Clanship
and what it meant in the period up to 1690
by Nether Thorniewhats

Up to this period, CLANSHIP embodied all aspects of life. From the authority of the clan, to the law of the clan. From its social ties to the arrangements of its management, Heritage wise, it contained two complimentary, but distinct concepts. First there was the prescriptive right to settle lands over which the Chiefs, Chieftains of non-baronial status and leading gentry, provided protection.

These people were recognised by the clansmen and women as having personal authority as trustees for the clan. When Crown charters and those of other powerful landowners were issued to the Chiefs, Chieftains and Lairds - and the lands more clearly defined by these charters - they gave a different emphasis to the clan Chief's authority. Then it became one of individual heritage, granted from above. This institutionalised the authority of Chiefs and leading clan gentry as landed proprietors, being owners of the lands in their own right - rather than as trustees.

After the middle ages in Scotland, SCOTS LAW was important in shaping the structure of clanship. The law of primogeniture prevailed, whereby the heir to a chief was usually in the direct male line. Occasionally the true heir would be set aside in favour of a more politically accomplished, or warrior type relative. This happened with the Armstrongs, following the fleeing of the heir presumptive to the last Mangerton chief. Then, the line of Whithaugh, clearly descended from the Mangerton line, was acknowledged as the leader. Regrettably, of course, in the 18th century, this line died out through lack of male children.

By then, of course, the concept of clanship was itself dying out in the border country, with peace between England and Scotland. No move was made by the scattered Armstrongs to support the appointment of a Chief. In any case, the few remaining Armstrongs no longer held land, but were, in the main, tenant farmers .

The LAW of ENTAIL eventually also prevented and restricted the division of lands amongst female heirs, with the subsequent loss and alienation of clan territories and the virtual collapse of the concept of clanship. Disputes between two or more clans were settled sometimes by actual formal FIGHTS between teams drawn from each clan. More often, it was by arranged marriages between the individual families. When it was agreed that a case was to go to arbitration, the Chiefs served as the legal agents and placed the case for the offended and offending parties before a panel of leading gentry of each of the two clans.

The president of the panel would be a neighbouring chief or landlord. From the decision arrived at by the panel, there was no appeal. Usually compensation was awarded taking into account such matters as the age, status, and family responsibilities of the victim, together with the nature of the offence. Once this had been paid, the offending party was indemnified against any further action. Social bonding within the clan and between clans was formed, apart from legal bonds, by marriage, alliance and kinship.

On MARRIAGE, money, livestock and land transfers were involved - both bride and groom contributing to each other and to respective families. The Chiefs, chieftains and leading lairds were bound to underwrite these 'tochers' and 'dowries'. With the coming of the reformation, HANDFASTINGS, or informal marriages, lasting for one year and a day, became illegal. Handfastings were the least reliable form of relationships, or ties, between clans or within a clan.

Social Ties FOSTERING cemented great ties and there are numerous such happenings recorded in Armstrong history, particularly between the Armstrongs and the Grahams. Laird's children were eagerly fostered out when that laird was in trouble either by his being hanged or put to the horn. There was also a commercial aspect to this - usually a payment by transfer of livestock, which was handed back when the foster children reached the age of man or womanhood. Another form of social tie was that of the bond of MANRENT.

This ensured protection against predatory clans or individuals and there are many instances of this in Armstrong history. The person to whom the bond of manrent was given was responsible for taking the part of the grantee and vice versa, whenever he was attacked, be he in the right or wrong. In the event of the grantee being killed in the process, the grantor was required to pay death duties for him. This procedure was banned in 1617, but continued illegally especially after the political divisions of the civil wars of the 17th century. Systems

The clan also had its own system of MANAGEMENT. Those clansmen living on the estates of the Chief or Laird, paid rents and calp through a tacksman. This could be in labour, money, or kind. A TACKSMAN was a form of land agent or manager. He would be responsible for up to sixteen families. Strip farming was still in being and the tacksman would allocate annually the rotation of strips of land for cultivation. He would also supervise the common grazing lands, the breeding and numbers of cattle and sheep, the ploughing and manuring and the removal of stock to summer grazing.

These men also had the role of mobilising the men for war, or hunting expeditions for the Chiefs and Lairds, particularly when the crown desired a supply of venison. The Chiefs and Lairds were not without their responsibilities to the clansmen. They were required to govern wisely and were assisted in this by many officers, managers and a host of officials. If the Chief or Laird was not of a warlike disposition, he was required to appoint a military leader. In his administration of the law, he relied on a person more well versed for advice. The Charters by which these men held their land, laid down their powers of hanging, imprisonment, trial and the holding of their own courts of justice.

They were also responsible for caring for the less well off, the sick and the wounded, the widow and the orphan. In all, if the clan had a good chief, a good leader, strong but compassionate and just, all was well and the system worked as a good family should work. But regrettably, there would always be the greedy, the bully, the liar, the lecher, as there are in all walks of life. And he would not be mourned when his time of passing came. Nevertheless he had the power over all clansmen - and we know what total power can come to - corruption.