The Town of St Andrews and the Scottish Parliament

The Town of St Andrews and the Scottish Parliament

The following comprises records from RPS in which St Andrews is mentioned. It does not include records in which the bishop, archbishop or any other clerics based in St Andrews acted as witnesses, judges, notaries or ambassadors. It also does not include references to St Andrew himself.

‘The Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707 (RPS) is a fully searchable database containing the proceedings of the Scottish parliament from the first surviving act of 1235 to the union of 1707. The culmination of over ten years’ work by researchers from the Scottish Parliament Project based in the School of History at the University of St Andrews, the online edition seeks to make this key historical source freely available to all in a technologically advanced and user-friendly format.
The inclusion of new parliaments and conventions of estates, committee records, parliamentary minutes and additional material makes the online edition the most comprehensive record of Scottish parliamentary proceedings ever available. All the sources which make up the proceedings of the pre-1707 Scottish parliament are fully cited and an extensive editorial apparatus included, enabling for the first time a proper understanding of the many and varied sources which make up Scotland’s parliamentary record. A parallel translation of the original Latin, French and Scots text into English and the standardisation of place and personal names, where identifiable, enables keyword searches on an infinite number of subjects, with direct links from the modern translation to the original manuscript record.’

All entries can be found at http://www.rps.ac.uk/

K.M. Brown et al eds. (St Andrews, 2007-2015).

[A1304/1]
Proceeding: summons to parliament
The king to Sir Nicholas de la Hay, greeting. We command you, strictly enjoining you, by the faith which you owe us, to be at our parliament in the town of St Andrews this next Monday in mid-Lent, by all means.
Wemyss, 5 March [1304]
[1309/1]
Letters: by the magnates of Scotland to Philip IV, king of France
To the most Christian and triumphant prince and reverend lord the lord Philip [IV] by the grace of God illustrious king of the French, William, earl of Ross, Malcolm, earl of Lennox, William, [earl of Suther]land, and the communities of the earldoms of Fife, Menteith, Mar, Buchan and Caithness, the heirs of which are in ward, likewise the communities of all the other earldoms of the kingdom of Scotland [except] [D]unbar; Edward de Bruce, lord of Galloway, James the steward of Scotland, Alexander de Argyll, Donald de Islay, John de Menteith, Hugh, the son and heir of the earl [of Ross], Gilbert de Hay, constable of Scotland, Robert de Keith, marischal of Scotland, Thomas Randolph, lord of Nithsdale, James, lord of Douglas, Alexander de Lindsay, Alexander de [Fraser], [William] Wiseman, David de Barclay, Robert Boyd, barons; and also all of Argyll and the Hebrides and the inhabitants of all the kingdom of Scotland recognising the fealty of the lord Robert by the grace of God king of Scotland, all [... ... ....] Your credence having been revealed to us in writing, and having been fully understood [by us], in the full parliament of our lord the king solemnly held not long ago at the city of St Andrews, impressed upon our minds the joyfulness of [your] devot[ion] [... ... ....] For we conclude that your majesty’s mind is devoutly disposed to take on the business of the Holy Land, to prosecute which all followers of the Christian faith justly ought to strive and with humble devotion incline their hearts [... ... ...,] we saw that it was contained [in your letter] that your royal grace considers and calls to mind the treaties between the kingdoms of France and Scotland, made long ago and confirmed; also the losses, harms and injuries which the inhabitants of the kingdom [... ... ...] have suffered in many ways hitherto. The particular and special affection which, in that credence, you say you have towards the person of our lord Robert by the grace of God king [of Scots ... ...] [whom] justice and truth and the grace of the King of Kings has raised up as our prince and leader, cheers our hearts above all else. We therefore noting, with heartfelt feelings, the aforesaid, as we are bound in duty to do [... ... ...] [?commend] your right royal devotion towards the business of the Holy Land, and for the affection which you have towards our lord the king, and we return thanks as best we can to your majesty for restoring the liberties and rights of the kingdom of Scotland, praying to God that ‘by the bowels of mercy of Jesus Christ’ that you may bring to fulfilment the devout purpose which you have conceived in your mind, trough our Lord’s inspiration in relation to the aforesaid, with holy desire, and efficacious eagerness and a safe outcome. May your royal majesty deign to take note, with pious mind, that in the exaltation of Christian princes the name of Christ is extolled and the Catholic faith strengthened. If, therefore, the standing of our lord [the king whom] we say unanimously is [... ... ...], is exalted and the kingdom of Scotland returns to its former free condition, the tempests of war having been quelled and secure peace having been granted, then your royal highness will be able to have as supporters to achieve the end of your desire, the service of God, and to come to your help, not only our lord the king aforesaid, but also the inhabitants of his kingdom as best they are able. And as [evidence of] the aforesaid things [... ...] clearly these letters sealed by our seals were commanded to be sent patent to your highness. Written and given at the city of St Andrews in Scotland 16 March 1308 [1309] and in the third year of our lord King Robert’s [reign].
• [Named Tags and Seals]
• [Tag 1]
• The seal of William, earl of Ross
• William Wiseman; David de Barclay.
• [Tag 2]
• The seal of Malcolm, earl of Lennox.
• [Tag 3 blank]
• [Tag 4]
• The seal of James the steward of Scotland.
• [Tag 5]
• The seals of John de Menteith; Donald and Nigel Campbell, brothers.
• [Tag 6]
• The seal of Gilbert de Hay.
• [Tag 7]
• The seals of Robert de Keith; Edward de Keith.
• [Tag 8]
• The seal of Hugh de Ross.
• [Tag 9 missing]
• [Tag 10]
• The seal of Sir Thomas Randolph.
• The seal of Gillespie MacLauchlan.
• [Tag 11]
• The seal of William de.
• [Tag 12]
• The seal of Alexander Fraser.
• [Tag 13]
• The seal of Thomas Campbell.

