jlNtV -^4 St$ SHS.'p’ PUBLICATIONS OF THE SCOTTISH HISTORY SOCIETY THIRD SERIES VOLUME XL VIII CALENDAR OF SCOTTISH SUPPLICATIONS TO ROME 1423-1428 1956 CALENDAR OF SCOTTISH SUPPLICATIONS TO ROME 1423-1428 Edited by ANNIE I. DUNLOP, O.B.E., LL.D., D.Litt. EDINBURGH Printed by T. and A. Constable Ltd. Printers to the University of Edinburgh for the Scottish History Society 1956 -27^JAnS' ir> 1S58 Z* Printed in Great Britain FOREWORD This book is offered to the Scottish History Society as a mark of devotion in memory of my husband, and as a tribute to the late Monsignor Angelo Mercati, Prefect of the Secret Archives of the Holy See. My first training in the discipline of Scottish historical research was due to teachers, preceptors and friends who were all active members of this Society ; and when I entered the field of Vatican studies I was singularly blessed for many years with the encouragement, help and kindly interest of Monsignor Angelo Mercati. I had planned this volume as an act of homage to him, from a grateful student; and last autumn, when I went to Rome to correct proofs and work on the Introduction, he examined the sheets with interest, and commended the Society’s type. Perhaps the last words that the grand old man ever spoke to any of his students were addressed to me when, on leaving the Archives, he stopped in passing to ask if I were ‘ finding something good for Scotland ’. The following morning he collapsed at his desk, and three days later a German scholar and myself (the two long-time workers) were taken to receive his dying blessing. It was as if he had set the seal of his benediction upon my imperfect human labours. Readers will judge for themselves how far these pages provide them with ‘ something good ’ from the Registers of Supplications. In preparing the material I owe a debt of gratitude to the staff of the Vatican Archives ; Professor G. Battelli of the Scuola Vaticana; Monsignor Dominic Conway of the Irish College in Rome ; Mr. Angus Graham of the Royal Commission on Ancient Monuments (Scotland); Mr. H. M. Paton, Edinburgh ; Mr. R. C. Reid, Dumfries ; Dr. D. E. Easson, Leeds ; and to the printers for their careful work on a difficult text. Above all, I express my v vi FOREWORD thanks and appreciation to Dr. E. W. M. Balfour-Melville, who has given constant help in the course of his official duties as Secretary of the Society. The assistance of these and other well-wishers has enriched the work : the faults that remain are the editor’s. ANNIE I. DUNLOP. July, 1956. CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION ix TABLE OF CONTRACTIONS . xxxiii TABLE OF REFERENDARIES . xxxv CLASSES OF SUPPLICATION BY RUBRIC . xxxvi CALENDAR OF SUPPLICATIONS RELATING TO SCOTLAND 1 INDEX 241 vii This volume, planned as a tribute to the late Monsignor Angelo Mercati, Prefect of the Vatican Archives, is presented to the Society by Mrs. Annie I. Dunlop in memory of her husband. INTRODUCTION This volume of Scottish Supplications to Rome carries on the series begun in the volume published by the Scottish History Society in 1934. It has had to contend with the same kind of difficulties of compilation and editing; and the work has been equally rewarding as a contribution to our knowledge of a formative period in our national history. As we have already seen,1 supplications are petitions addressed to the Pope, begging grace or justice, and cast in well-defined moulds according to the different types. They were signed by the Pope or the Vice-Chancellor, and in every case the signature, bearing the date of the con- cession, was of crucial importance, as all later developments hinged upon it.2 The official who affixed the date therefore obviously held a key position as a man of trust and responsibility. Until 1420 he was known by no special appellation, but under the title of Datary he acquired a vast amount of discretionary power and patronage as the century advanced.3 The signed supplication was taken to Chancery, where it was submitted to careful scrutiny before the relevant letters were drawn up. Any omission, for example, had to be supplied. Thus Bean David found that the letters on his supplication anent the vicarage of St. Brigide in Lome ‘ cannot be expedited without the statement of the name of the deceased vicar ’ (p. 118). In 1424 John Derlyng had difficulty in expediting letters in Chancery because his agent ‘ could not conveniently ’ prove all the assertions made in the supplication (p. 66). Donald Dominici 1 See C.S.S.R., xiv-xv ; and P. Bruno Katterbach, Specimina Supplica- tionum,2 Introduction. The Pope signed Fiat, followed by the initial of his Christian name. The Vice-Chancellor signed Concessum. Because of the importance of the signature, a signed supplication came to be known technically as a