Note on the abolition of regalities in 1747

Section 24 of the Heritable Jurisdictions Act 1747, which abolished regalities, provides that "all and every person who shall appear to have been lawfully possessed on the said twenty-fifth day of March one thousand seven hundred and forty-eight, of any such justiciary, regality, or other jurisdiction hereby abrogated, shall from and after the said twenty-fifth day of March retain such jurisdiction of barony, or other lower jurisdiction, as such persons would have been intitled to, in case such justiciary, regality, or other jurisdiction hereby abrogated had never been erected, granted, or existed; such lower jurisdiction nevertheless being always subject to the regulations hereby enacted concerning the like lower jurisdictions throughout that part of the kingdom." Lords of Regality thus retained baronial jurisdiction after the 1747 Act and were and continue to be feudal barons. In addition, the Act was an Act to restore to the Crown the jurisdictions properly belonging thereto; it was not an Act to take away dignities or titles. It would appear therefore, on a strict construction of the Act, that the title 'Lord of Regality' continues to exist, albeit that the Lord of Regality only holds baronial jurisdiction.

The Regality of Holyroodhouse

Albert Mackie's 'Scottish Pageantry' (Hutchinson, 1967) states, on page 74, that James, 1st Duke of Hamilton and his heirs were created 'hereditary keepers of our palace of Holyroodhouse' by Charles I in 1646 (charter dated 10th August - RMS IX, 1711) and that the Keepers appointed a bailie who had jurisdiction over the 'few regular inhabitants of the regality'. Mackie also states that 'the bailie had his own court and prison...'. It would seem to be clear, on this basis, that Holyroodhouse was a regality and it would appear that the Dukes of Hamilton are hereditary proprietors of that regality - since they appointed the bailie. This would mean that the current Duke of Hamilton is a Lord of Regality, except that the title is 'Hereditary Keeper of the Palace of Holyroodhouse', and that this title is an example of a regality title that has survived down to the current day.

Institutional Writers

Bankton II.III.

Para 83 - “Baronies and Regalities come next to be considered … This leads me to the distinction of fees Noble and Ignoble … Noble fees, are those which conferred nobility to persons vested in them; these were baronies and regalities; and anciently all nobility, in the modern states proceeded from such fees; thus the title of Baron included Duke, Marquis and Earl, as well as that of Lord. All barons were equally entitled, as lords of parliament*, to sit and vote in it; … Some persons of greater merit or interest with the Sovereign, were invested with higher privileges than barons by erection of their lands into regalities... This royal dignity implied an ample jurisdiction, extending even to capital crimes, and, in some particulars, exclusive of the king's judges ordinary, or sheriffs; so that they were Reguli, or little kings; hence the kingdom was divided into royalty and regality...”

*Note that feudal barons are referred to as 'lords of parliament'.

Para 95 – “Regality was the highest feudal dignity … The erection of lands in a Dukedom, Marquisate or Earldom, did not extend the jurisdiction and privileges beyond those of a barony, which is called a Feudal Lordship, unless there were likewise erected into a regality …”

Para 96 – “Besides the rights and privileges included in a barony, divers other Regalia and, and valuable Franchises, were implied in a regality. …”

Para 97 - “Lords of Regality …” [NB: The style used to describe the person]

Para 106 – “… for Regality, as the greater, implied all the privileges that were included in Barony, which is the lesser dignity …”

Erskine Institutes I.IV.

Para 7 – “Regalities were feudal rights of lands granted by the king in liberam regalitatem; so that regality jurisdictions, while they subsisted, were properly territorial, and attendant on the lands. The grantees, though commoners [as opposed to peers presumably], were called Lords of Regality, on account of the high and regal jurisdiction implied in these grants. … No lands could fall under this jurisdiction but such as belonged either in property or superiority to the grantee. …”

Para 10 – “ … for the erection of lands into an earldom or lordship imports no higher jurisdiction than barony, D. Montrose, 9 July 1713, M. 10,919 …”

MacKenzie Works II.

page 283 – “A Lord of Regality is he who has the Land, whereof he is Proprietor or Superior, erected with a jurisdiction equal to the Justices in criminal Cases, and to the Sheriff in civil causes.”

Green’s Encyclopaedia of the Law of Scotland [Dunedin Edition].

Para 753 – “Regality was the highest feudal dignity, and, in addition to all the privileges of barony, included …”

Court Book of the Barony of Carnwath.

page xiii fn 4 – “although certain of these erections … were in liberam regalitatem, we shall see that in liberam regalitatem was still in liberam baronium (infra p. xl)”

page xl – “The regality was still a barony, but a barony with fuller jurisdictional and administrative rights. This is clear from such holdings as …” [examples cited]

page xlii – “… this higher barony …”

An Introduction to Scottish Legal History.

page 378 – “Like the barony, the regality was an impartible hereditament. The regality was a superior jurisdiction to the barony and the lord of regality might be given regalian rights over a barony which he did not hold. The barons within the regality retained baronial jurisdiction, and the lord of regality exercised his higher regality jurisdiction over the lands of the baronies within his regality. Over lands included within the erection and not part of an existing barony the lord of regality had complete shrieval jurisdiction, that is, baronial and regality jurisdiction. Hence lands were frequently erected in liberam baroniam et regalitatem.”