[1309/2]
Letters: ‘The Declaration of the Clergy’
To all Christ’s faithful to whose notice the present writing shall come, the bishops, abbots, priors and others of the clergy located in the kingdom of Scotland give greeting in the [name of] the author of salvation. Be it know to all of you that when an occasion of dispute arose between the lord John de Balliol, formerly king of Scotland established de facto by the king of England, and the late lord Robert de Bruce [earl of Carrick] grandfather of the present King Robert, namely which of them was nearer by right of blood to governing over the Scottish people, the faithful people without doubt always held, as it had understood and believed to be true from their ancestors and forefathers, that the said Lord Robert, the grandfather, was the true heir after the death of King Alexander [III] and his granddaughter, [Margaret,] daughter of the king of Norway, and [was] to be given preference before all others for the government of the kingdom. Yet, as the enemy of the human race sowed tares, by the various tricks and stratagems of rivals which would be long to narrate individually, the matter was turned in the opposite direction, by reason of which reversal and deprivation of the royal dignity grave harm has since occurred to the kingdom of Scotland and the inhabitants of the same, as experience of events, the mistress of circumstances often repeated hitherto, has manifestly revealed. Therefore, the common folk and people of the aforesaid kingdom of Scotland, worn out as it is by the stings of many tribulations, seeing that the said John had been captured and incarcerated by the king of England for various reasons, and, because his sins demanded this, had been deprived of people and kingdom, and the kingdom of Scotland had been betrayed and reduced to slavery by him, laid waste by a vast plundering, imbued by the anguish of constant sorrow, made desolate for the default of right governance, exposed to every danger and given to the occupier; and the people despoiled of their goods, tortured by war, made captive, bound and incarcerated, oppressed, overthrown and enslaved by the slaughter of immeasurable innocents and by continual burnings, and near to perpetual ruin unless speedy repair should be brought by divine counsel concerning such a disfigured and desolated kingdom and its governance; by the providence of the King most high under whose authority kings rule and princes govern, unable to bear any longer such numerous, great [and] heavy injuries, more bitter than death, often befalling their affairs and bodies for default of a captain and faithful leader, they agreed on the said Lord Robert, the present king, in whom the rights of his father and grandfather to the aforesaid kingdom still reside and thrive incorrupted in the judgement of the people, by authority of the Lord. And by the knowledge and consent of the same people he was received as king so he might restore the defects of the kingdom and correct things needing to be corrected, and might steer those that lacked guidance. And by their authority the aforesaid king of Scots was solemnly endowed with the kingdom, with whom the faithful people of the kingdom wish to live and die as with he who, by the right of blood and the other cardinal virtues, is fit, [as] aforesaid, to govern, and is worthy of the name of king and the honour of the kingdom, because, by the grace of the Saviour, he has repaired such a damaged and forsaken kingdom by repelling injury with the sword, just as many previous princes and kings of Scots repaired, gained and held the kingdom, formerly often forsaken, by the sword in former times, as is more plainly contained in the magnificent ancient records of the deeds of the Scots, and as the warlike efforts of the Picts against the Britons and the Scots against the Picts, [who were] driven out of the kingdom, with many others [who were] long ago forced to flee, conquered and expelled by the sword, manifestly bear witness. And if anyone, to the contrary, should claim right in the aforesaid kingdom by letters sealed in the past containing the consent of the people and common folk, you should know that all this arose de facto by force and violence which it was not then possible to resist, and amid numerous fears, tortures of bodies [and] various terrors which could well have disturbed the senses and minds of perfect men and destroyed steadfast people. Therefore we, the bishops, abbots, priors and other clergy, knowing the firm truth of the foregoing things from previous assessment, and heartily approving them, have made due fealties to the said lord Robert, our illustrious king of Scotland, and which we recognise and declare by the tenor of the present [letters] will be done to him and his heirs by our successors in the future. And in sign of the testimony and approval of all the aforesaid things, not compelled by force nor induced by deceit or by lapse of error, but by a pure, perpetual and spontaneous wish, we caused our seals to be appended to this writing. Given in the parliament held at St Andrews in Scotland on 17 March in the year of grace 1308 [1309].



[1370/2/40]
Enrolment between the bishop of St Andrews and the burgh of Cupar
And because a great controversy had been moved between the lord [William de Landels], bishop of St Andrews, and his citizens and inhabitants of the city of St Andrews on the one part, and those who called themselves the guild brethren within the burgh of Cupar on the other, because the said persons of Cupar, claiming to be infeft by the king concerning the said guild, were unwilling to permit the men or inhabitants of the said city of St Andrews to hold a market in their town for selling wool, pells and hides and other things which, as they claimed, ought to pertain to their guild alone, the said lord bishop with his said men alleging the contrary; and asking our lord king time and again, and with great insistence, to see that what was right and proper should be done for them, our lord king himself assigned to both the said parties a day on which to compear in the present parliament to receive a decree concerning the said controversy. Wherefore on Saturday, the sixth day of parliament, the said lord bishop compearing with his advocates related that he was unjustly disturbed, harmed and perturbed by the burgesses of Cupar, who called themselves guild brethren, in his possession, which he and his predecessors had, by reason of the church of St Andrews, from a time from beyond memory, for carrying out merchandise through his men, namely of the city of St Andrews, for wool, hides and other such things to be sold in the market square of the burgh of Cupar. And they had influenced on him the aforesaid perturbation, disturbance and harm for a long period, and likewise after the king’s inhibition thereupon made to them duly and legally and publicly proclaimed; and this he confirmed by offering his pledge, by which he asked to be restored to his pristine possession and for amends to be made of the damage and harm having been inflicted on him and his, which damage and harm he assessed at the sum of 1,000 merks. And the burgesses of Cupar compearing there, namely Duncan de Balfour, calling himself an alderman, and three others, all the others being absent, denied [the case] plainly and simply [by claiming] the said lord bishop was not in such possession, but that they [were] from a long time ago. And it was asked of them both if they wished in their and the community’s name to gainsay the said pledge found by the said bishop against them, and they refused to do this, claiming themselves not to have a day or place then for the exhibition of any of their evidence. And thus the court having consulted decreed that the bishop ought to be restored to his possession, reparation to be made to him of the damage and harm which he shall justly be able to prove in the presence of the justiciar. And the justiciar was expressly given commands in that place that, on the day to be assigned to him in the king’s letters to be directed to him, he should make the burgesses of Cupar compear in his presence and make accusation of each of them on the king’s behalf, namely as much of those who were absent as the four previously named persons, assessing the king’s harm for the breaking of his inhibition proclaimed for each person at £100; and that the said four who compeared should immediately be placed under certain pledges and sureties and under certain penalties to compear in his presence at the said day and place to be assigned and to stand to law in that place; and that until then, concerning all these things, satisfaction should be done to the said lord bishop and his men of the wrongful damage and whatsoever harms inflicted upon them, as reason shall demand and the order of law shall dictate.

