôles d’Oléron. These medieval sea laws which originated in France appear to have been valid in Scotland, as several copies of a translation into Scots have survived as part of collections of the main Scottish laws.⁷

So, this short entry from volume 6 of the Aberdeen Council Registers already provides us with a wealth of information on maritime and legal life in the late medieval burgh: on types of ships frequenting its harbour, on who administered justice in its courts and on how its maritime practice fitted in with that elsewhere in northern Europe. There is so much more yet to explore, not only concerning Aberdeen’s harbour and its maritime community, but also with regard to many other aspects of medieval life, such as the market, the guild, and citizens breaking the law, but also concerning relations with other towns and with local lords such as the earls of Huntly and Mar. Stay tuned for more highlights from the collection!