Canisbay
Principal Sources
OSA Vol 8 No 9 1793
NSA Vol XV 1845 (written in 1840)
RMS I (929) 1410
RMS II (1404) 1478 on an original of 1455, (2506) 1499
RMS III (2047, 2048) 1539, (2882) 1542-3 on original of 1539
RMS IV (402) 1549, (898) 1553-4, (1635) 1565, (2130) 1572-3, (2782) 1578 on original of 1575
RMS V (2127) 1592
RMS VI (1467) 1603 on original of 1600
RMS VIII (481) 1623 on original of 1622
RMS XI (53) 1661
RSS III (2485) 1547
RSS IV (1371) 1551, (3060) 1555
RSS V Pt II (3034) 1566
RSS VI (1551, 1553) 1572
RSS VII (776) 1576
RSS VIII (924) 1582
ER XXI p 466 1581-2
GD1/945/2 1516
GD96/59 1553, GD96/83 1561, GD96/96 & 97 1563, GD96/106-7 1565, GD96/128 & 135 1573, GD96/196 1582, GD96/204 1583, GD96/223A 1586, GD96/258A 1595, GD96/270 1598, GD96/329 1606, GD96/352 1609, GD96/419 1617, GD96/441 1619, GD96/562 1641, GD96/623 1662-5, GD96/625 1662, GD96/631 1663-9
GD112/58/1/8 1553-4, GD112/58/1/22 1589
GD136/1 1523, GD136/46 1736, GD136/51 1739, GD136/874 1816
GD139/39 1740, GD139/53 1519/20, GD139/73 1742, GD139/189 1703, GD139/213 1745
GD305/1/106/307 1665, GD305/1/162/289 1678, GD305/1/162/302 1692
RH15/35/1 1501-2
RS36/2/47v 1606
RS36/2/96r 1606
RS36/2/97v 1606
RS36/2/148v 1607
RS36/2/266r 1607
RS36/2/346r 1608
RS20/1/pp 114-115 1654
RS20/1/p 115 1654
RS20/1/p 151 1661
RS20/1/p 152 1661
RS20/1/p 165 1662
RS20/1/p 297 1672
Records of the Parliaments of Scotland (online), 19/4/1567 – NAS PA2/10, II, ff 22v-23r
Illustrations of the Topography and Antiquities of the Shires of Aberdeen and Banff, Vol IV, Spalding Club, Aberdeen, 1862 pp 76-7
RHP75/1 1817
RHP873 c. 1812
Retours (Caithness) (2) 1565, (3) 1574, (9) 1617, (23) 1653, (36) 1696
Macfarlane’s Geographical Collections Vol. I, SHS, Edinburgh, 1906 pp 151-156: Geographicall Description of the Parish of Cannesbay (>=1724)
Bangor-Jones, M., Ouncelands and Pennylands in Sutherland and Caithness, in MacGregor & Crawford (1987), pp 13-23
MacGregor, L., & Crawford, B., (eds), Ouncelands and Pennylands, University of St Andrews, 1987
Beaton, D., ‘Folk-Lore Notes from John o’ Groats. Being Extracts from the Kirk-Session Records of Canisby’, Old-Lore Miscellany Vol V pp 59-63, 1912
Calder, J. T., History of Caithness, Wick, 1887, pp 284-8: Extracts from Old Inventories of the Titles of the Estate of Malcolm Groat of Warse.
Donaldson, J.E., Caithness in the eighteenth century, Edinburgh, 1938 – Mey estate rental 1772 p 77ff
Johnston, A. W., ‘Caithness Families’, ‘Rental of Neathertoun of Stroma’, Old-Lore Miscellany Vol VIII pp 161-4, 1920
Johnston, A. W., ‘Rental of Neithertown of Stroma’, Old-Lore Miscellany Vol IX p 125, 1933
Johnston, A. W., ‘Caithness Documents from the Protocol Book of David Heart’, Old-Lore Miscellany Vol X pp 16-17, 1935-46
Johnston, A.W., Rental of Brabster or Brabster-myre, Canisbay, 1697 in Old Lore Miscellany VIII pp 4-12, 73-77, 199-207; IX pp 46-52
Macgill, W., Old Ross-shire and Scotland as seen in the Tain and Balnagown Documents, Inverness, 1909, pp 265, 315
Mowat, J., ‘Some Groat Records’, Old-Lore Miscellany Vol X pp 9-16, 1935-46
Mowat, J., ‘Place-Names of Canisbay’, in Old Lore Miscellany IX, p 151 ff.