[1370/2/41]
Judicial proceeding: the presidents of parliament’s judgement in a dispute between St Andrews and Cupar
In the parliament held at Perth on 7 February, the venerable father [William de Landels], the bishop of St Andrews, in his name and [in the name] of the city of St Andrews, and several of the citizens of the city of St Andrews, in their names and [in the names] of the other citizens of the same city, from one party, and Duncan Balfour, who calls himself alderman of Cupar, and three other burgesses of Cupar in Fife, calling themselves brothers of the guild within the said burgh, from the other, compearing in the said parliament, since after a substantial controversy has been moved and continued for a long time between the said parties, concerning the purchase of fleeces, pells and hides and other things which are known to pertain to the guild, within the said burgh of Cupar by the said citizens, our lord king, wishing finally to settle the said controversy, caused the said parties with due solemnity to be assembled and legitimately summoned to his said parliament, in order to have and receive full justice in that parliament concerning and upon the said controversy. The said lord bishop [compeared], accompanied by certain citizens of the city of St Andrews as his assistants, in his name and [the name] of his church, and of them and of the others [mentioned] above, and said that, although he and his predecessors and the said citizens had been and were freely in possession of a kind of right of buying fleeces, hides and pells, and the other things [mentioned above], however great, pertaining to the guild, within the said burgh of Cupar, by the citizens and inhabitants and other subordinate people of the same city, from a time beyond the existence in men’s memories of a different situation, the burgesses of Cupar, notwithstanding that for the part of the said lord our king it had been prohibited for them by public proclamation to in any way presume to disturb or disquiet the aforesaid bishop or the citizens of his city violently in the matter of the aforesaid right except by the way and form of common justice, have presumed to violently and de facto and rashly to disturb and disquiet this bishop and his citizens of his citizens of his said city and their servants and households in his same right of selling fleeces, hides, pells and the other things which [were mentioned] above, to the grave prejudice and harm of him and his church and his citizens. And this he, being in the same place, affirmed by his pledge, and asked that he and his said citizens to be restored [and] returned to the pristine possession of their right, if and in as much as they were rashly and de facto disturbed by the said burgesses of Cupar, and amends is to be made concerning the harm and injury inflicted upon him and his, which harm is assessed at the amount of 1,000 merks sterling, and moreover the same burgesses of Cupar are to have silence imposed on them that they should not presume to trouble him or his said citizens further concerning this otherwise than by the way and form of common justice. The said Duncan Balfour, calling himself alderman as above, and the other three burgesses, his assistants as aforementioned, denied similarly and expressly the pretended possession by the said bishop and citizens of St Andrews, asserting themselves and their fellow burgesses, brothers of the guild of Cupar, to have been and to be the solely and collectively in possession of the right to sell fleeces, pells and hides, and the other things which [were mentioned] above, for a great time past. And when they had been asked on the king’s behalf if the pledge against them was found by the bishop, the said alderman and burgesses would then wish to oppose [him] according to the laws and customs of the realm approved hitherto, [and] they have refused to do this, expressly claiming themselves not to be held for, etc, because they did not have a suitable day or place for showing their evidence to [enable them] to contradict the said pledge being thus found. Which things thus having been done and both parties having withdrawn, and diligent deliberation and negotiation having been had concerning this by the presidents of this parliament in the king’s presence and having been found in writs that the said pledge was not opposed by the said burgesses, the parties were recalled and returned to the presence of the king and of those who were presiding for giving justice in the said parliament. It was decreed by the presidents of the same parliament and adjudged by way of sentence that the bishop of St Andrews and his said citizens in the name which [is stated] above, are to be returned and restored and they returned and restored them in so far as it was in their power to the possession of the said right. And the adverse party was to be held and ought to be held to make satisfaction to them concerning the harm and injury which can be justly proved in the presence of the king’s justiciar at the day and place to be assigned to them by the said justiciar concerning this. And silence was imposed upon the said burgesses of Cupar by the same presidents of the parliament that they would not presume to trouble the said bishop or his said citizens further concerning this other than by the way and in the form of law and according to the laws of the kingdom approved hitherto. And the justiciar then being present and receiving mandate was commanded that at a certain place and day to be assigned to him by the king’s letters he should convoke and convene to that place in the presence of the burgesses of Cupar, whether being absent from the said parliament or the said four who were present in the same place, and that he should accuse each of them on the king’s behalf of violation of the king’s prohibition thus publicly proclaimed, as aforementioned, and of the presumptuous act attempted against his prohibition by them, assessing the harm and disparagement of the king against each of them concerning this at £100 sterling. It was also decreed by the same presidents of the parliament that the same justiciar [should require] certain and secure pledges from the same four burgesses of Cupar then present in the same place for compearing in his presence under certain penalties at the said day and place to be assigned as aforementioned and for standing to law in the same place, and that then the same justiciar should cause the said lord bishop and his men to be satisfied concerning whatsoever damages, injuries and harms inflicted on them as reason should demand and the order of justice should dictate.