signature. (Ibid., iv and n.) 3 See Leonce Ceher, Les Dataires du xv siecle. ix CALENDAR OF SUPPLICATIONS Matanerelegwi also found to his cost that every statement had to be proved. As he failed to substantiate his claim to be of noble race on both sides he had to go to the expense of procuring a new supplication (p. 179). When a petitioner (or his agent) was embarrassed by his interrogation in Chancery, he sometimes found it con- venient to blame the carelessness or ignorance of the drafter of the supplication. Thus William Wishart, canon of Orkney, obtained a Reformatio, or correction, of his petition anent the parish church of Edzell, on the ground that ‘ by inadvertence ’ certain omissions and mis-statements had been made in the original (p. 217). Again, Robert de Darnwick, a supplicant anent the vicarage of Crail, took out a Reformatio because ‘ in the supplication by the in- advertence of the framer it was omitted to make mention ’ that a certain rival was in occupation of the benefice (p. 226). More remarkable is the case of Patrick Juvenis, an experienced petitioner, whose supplication anent the parish church of Kirkinner was granted on 1st July 1428, and who on the 3rd and 5th obtained two separate corrections made necessary through ‘ error and inadvertence ’ in drawing up the original (p. 224). One is left with the impression that the alleged negligence of the drafter was often a useful fiction. A supplicant, as a self-interested pleader, exaggerated his case as a matter of course and made the most of his own qualifications ; but at the same time he knew that his statements would be challenged not only by the officials of Chancery but also by rivals at home. He might well consider it good tactics to obtain a signature and then, if need arose, to tone down the original assertions at the expense of a new supplication. When, for example, Patrick Leche, in petitioning for the vicarage of Dundonald, stated that he ‘ had followed the Roman Court for four years ’, he must have been fully aware that ‘ courtiers ’ enjoyed pre- cedence in matters of promotion. He had afterwards to retract his statement, but he had secured a signature, and presumably felt that it was worth the cost of a Reformatio. INTRODUCTION xi Similarly, John Wrich, in his eagerness to make the most of his prerogatives as a teacher in Arts and a student of Theology of Paris University, overstated his case, and, since he had good grounds to fear that his letters might thereby be ‘ deemed surreptitious or invalid,’ he supplicated that the Pope ‘ would declare them valid from the first date in all respects ’ as if he had not been guilty of any mis- representations of fact (p. 21). The battle was not won, however, when a petitioner had succeeded in satisfying Chancery on all the points raised in his supplication. He might still be disillusioned by finding that the ‘ signature by no means embraces all the things sought ’ (p. 7). In short, a signature could not be taken at its face value, because successive Popes had deliberately hedged themselves round and strengthened their position by elaborating Rules of Chancery. These Rules were a body of regulations promulgated by new Popes at the beginning of their reign for the guidance of Chancery in matters concerning benefices and judicial causes. On the whole, successive pontiffs were content to confirm the enactments of their predecessors, but they had full power to alter or annul any statute.1 Thus a safeguard was erected to protect the interests of the Curia against the excessive demands of importunate petitioners and the extravagant generosity of papal concessions. A case in point concerns a supplication anent incom- patibles granted to Celestine Celestini Macgillemichael, protege of the powerful Lord of the Isles. The petition was signed Fiat ut petitur to include any kind of benefices, but was limited by Rules of Chancery to two incompatibles, other than parish churches, for two years, ‘ inasmuch as Celestine is neither noble nor graduate ’ (p. 190). The natural reaction of a frustrated supplicant was to seek to remove the disqualification by means of a new signature. Thomas Edname, who had been collated to a canonry and prebend of Aberdeen, provides a clear example of this expedient. The obstacle which he encountered was ‘ a certain rule of Chancery,’ which was obviously devised 1 And see C.S.S.R., xvii. xii CALENDAR OF SUPPLICATIONS to prevent jobbery. It forbade a son to succeed his father in a benefice, and Thomas’s father, ‘ who has been dead for twenty years and more, was a canon in the said Church, but not a prebendary of the same prebend,—therefore the said priest supplicates that the Pope would give mandate that the letters might be expedited notwithstanding the above and other regulations ’ (pp.