I started to hunt this John Baillie down at the beginning of 2004, firstly the easy way - on the web - without any inkling of a scent and then moved into the libraries and archives and included him on my target list of objectives I was researching. Not a sniff of this man could I find, not on baptism records, lair ownerships of local graveyards, wills & testaments, tax rolls, nowhere. This strongly suggested that the elusive John Baillie did not live on his property of Baillieston.

On the 7th.October I was reading through a Court of Session document regarding a financial dispute between two parties who had unfinished affairs over the Mount Vernon property and found the following on the third page;

I transcribe the relevant passage;

"as also all and haill these twenty two acres, two roods, twenty one falls and thirty five elms of ground, being part of the lands of Barachnie acquired by Joseph Ritchie merchant in Glasgow from John Baillie of Baillieston sometime merchant in London"

"John Baillie of Baillieston"

(note that the spelling is exactly as the present version but that further down Burntbroom is named 'Broombroom' - one of its many manifestations, this version appears in other records)

Another document dated 1748 - which is 9 years before the above - I more recently (25/11/04) located through research identifies "John Baillie of Baillieston". That is two seperate sources supporting Scott Maxwell's statement, which in anybody's view puts the matter beyond any doubt whatsoever.

The fact it describes him as living in London would seem to answer his absence from local records and has made him so difficult to trace. It would also account for there being no entry for his Baillieston lands in the Cess Tax books up to 1758.

Having digested this new information it might be right to regard J.M. Scott Maxwell's statement as technically incorrect as he stated Baillie lived at Baillieston in 1732. It would appear he didn't, that was when he bought the property and he probably never lived there at anytime as it was only consisted of a couple of a small farm cottages and a modest house on the land. It is clear to me from other strands of my research that Baillie purchased the land for its mineral resources and that it was an investment only.

However without that statement providing a clue and the impetus to search, Baillie might never have been traced and as a consequence the name would forever more be shrouded in that mystery I mentioned at the start of this article. Thanks are due to the late Mr. Scott Maxwell for leaving behind the vital clue.

I am inclined to think that the 'ton' suffix applied to 'Baillie' is a reflection of the anglophile attitude of the Scottish land owing classes of the time - not so long after the union of the parliaments and a time when almost all merchants and upper classes in Scotland were falling over themselves to speak and write proper English, but that is only an opinion.

In addition to the above is an entry in the Register of Sasines (Lanark: RS42/113) in the National Archives of Scotland in Edinburgh dated 22nd. February 1732 which records a John Baillie purchasing property and although the language is latin there is clearly a reference to Windyedge (now Mount Vernon) but no other identifiable property* that I could distinguish. I am certain that this is the record of his buying or part of that transaction of what became known as Baillieston. This will be investigated in more detail at a later date and the results published.

I herein declare that this uncontestable evidence confirms that the local name of Baillieston came from John Baillie in that his property was named after him for himself and by himself .