[1402/5/1]
Letters: narrating the inquest into the death of David Stewart, duke of Rothesay and the role of Robert Stewart, duke of Albany, and Archibald Douglas, earl of Douglas
Robert, by the grace of God king of Scots, to all to whose notice the present letters shall come, greeting. Whereas recently, our most beloved Robert [Stewart, 1st] duke of Albany, earl of Fife and Menteith, our brother german, and Archibald [Douglas, 4th] earl of Douglas and lord of Galloway, our son according to law by reason of our daughter who he took as wife, caused our very beloved firstborn son the late David [Stewart, 1st] duke of Rothesay and earl of Fife and Atholl, to be captured and personally arrested, and first to be guarded in St Andrews castle and then to be detained in keeping at Falkland, where, by divine providence and not otherwise, it is discerned that he departed from this life; they, compearing in our presence in our general council begun at Edinburgh on 16 May 1402 and continued for several days, and interrogated or accused upon this by our royal office of the capture, arrest, death as is expressed above etc., in this manner, confessing everything that followed thereafter, they set out in our presence the very causes that moved them to this action, which, as they asserted, constrained them [to act] for the public good, which we considered should not be imputed as a crime to the present persons and [are] outside the case; [then] when diligent enquiry had been made into this, when all and singular matters which should be considered in a case of this kind and which touch on this case had been considered and discussed by prior and mature consideration of our council, we consider as excused the aforementioned Robert, our brother german, and Archibald, our son according to the laws, and anyone who took part in this affair with them, that is any who arrested, detained, guarded, gave them advice, and all others who gave them counsel, help or support, or executed their order or command in any way whatsoever, and in our said council we openly and publicly declared, pronounced and determined definitively and by the tenor of this our present document declare, pronounce, and by this definitive sentence judge them and each of them to be innocent, harmless, blameless, quit, free and immune completely in all respects from the charge of lese majesty against us, or any other crime, misdemeanour, wrongdoing, rancour and offence which could be charged against them on the occasion of the aforesaid. And if we have conceived any indignation, anger, rancour or offence against them or any of then, or any person or people participating with or adhering to them in any way, we now annul, remove and wish those things to be considered as nothing in perpetuity, by our own volition, from a certain knowledge, and from the deliberation of our said council. Wherefore we strictly order and command all and singular our subjects, of whatever standing or condition they be, that they do not slander the said Robert and Archibald and their participants, accomplices or adherents in this deed, as aforesaid, by word or action, nor murmur against them in any way whereby their good reputation is hurt or any prejudice is generated, under all penalty which may be applicable hereafter in any way by law. Given under testimony of our great seal in our monastery of Holyrood at Edinburgh on 20 May 1402 in the thirteenth year of our reign.

Legislation
[1431/10/2]
On which day, the twentieth day of the beforesaid month, for the resistance of the king's rebels in the north land and the costage to be made thereupon, it is fully consented by the three estates, ordained and concluded, that there be lifted and raised a contribution, that is to say in all lands of the realm where the yield of two pennies was raised, there now be ten pennies raised. And where the two pennies was not raised there now be raised twelve pennies of each pound. And that this contribution be taken through all the realm from all mails of lands and rents of holy kirk, as from temporal lord. No goods of lords or burgess excepted save the extent of the mails of the lords' own demesnes held in their own hands, mails of burgess houses held within burghs inhabited by themselves, and with their own goods from which they take no mail, ridden horses and drawn oxen only excepted, from which no yield shall be raised. Moreover this contribution shall be taxed and raised with all speed possible, brought and delivered to the auditors of it, that is to say [John Hailes] abbot of Balmerino, [Walter Bower] abbot of Inchcolm, Sir John Scrimgeour, [and] John of Fife of Aberdeen, who shall begin their accounts on the next morning after the feast of the Purification of Our Lady [2 February] next to come at Perth, if the pestilence is not there, and at St Andrews if it is there. Which auditors shall put this contribution in a chest of four keys, of which keys each one of them shall have one. And that chest to remain in the castle of St Andrews under the keeping of [Henry Wardlaw] bishop [of St Andrews], and [James Haldenstone] prior [of St Andrews]. And in the case that peace is made in the meantime, this contribution shall remain under the same keeping in deposit for the common profit and use. Which done, the king commanded parliament to be continued to Monday 22 of the foresaid month.