RMS I (929) in 1410 introduces the possibility that Freswick was then a separate parish. William Mowat had mortgaged Freswick and Auckengill to his son John Mowat for 80 merks. The mortgage could be redeemed by a payment of 80 merks ‘in ecclesia parochiali de Freswic super magnum altare ejusdem’ (i.e. on the high altar of Freswick parish church). If Freswick was then a separate parish it must have been absorbed by Wick before the Reformation – probably well before. There is no mention of any such parochial status in the Books of Assumption (1560s).
The Old Statistical Account p 146 writes:
Land is divided into what are called penny lands, halfpenny lands, farthing lands, and octos. Eight octos are reckoned equal to 12 acres.
This statement tries to equate a pennyland with 12 acres of arable. I have no doubt that in Caithness this was an approximate working estimate. But pennylands were about productivity, not area, so, whilst recognising that it may have been a useful rule-of-thumb in a Caithness context, it is not a formula that can be applied elsewhere. Caithness was exceptional in terms of the productive capacity of its arable land.
One of the vexed issues in land-assessment is whether or not land was held individually in compact blocks of land – or in common, with rigs composing pennylands scattered throughout a farm.
WPL Thomson has argued that pennylands in the far north could be composed of scattered strips of runrig. JE Donaldson goes into this issue in some detail (pp 79-95). Following the researches of J Storer Clouston he suggests that, as in Orkney, there were individual blocks of ‘towmall’ lands, which lay close to the houses, as well as ‘townsland’ which was held in common or runrig. He gives a good example of the latter in East Canisbay (p 81). The terminology may have been different – but the practice in Caithness may have been similar to Orkney. This appears a very reasonable solution to the issue, with the caveat that Caithness was different to most other areas of the far north and west. Donaldson stresses the fertility and productivity of Caithness as a grain-producing area. Unlike most areas it produced a healthy surplus – and so its agricultural arrangements may not have been typical.
It is difficult to generalise about the west coast. Pennylands (or fractions thereof) are often presented to us as compact pieces of land – e.g. in Trotternish in Skye where a great many settlement names begin with the element ‘Pen-‘. (Perhaps Mull should be viewed in the same way). But where the units were larger (e.g. 5d or 10d) it seems more likely runrig was established. In many cases we lack the documentary evidence to show whether pennylands were actually composed of scattered strips of runrig. Any traditionary evidence may have been wiped away by Clearance and emigration.
Generally land in Caithness was worth far more (by area) than on the west coast. I think that what probably happened was that a particular farm, within its defined boundaries, would have a specific value – e.g. 6d. However the tenants of the 6 individual pennylands (or sub-units) might well find them scattered about the farm in accordance with the practice of runrig. GD136/46 1736 provides an example of this. It refers to the ‘superiority of parts of Duncansbay and Stemster which belong to Malcolm (Grant – read Groat?) … and the superiority of a pennyland lying runrig through the said lands … all in the parish of Canisbay’. See also Donaldson p 82 ff.
Canisbay also provides a good example of the mediaeval practice of giving land for service. In RH15/35/1 of 1501-2 the Earl of Caithness gives his citherarius (harper) 2½ farthinglands viz 5 ottums (otas) (= ⅝ pennyland) in Dungasbye. In GD1/945/2 1516 the same man gets 2 farthinglands (i.e. a halfpenny lot) of Dungasbe. Finally in GD136/51 1739 there is reference to the Harper’s pennyland which was probably the original endowment.
There are examples of what seems to have been a ‘going rate’ for the rental of a pennyland in the 16th century. Amongst the Groat of Warse titles, given by Calder, Numbers 2, 15, 19 & 22 all suggest a rent of 10 shillings per pennyland per year. Donaldson (p 89) also shows a standard rate per pennyland in Eastside of Mey in 1720.
RMS VII (409.2) 1610 on original of 1583 shows skait-silver and skait-malt. As with most forms of taxation there was probably a going rate but I have not explored this.
The table gives 80⅜d plus or 13 davachs plus.
Leave a Reply