BARCLAY, David (1610-86), of Urie, Kincardineshire.

The ancient Barclay family traced its lineage back to Roger de Berchelai, who came to England with William the Conqueror, and was granted lands in Gloucestershire. By the end of the twelfth century the Scottish branch had moved north, to Gartley in Aberdeenshire, and, after a marriage alliance with the Keiths, earls Marischall, received the estate of Mathers, Kincardineshire, in the mid-fourteenth century. David Barclay’s father was the last laird of Mathers, having been forced to sell up his estates to satisfy his creditors in a series of long, drawn-out legal battles between 1611 and 1651.16Ct. Bk of Urie, p. xxv; Barclay Family, i. p. xvi and appx. pp. iii-vi. David Barclay may have attended Aberdeen University, but in 1630, at the age of 20, he was allegedly sent to Germany as a volunteer in the Swedish army, and fought for Gustav II Adolf at the Battle of Lützen in 1632.17Alumni of Aberdeen, 9; Barclay Family, iii. 2-4. The first mention of Barclay in the Swedish muster rolls is not until 1635, however, when he was serving as captain in the infantry and dragoon regiments of Colonel Alexander Gordon.18Swedish Krigsarchiv, Muster Roll 1635/2, 30-1. By 1638 he had moved to be lieutenant, and later captain, of the regiment of Colonel Robert Stewart. 19Swedish Krigsarchiv, Muster Roll 1638/3, 12-7; 1639/13-15. He remained in Swedish service until May 1639, when he set sail for Scotland to join the army being mobilised by the Covenanters against Charles I.20Ct. Bk of Urie, p. xxv; Biographical Catalogue, 39; ‘Robert Barclay of Urie’, Oxford DNB. Barclay’s journey was brought to a premature end when he and other returning officers were arrested and taken to London, where they were imprisoned until the end of hostilities.21Barclay Family, iii. 7. The details of Barclay’s career in the early 1640s are obscure, but he may have served with the Covenanter army that entered England in January 1644, and at the battle of Marston Moor in the following July.22Barclay Family, iii. 10-12. In the same period he is recorded as major of the regiment of Lord Montgomery.23Army of Covenant ed. Terry, 366.

During the mid-1640s Barclay was active in Scotland, serving in the army that defeated James Graham, marquess of Montrose, at Philiphaugh in September 1645, and thereafter he became a trusted lieutenant of another veteran of the Thirty Years War, John Lord Middleton, in his attempts to suppress the royalists in the north.24Barclay Family, iii. 10. In March 1646 Barclay was involved in the defeat of the earl of Crawford’s troops at Banff, and in May of the same year he joined Middleton in a daring operation to relieve Inverness, besieged by the forces of Montrose and the earl of Seaforth. Middleton and Barclay again served together in the defeat of the marquess of Huntly at Aberdeen.25Ct. Bk of Urie, pp. xxv-xxvi. It was through Middleton’s patronage that Barclay was admitted as burgess of Edinburgh in January 1647.26Recs. Burgh Edinburgh, 1642-55, 107. Barclay joined Middleton in support of the royalist Engagement in 1648, although he did not serve in the ill-fated expedition into England which led to defeat at Preston, instead having responsibility for raising troops in Sutherland, Caithness and Ross, as colonel of the horse regiment in Inverness-shire and Morayshire, and as governor of Strathbogie Castle.27Acts Parl. Scot. vi. pt. 2, pp. 56, 98; Barclay Family, iii. 28-9. In the same year he married Catherine Gordon, daughter of the royalist laird of Gordonstoun, and granddaughter of the both the 4th earl of Huntly and the 13th earl of Sutherland, who was the king’s cousin.28Ct. Bk of Urie, p. xxvi. The match may have been brokered by Middleton, who was guest of honour at the wedding and cautioner of the marriage contract.29Barclay Family, iii. 19. Whatever the political reasons for the marriage, it was financially astute. It seems to have been his wife’s marriage portion, rather than any nefarious gains made ‘by the law of the sword and pillaging the people’, that made Barclay’s fortune.30Nicoll, Diary, 240. Six months afterwards, in July 1648, Barclay was able to pay £1,500 to acquire mortgages in Kincardine from the Earl Marischal, whose historic links with the Barclays had been renewed through the second marriage of David’s father to the granddaughter of the 5th earl.31Barclay Family, ii. 201. The lands included Urie Castle, which later formed the core of his estates.32Reg. Gt. Seal Scot. 1634-51, p. 817; CSP Dom. 1654, p. 283.