[1431/10/6]
Letters: letter under the great seal narrating proceedings concerning a dispute between the city of St Andrews and the burgh of Cupar
James, by the grace of God king of Scots, to all his good men to whom these present letters shall come, greeting. Know that in the month of October and on the sixth day of our parliament held at the burgh of Perth in the year written below [1431] in the presence of the deputies of the said parliament chosen and put in place for the determination and decision of causes and complaints, namely the venerable fathers and circumspect noblemen John [Bulloch] bishop of Ross, William [de Blair] abbot of Coupar Angus, Mr John MacGillhauch, provost of Lincluden, Nicholas de Atholl, doctor of decreets, precentor of Dunkeld, Walter de Haliburton, lord of Dirleton, Thomas de Somerville, lord of that Ilk, Herbert de Maxwell, lord of Caerlaverock, Robert de Lauder of Edrington, barons, William de Liberton, provost of the burgh of Edinburgh, John de Haddington, William de Blair and Thomas de Chalmers, burgesses, in the judicial investigation of the city of St Andrews and the burgh of Cupar, the commissioners, as formerly [summoned] by letters of summons from our chapel to compear in the said parliament, compeared with sufficient commissions for producing and showing all their rights and oaths, letters, writings, charters and evidences which either side were intending to use concerning the lawsuits, disagreements, debates and controversies pending and appearing upon the freedoms and boundaries of the city of St Andrews and the citizens of the same on the one part, and the burgh of Cupar and the burgesses of the same on the other part. The aforesaid parties, therefore, being personally present before the said deputies, and their commissions from both the aforesaid parties being displayed and read, the aforesaid commissioners of St Andrews proposed against the aforesaid commission pertaining to the commissioners of the burgh of Cupar [and] for it to be removed, because that commission, for certain causes and reasons alleged and imputed there, was insufficient and not to be admitted, but was entirely to be rejected. Which same commission the said deputies, after mature examination and deliberation, condemned as invalid and insufficient, and they considered and decreed it to be of no vigour, as a result of which the aforementioned commissioners of St Andrews begged the said commissioners of the burgh of Cupar to be condemned in their expenses. And thus, the cause having been continued to the following Monday in the state that it then was, the said commissioners of the burgh of St Andrews and the aforementioned [commissioners] of the burgh of Cupar compeared on that Monday in the presence of the deputies with sufficient commissions on both parts, and which were reputed and accepted as sufficient by the said deputies. And then immediately the oft-mentioned commissioners of the city of St Andrews produced many and diverse charters, evidences, letters, judgements, acts and other muniments of kings concerning the freedoms and boundaries of the said city, and all of the same being made and granted in judgement, and the aforementioned commissioners of the burgh of Cupar exhibited just one charter concerning their freedoms and boundaries for considering and exhibiting; and so the cause was continued until the ninth day of parliament. On which day, although as a result of certain causes moving us to stay proceedings in the said cause, we gave mandate to the said deputies [to do so], nevertheless on the following day, having more maturely and prudently deliberated and been advised, both by voice and also by a writing in our own hand on the back of a schedule of complaint exhibited to us by those commissioners of the city of St Andrews in full parliament, we gave mandate and gave our express precept to the said deputies to proceed further in the said cause. And afterwards on the tenth day of parliament, the oft-mentioned commissioners of the city of St Andrews compearing in court, the said commissioners of the burgh of Cupar, although they were newly summoned to compear then and having been legitimately called at present when they have compeared, entirely absented themselves. Which done, the aforementioned commissioners of the city of St Andrews, notwithstanding the absence of the said commissioners of the burgh of Cupar, begged urgently that the said deputies would proceed to a decision, determination and final decreet in the said cause according to the proofs and rights produced on both sides. And then the the lords deputies, after long and mature deliberations and the inspection and diligent examination of the rights produced on both sides, decreed, revealed and determined that the citizens of the city of St Andrews ought to remain with their ancient possessions, freedoms and boundaries according to the tenors of their charters and evidences, and accordingly as those charters and evidences concerning the said possessions, freedoms and boundaries from the gifts, foundations and infeftments of kings granted and made in past times more plainly contain, carry and bear witness. Given under the testimony of our great seal at the burgh of Perth on 27 October AD 1431 and the twenty-sixth year of our reign.

[1432/10/1]
Letters: great seal letter narrating the settlement of boundary disputes between the city of St Andrews and the burghs of Cupar and Crail
James, by the grace of God king of Scots, to all his good men to whom these present letters shall come, greeting. Know that since a complaint of controversy and lawsuit was turned concerning the limits, borders and extents of the boundaries and freedoms between the citizens of the city of St Andrews on the one part and the burgesses of the burgh of Cupar on the other part, and had been pending undetermined and undecided for a long time before us and various people of our parliament, at length, in our parliament held at Perth on 10 October in the year written below [1432], in the presence of the deputies chosen by the said parliament for the determination and decision of causes and lawsuits (namely the venerable fathers in Christ John [de Hailes] abbot of Balmerino and Walter [Bower] abbot of Inchcolm, Mr John Scheves, doctor of decreets, official of St Andrews, Mr John MacGillhauch, provost of Lincluden collegiate church, Walter Haliburton of Dirleton, Robert Graham, Alexander Graham, John de St Michael, John de Lumsden, William de Liberton provost of the burgh of Edinburgh, Patrick Charters, provost of the burgh of Perth, and Thomas Chalmers, burgess of Aberdeen), the commissioners of the city of St Andrews compeared on the one part (namely William de Kinnaird and Thomas Arthurson with their advocates, namely Mr John de Scheves (which Mr John, because he was made partial in this cause, removed and subtracted himself from the said deputies) and John de Carmichael) and the commissioners of the burgh of Cupar on the other part (namely David de Balfour, Edward Yellowley, John de Jardine and Richard de Stricklaw) with their sufficient commissions thereupon admitted as approved by the said deputies, because the commissioners of the city of St Andrews, standing in the presence of the deputies, produced various charters of the kingdom concerning the ancient infeftment of the said city in certain limits, divisions, boundaries and freedoms contained in them, upon which formerly a matter of a complaint of controversy of this sort had been examined, considered, digested and fully determined, as was given and made clear by various acts of our said parliaments produced in the presence of the said deputies, which very acts, judgement and understanding of the said deputies were justly introduced and lawfully done, and therefore the limits, divisions, extents, bounds and freedoms of this sort ought to be kept according to the tenors of the said charters and acts of our parliaments made thereafter, furthermore, these limits, divisions, extents, bounds and freedoms are excepted in a new charter of infeftment made and granted by us to the said burgh of Cupar, wherefore it is put to the said deputies that the burgesses of Cupar ought to have silence imposed upon them concerning the foregoing, that they should not cause impediment henceforth to the citizens of the city of St Andrews, God forbid, either in the burgh of Cupar or elsewhere, from buying and selling and enjoying their freedoms in so far as the limits and bounds contained in their charters extend, maintain and purport, and that the burgesses of Cupar shall not proclaim, nor cause to be proclaimed, those who travel to the market of the city of St Andrews to buy and sell any goods in the same place in so far as the limits or bounds of the said city extend, maintain and purport. In addition, in so far as the controversies and complaints moved between the citizens of the said city of StAndrews, on the one part, and the burgesses of the burgh of Crail, on the other part, concerning their limits, extents, bounds and freedoms, the commissioners of the citizens of St Andrews written above compeared in the presence of the said deputies with their sufficient commission, and on the part of the burgh of Crail the commissioners written below compeared (namely Thomas Atkinson, John de Cramond and Alan de Spens), also having sufficient commission. And these commissioners of the city of St Andrews produced and showed their charters of all their aforesaid infeftments with certain bounds and freedoms, with the commissioners of the burgh of Crail also producing and showing their charter of King Robert [I] Bruce, with certain bounds and freedoms. And their liberties of this sort on both sides seen and examined, the said deputies [judged] that the citizens of the city of St Andrews ought to enjoy and possess their freedoms of buying and selling through the whole bounds contained in their charter, with all other liberties in which they are infeft within their bounds, and that nobody of the burgh of Crail shall influence those who use the market of the city of St Andrews or cause them to be disturbed in so far as the bounds of the aforesaid city extend; dismissing the freedom of indictment from the burgesses of the burgh of Crail for indicting all others within their bounds of Crail. Given under the testimony of our great seal at Perth, 10 October 1432 and the twenty-seventh year of our reign.



[1473/7/36]
Judicial Proceedings
In the action and cause pursued by Master John Armorar, on the one part, against John of Learmonth, Robin Arthur and John of Carstairs, aldermen and bailies of St Andrews, on the other part, concerning the inordinate proceeding in the serving of a brieve of inquest purchased by Alison Crannoch as heir to the late Master Thomas Logie, her brother, regarding certain land and annuals lying in the city of St Andrews, and also against the persons who passed on the serving of the said brieve for their mistake and wrongful retouring of the same because they found the said Alison heir to the said Master Thomas, her brother, and not the said Master John, both the said parties being present themselves and through their procurators, and their reasons and allegations heard and understood, the lords auditors decree and deliver that the said alderman and bailies have not failed in the process or order of the serving of the said brieve, nor have the persons who passed on the serving of the same brieve erred or given a wrongful deliverance or retour thereupon.

[1474/5/13]
Judicial Proceedings
13 May
The lords auditors decree and deliver that John Jackson shall withdraw from and clear a tenement of land lying within the city of St Andrews on the east part of the tenement of George Akeman, to John of Carmichael, patron of the altar of St Michael, founded in the church of St Andrews, and to Sir Thomas Rait, chaplain of the same, that they may decide thereupon for the utility and profit of the said altar, and that the said John Jackson shall not administer it in the future, and ordain letters to be written hereupon, and both parties were present.

[1479/3/30]
Judicial Proceedings
After noon
In the action and cause pursued by Christian of Balfour, the spouse of the late William Bonar, against James Bonar, their son, regarding the wrongful withholding of a tenement and land lying within the city of St Andrews claimed by the said Christian to pertain to her through joint infeftment, both the said parties being present in person and through their procurators, and their rights, reasons, writs and allegations heard, seen and understood at length, the lords auditors decree and deliver that for all that they have seen as yet, the said Christian has a right to the said land and tenement and the right to enjoy and use the same according to the form of her joint infeftment shown and produced before the said lords, and ordain letters to be written to keep and maintain her in this.

[1482/12/47]
Judicial Proceedings
The same day [12 December] in the afternoon
In the action and cause pursued by John Walsh, citizen of St Andrews, against James of Lumsden for the wrongful withholding from him of an annual of 12 merks of the usual money owed to him for the lands of Burnturk for the past 19 years, as was alleged, and appointed by the decreets of the lords of council and of parliament, with the consent of both parties, that the said James should compear in person and testify and give his oath on the yearly payment of the said annual to the said John for the said 19 years according to the form of the said decreets, the said John being present through his procurators, and the said James often called but not compearing to testify and give his oath on the yearly payment of the said annual for the said 19 years as he was ordained [to do] by the said decreets given with his own consent, the lords auditors decree and deliver that the said James shall satisfy and pay the said John Walsh the said 19 years' annual totalling 12 merks yearly, in default of his not compearing to testify and give his oath as is said, and ordain letters to be written to distrenzie him of his lands and goods for that.


[1483/3/68]
Judicial Proceedings
In the action and cause pursued by John Walsh, citizen of St Andrews, on the one part, against John Oliphant of Kellie and Thomas Oliphant, his brother, for the spoliation and removal of a half chalder of wheat, one chalder of barley and 40 [...] of oats, from the teinds of the church of Kilrenny pertaining to the said John through tack from the abbot of Dryburgh, as is alleged, the said John Oliphant and Thomas, his brother, being lawfully and peremptorily summoned and often called but not compearing, the said John being present through his procurators, his reasons, allegations, proof and witnesses' [depositions] taken in the said matter seen, heard and understood, the lords auditors decree and deliver that the said John Oliphant and Thomas, his brother, shall restore and return to the said John Walsh 5 bolls and 2 firlots of wheat, 14 bolls of barley, and 30 bolls of oats spulzied and taken by them from the said teinds as was clearly proven before the lords, and ordain that letters be written to distrenzie them of their lands and goods for this.

[1483/3/136]
Judicial Proceedings
In the action and cause pursued by Robert Maitland of Queensberry, on the one part, against William of Douglas of Drumlanrig, on the other part, regarding the wrongful occupation of the lands of Tibbers claimed by the said Robert to be his lands and the ward of them given to him by [William Scheves], archbishop of St Andrews, tutor to the laird of Lethington, and similarly claimed by the said William to be given to him by the aforesaid archbishop through ward by the death of the late James of Douglas and as his lands, both the said parties being present and their evidence, reasons and allegations heard and understood, the lords of council decree and deliver that the said William of Douglas shall withdraw from and clear the said lands in favour of the said Robert to be used by him according to the form of the gift of the said archbishop, because the said late James had only the freehold of the said lands [at] the time of his death, and the fee of the same given from him, as was shown before the lords.