Barclay was removed from his commands by the radical Covenanters after Preston, and retired to Gordonstoun, where he set about securing his title to the Urie lands.33Biographical Catalogue, 39-40; Barclay Family, iii. 32-7. As with Sir William Lockhart* of Lee and others, Barclay found his enforced absence from politics between 1649 and 1651 was a definite advantage when making his peace with the English invaders. By the summer of 1653 he was a regular recipient of the sort of compliments and concessions that indicate that he was trusted by the government: passes to travel around Scotland, authority for himself and his servants to carry weapons, and, in March 1654, licence to go to London with a favourable letter to Oliver Cromwell* ‘about the mortgaged lands’.34Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke xlv, unfol.: 15 June, 18 Aug. 1653; 4 Jan., 15 Mar. 1654. Knowledge of Barclay’s own tangled finances no doubt encouraged the Scottish authorities to make use of his experience in other cases as well, and in April 1654 he was made one of the trustees under the ordinance for settling the estates of those excepted from pardon, with a remit to provide for wives and children and pay off creditors and those Englishmen granted donatives from the forfeited estates.35A. and O. Over the next few months, Barclay became the spokesman for the trustees. When he left for England in August 1654 such diverse sources as the royalist earl of Glencairn and the Protester Sir Archibald Johnston* of Wariston suspected that he was acting as emissary from Lord Middleton, who wished to make terms with the English; but it seems that Barclay’s motives were more selfish.36Scot. and Protectorate ed. Firth, 164; Barclay Family, iii. 44. Immediately on his arrival he submitted a petition to the protectoral council asking for his own case to be settled, as the rules threatened to exclude his claim purely because it fell outside the stipulated time limit.37CSP Dom. 1654, p. 283. Barclay was not entirely focused on his own affairs, however. As well as promoting his claims over Urie, he was also eager to ensure that the dowager Countess Marischal and her children and grandchildren received their rightful share of the estate, and the dowager countess praised his efforts in London, adding that ‘Colonel Barclay writes very kindly, and promises all the assistance that is within his reach’ to clear the estate for her benefit.38Ct. Bk of Urie, p. xxvii. It was probably on Barclay’s advice that, in the autumn of 1654, the dowager countess agreed to release her children’s interest in the estate so that they could claim lands offered in compensation, and he certainly remained on good terms with the Earl Marischal later in the 1650s.39D. Menarry, ‘The Irish and Scottish Landed Elites from Regicide to Restoration’ (Aberdeen Univ. PhD, 2001), 278n; Barclay Family, iii. 50, 58-9.

Barclay’s candidacy for Forfarshire and Kincardineshire in the 1654 elections was probably motivated by his private financial concerns.40Dow, Cromwellian Scot. 152. At Westminster he was named to only four committees, including that to consider the forces necessary to be maintained by the commonwealth, which may have reflected his former military experience.41CJ vii. 370b, 373b, 380a, 381a. Barclay was back in Scotland by the spring of 1655, when he was granted a pass to anywhere within the ‘quarters’.42Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke xlvii, unfol.: 11 May 1655. He was included in the assessment commissions for Kincardineshire and Forfarshire, appointed in December of that year.43Acts Parl. Scot. vi. pt. 2, p. 840. Barclay was commissioned by the local gentry to act as their agent in London in October 1655, and at the same time seems to have worked for his wife’s kinsman, the earl of Sutherland.44Barclay Family, iii. 46, 49; W. Fraser, The Sutherland Book (3 vols. Edinburgh, 1892), ii. 174; iii. 200. In January 1656, Barclay was given another post warrant to return to London.45Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke xlvii, unfol.: 17 Jan. 1656. This last visit was prompted by concern among the trustees that the estates on offer could not satisfy all claimants, and that those English soldiers granted substantial donatives earlier in the decade were given preferential treatment.46TSP iv. 549. English vested interests made the question politically sensitive. Barclay was directly involved in the settlement of the earl of Lauderdale’s estates, and had acted as commissioner for the countess in December 1655.47Add. 23113, f. 40. The Lauderdale business involved key political figures, including John Swinton* of Swinton and General John Lambert*, whose donatives had been taken from the estate. George Monck*, whose donative had been taken from the lands of the duke of Hamilton, also sought to influence Barclay and his fellow trustees. In February 1656, Monck wrote to Lambert expressing his concern that ‘Colonel David Barclay is gone up to London to move his highness and council about the forfeited lands here (for the satisfaction of creditors)’ – and requesting that his own share of the Hamilton estate, which he had sold on to others in 1654, would be honoured.48Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke l, f. 140v; Scot. and Protectorate, ed. Firth, 320. In London, Barclay submitted a petition to the protector, pointing out the problems with the current arrangements, especially the burdens created by the donatives, and highlighting the problems faced by those (like himself) who had acquired mortgages, and by the wives and children of those forfeited.49CSP Dom. 1655-6, pp. 361-3 In June 1656 Barclay also asked that his own case might be resolved, and a month later he gained the support of the protectoral council which ordered the Scottish government to investigate, and in the meantime suspended moves to sell the lands involved.50CSP Dom. 1655-6, p. 363; 1656-7, p. 40. In September the council also ordered a review of its policy towards the settlement of forfeited estates, although it is unclear whether this was a direct result of lobbying by Barclay.51Menarry, ‘Landed Elites’, 342-6.