[1483/3/159]
Judicial Proceedings
The lords auditors decree and deliver that William Laing [... to] Thomas Jackson', citizen of St Andrews, the sum of [...] by him to the said Thomas of the rest of a greater sum for certain silks and other merchandise, just as he is bound by his obligation shown and produced before the said lords, and ordain that letters be written to distrenzie him of his lands and goods for the said sum, and the said Thomas Jackson has admitted in the presence of the lords to defer the execution of this decreet until Whitsunday [18 May].

[1488/10/73]
Judicial proceedings: acts of the lords auditors of causes and complaints
14 October
In the presence of the lords the alderman of St Andrews and Andrew Kidd compeared as procurators for the community of St Andrews and protested that what had been done in the matter between them and the archdeacon of St Andrews at that time should not prejudice them regarding the lands of Pilmuir.

[1488/10/82]
Judicial Proceedings
In the action and cause pursued by Master Alexander Inglis, archdeacon of St Andrews, on the one part, against William Wauch, provost of St Andrews, Andrew Kidd, Robert Arthur and Thomas Black, bailies of the said city, council and community of the same, on the other part, for the forceful ploughing up, manuring and sowing of a part of his lands of Strathtyrum and the common of the same, and making of dykes there, pertaining to him and his said archdeaconry, and for the damage and injuries sustained by him through it, both the said parties being present themselves and [through] their procurators, their rights, reasons, proof and witnesses taken in the said matter seen, heard and understood at length, the lords auditors decree and deliver that the said William [and the aforesaid] council, community and persons have done wrong in the manuring, cultivating and sowing of the said lands and common of Pilmuir, and making of the said dykes, and that the corn sown on the same pertains to the said archdeacon, and ordain them to desist and cease from it in the future, and that our sovereign lord's letters necessarily be directed for this, and that they shall content and pay the said archdeacon [for] the said corns, damage and injuries that he can prove he sustained through this, for the production of which [proof] the lords appoint 8 January next, with continuation of days, for him and ordain him to have letters to summon his witnesses, and both parties are summoned themselves and their procurators according to the act.
And further, the lords auditors have ordained at the request of the said archdeacon of St Andrews that the testimonials taken between him and the citizens of St Andrews regarding the lands of Strathtyrum and the common between them called Pilmuir be published and their depositions [are] to be given in authenticated form, which follow:
William [Scheves], archbishop of St Andrews testifies and says that he understands that in the past there was contention between the prior of St Andrews at the time and the archdeacon concerning these lands, and that it was finally decided by the then bishop of St Andrews that the archdeacon should have all the land from the brae of Strathtyrum to the sea, keeping the common pasture of it in Pilmuir for the citizens of St Andrews, and [he] also testifies that the said citizens have manured a part of the said lands and sown the same and made dykes on it, which was never done before, as he understands, but was always a common for the said archdeacon and citizens, and [he] says that he believes the archdeacon is wronged in that but he does not know the value of it.
Master David Meldrum, official of St Andrews, testifies that the citizens of St Andrews have ploughed and broken the earth, made dykes and animal enclosures within the said lands of Pilmuir, where none were previously made as he believes, and that the said lands were used and held as common for the archdeacon and citizens and that there was a common road where the said enclosures are made, the quantity and value of what they have ploughed he does not know, and he believes the archdeacon to be injured by this.
Master Robert Keith agrees with the official.
Master Hugh Spens agrees with the official.
Master John Liston, provost of St Salvator's College, agrees with the official.
John Scheves testifies that the citizens of St Andrews have ploughed and broken the earth, made dykes and animal enclosures within the said lands of Pilmuir, where none was previously made, as he believes, and that the said lands were used and held as common for the archdeacon and citizens and that there was a common road where the said enclosures are made, the quantity and value of what they have ploughed he does not know, and he believes the archdeacon to be injured by this.
Master Walter Drummond, rector of St Andrews, agrees with John Scheves.

[1489/1/39]
Judicial Proceedings
Master John Liston, provost of St Salvator's College at St Andrews, compeared before the lords auditors and protested that what was done in the matter between the lady of Balcolmie and the said provost and canons of the said college, because the said canons were not called for their interest in the said matter

[1491/4/59]
Judicial Proceedings
The action of proof appointed for David Balfour of Cariston to prove sufficiently that Isobel Lauder, lady of Balcolmie, would not give him sufficient power and procuratory to institute legal proceedings against [John Liston], provost, and the canons of St Salvator's College, beside the city of St Andrews, for the recovery by law of an annual of 20 merks, as is contained in the decreets and acts previously passed for that, is continued by the lords auditors until 18 May current, with continuation of days, in the same form and effect as it is now without prejudice of party. And because Alexander Spens, younger, [and] William Ramsay were summoned to have compeared and born loyal witness in this matter under the pain of imprisonment but would not compear, just as they were charged [to do], therefore they [are to] be charged to compear on the said day under the pain of rebellion, and both parties are summoned according to the act.

[1491/4/62]
Judicial Proceedings
13 May
The action and cause pursued by Elizabeth Lauder, lady of Balcomie, against Andrew Kidd, George Kenlochquhy [and] Robert Congalton, citizens of St Andrews, James Beinstoun, John Gourlay in Lamboletham, Master John Liston, provost of the church of St Salvator's College within the city of St Andrews, and canons of the same, and also against Sir James Goodlad, chaplain, that is to say, against the said Andrew, George, Robert, James and John for the wrongful spoliation, removal and withholding from her of 5 oxen, each price 30s, 3 cows, each priced 2 merks, a horse, priced 4 merks, from the said lands of Balcomie, pertaining to the said Isobel and taken by the said persons at the command of the said provost and canons for a certain annual claimed by them from the said lands, as was alleged, and the said provost, and canons and aforesaid chaplain for their interest, as is contained at greater length in the two summons made for that, is continued by the lords of council until 3 October next, with continuation of days, in the same form and effect as it is now, without prejudice of party. And because the said provost, canons and aforesaid chaplain allege that the heir of the late Alexander Leslie should warrant them the said annual, the lords auditors therefore ordain them to have letters to call their warrant on the said day, and all the parties are summoned themselves and their procurators according to the act.