Barclay’s return for the second protectorate Parliament reflected his usefulness to the government. His election for Kincardineshire and Forfarshire on 13 August had the backing of the Scottish president, Lord Broghill (Roger Boyle*), as well as the support of the local gentry, who continued to regard him as a useful agent in London, and paid his ‘Parliament charges’.52TSP v. 322; Barclay Family, iii. 53, 56. The Earl Marischal and the earl of Lauderdale, among others, watched anxiously for the passing of an ‘act of forfalters’ in Parliament.53Add. 23113, f. 48. Concern was also expressed by Monck and other Englishmen previously granted Scottish donatives.54TSP v. 490. Barclay was probably involved in the forfeiture issue in Parliament through the committee for Scottish affairs (from 23 Sept.) and he was named to the committee on the bill for confirming the grant of the Hamilton lands to George Monck (30 Dec.).55CJ vii. 427a, 476b. Nevertheless, despite his earlier activities, there is no indication of Barclay’s involvement in the highly controversial cases of the Lauderdale estates and the pardon of the earl of Callander, both of which were debated in this session. Barclay’s political views are also hard to discern, especially over the question of kingship. Although he was listed among those who had voted in favour of including the offer of the crown to Cromwell in the Humble Petition and Advice on 25 March, and he was added to the committee to attend the protector to discuss his ‘scruples’ about the new constitution on 3 April, in the same period he was identified as one of four Scottish MPs opposed to the offer of the crown, and his son later claimed that he was against the Cromwellian monarchy altogether.56CJ vii. 519b; Narrative of the Late Parliament (1657), 23 (E.935.5); Barclay Family, iii. 55. Barclay returned to Westminster for the brief session in the new year of 1658, being issued with a pass to travel south on 13 January.57Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke xlviii, unfol.: 13 Jan. 1658. On 22 January he acted as teller in favour of the Commons sending its own messengers to the Other House, and thus recognising its constitutional role – which seems to indicate that he did indeed support the changes introduced by the Humble Petition.58CJ vii. 581b. His standing in governmental circles is also suggested in 1658-9, when the Kincardineshire gentry and the convention of royal burghs were both eager to use Barclay as an agent, and he was granted a post warrant to London on 26 March 1659.59Barclay Family, iii. 56-8; Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke xlix, f. 43v.

Despite his closeness to the Cromwellian government, Barclay retained his influence in Scottish affairs after the collapse of the protectorate. In the summer of 1659 he was a figure of some importance in the formulation of Scottish policy in London, supporting moves by Swinton and others to bring the 1652 deputies back into politics and to ratify a new act of union.60Wariston Diary, ii. 116, 134. He was accounted, along with the marquess of Argyll (Archibald Campbell*), Swinton, Wariston and Lockhart, as one of the eight ‘grandees of Scotland’, in a libel produced in the spring of 1660.61Nicoll, Diary, 240. The Restoration regime had no place for Barclay, who was attacked as one of the ‘trustees to the late traitor’, arrested at London, and sent to answer for his activities before the Scottish Parliament in September 1660.62Nicoll, Diary, 303. After his release, Barclay retired to Gordonstoun, where his wife died in March 1663, but in August 1665 he was again arrested and sent to Edinburgh Castle.63Barclay Family, iii. 60-1. While in prison in 1666, Barclay came under the influence of Swinton and others, and converted to the Quaker faith. Barclay had shown tolerance towards the more radical sects as early as December 1656, when he argued against extreme punishments for the controversial Quaker, James Naylor, asking instead for the mildest of reproofs (‘that his hair might be cut off’); his embracing of radical non-conformity may therefore have been a gradual process, already in train before 1660.64Burton’s Diary, i. 153. Barclay’s own sufferings were reduced, possibly through the intervention of his old friend, Lord Middleton, in 1667-8, when he was moved from Edinburgh Castle to the tolbooth at Montrose, before being put under house-arrest at Urie.65Reg. PC Scot. 1665-9, pp. 424, 432, 565, 655. At Urie he reconstituted the baron court, established a meeting house for Friends, and used his authority locally to protect Quakers who settled in the area.66Ct. Bk of Urie, pp. xxvii-xxix. This local activity also brought trouble. In 1673 he was again brought before the justices, and fined, for attending a Quaker meeting at Aberdeen, and in 1676 he was briefly imprisoned in the Aberdeen tolbooth.67Reg. PC Scot. 1673-5, pp. 61, 76-77; Edinburgh City Archives, Moses’ Bundle 163, no. 6314; Biographical Catalogue, 40. Official disapproval did not seem to reduce Barclay’s standing in the north east. Before his death in August 1686 he had asked to be buried quietly in the grounds of his house, attended only by his tenants and ‘professed friends of truth’; but, according to his son, ‘a great number of the gentry came undesired, and conveyed his body to the grave’. Barclay was succeeded as laird by his eldest son, Robert Barclay, who shared his father’s beliefs, and became famous as the ‘Quaker apologist’.68Biographical Catalogue, 41.