[1491/4/103]
Judicial Proceedings
The action of proof appointed for David Balfour of Cariston to prove sufficiently that Isobel Lauder, lady of Balcomie, would not give him sufficient power and procuratory to institute legal proceedings against [John Liston], provost, and the canons of St Salvator's College, beside the city of St Andrews, for the recovery, by law, of an annual of 20 merks, as is contained in the act and decreets previously passed for that, is continued by the lords auditors with the consent of party until 15 June next, with continuation of days, in the same form and effect as it is now without prejudice of party, and that the said laird of Carraldston has promised to produce such proof as he will use in the said matter without any longer delay or exception dilator, notwithstanding any general proclamation to be made in the meantime, and ordain him to have letters to summon his witnesses in the third form and the parties are summoned according to the act.

[1492/2/31]
Judicial Proceedings
David Arnott, as procurator for Andrew Inglis, son of John Inglis, compeared before the lords auditors and protested that because the provost, canons and chaplains of St Salvator's College and their tenants caused him to be summoned to their suit and would not compear to pursue them, that therefore, etc

[1492/2/51]
Judicial Proceedings
Robert Dolas compeared before the lords auditors and protested that because John Dolas, citizen of St Andrews, caused him to be summoned to his suit for certain actions, as is contained in the summons, and would not compear to pursue him, that therefore etc.

[1492/2/62]
Judicial proceedings
18 February
In the presence of [John Hepburn, prior of St Andrews], my lord privy seal, and [Richard Muirhead], dean of Glasgow, [John Liston], provost of St Salvator's College beside St Andrews, for himself and for the canons of the said college, constituted and made Master David Harvey and John Halkerston, jointly and separately, their procurators in the actions moved between the said provost and canons, on the one part, and Isobel Lauder, lady of Balcolmie, [...] Leslie, her son, and David Balfour of Cariston touching 20 merks of annual of the lands of Balcolmie etc.

[1493/5/14]
Judicial Proceedings
Sir Thomas Morton, procurator for Isobel Barr, the widow of the late John of Barr, and James of Balcomie, now her spouse, and William Barr, her son, compeared before the lords auditors and protested that because Henry Balfour, citizen of St Andrews, caused them to be summoned to his suit for certain sums of money and a term of proof [was] appointed for him for that but [he] would not compear to pursue them or produce his said proof as he had taken it upon him [to do], he being often called for that, therefore he should not be heard in judgement against them in the said matter until he reimburses and pays their costs and expenses and they are summoned anew.

[1494/11/60]
Judicial Proceedings
In the presence of the lords auditors John [Hepburn], prior of St Andrews protested that despite [the fact that] he answered for the relieving of William [Knollis], lord of St John of the sum of 400 merks at the hands of the laird of Corstorphine, that it should not prejudice him in the future as is he is a spiritual man.

[1546/7/35]
Legislation: tax to finance the siege of St Andrews Castle
On the which day, in presence of [James Hamilton, earl of Arran], my lord governor, in the face of parliament, all the prelates and clergy being present and required by [George Gordon, earl of Huntly], my lord chancellor, in the name of my lord governor, for support in case it was thought expedient by the council and committers of the slaughter of [David Beaton], my lord cardinal [and archbishop of St Andrews] be forfeited and the castle of St Andrews should be besieged, consented to the tax of £3,000 monthly for the space of four months, and a further £3,000 monthly so long as my lord governor shall happen to remain at the said siege, if the siege lasts that long, and that the sum of £6,000 for the first two months be raised in this manner: all the prelates and kirkmen present in this town shall pay the two parts of their tax proportionally to the said sum of £6,000 in hand for payment of the footmen, and the rest of the prelates and kirkmen not present shall pay one half of their tax between now and St Giles Day [1 September] next to come, and the other half between then and 24 September next thereafter, and the payment of the third month to begin on 24 October, and payment of the fourth month to begin on 24 November, and so forth monthly as said is at the 24th day of each month during the space foresaid, so that the said money may be well ready in time for the furnishing of the said siege and ordering of such business as shall be found necessary thereto by my lord governor and lords of council.



[1546/7/43]
Legislation: private act
On the which day the lords of the three estates of the realm sitting in plain parliament, understanding perfectly that James Hamilton, [master of Hamilton], eldest lawful son to [James Hamilton, earl of Arran], my lord governor and third person of the realm, is held in the castle of St Andrews by those that committed the cruel and treasonable slaughter of the late David [Beaton], archbishop of St Andrews, cardinal etc. and chancellor of Scotland, who are called by summons of treason for certain points contained in the same and to be forfeited in this present parliament, and will, in no way, let the said James, son to my lord governor, to liberty and freedom, and it is uncertain how they will dispose of him and whether they will let him to liberty or not; and because my said lord governor, preferring the honour and honesty of this realm to all particular affection of his son, is of mind to proceed and to do justice upon the committers of the said cruel and treasonable slaughter and other points contained in the said summons, and that his grace be not destitute of good consolation, discerns and ordains his second son, and failing him any other of his sons lawfully gotten or to be gotten of his body, which failing my lord governor's nearest and lawful male or female heir or heirs whatsoever, to have right and to succeed to all heritages, rights, as well of the crown, if any shall happen to fall, and discerns his said eldest son to have no right thereto but to be secluded therefrom so long as he happens to be in the hands of the said persons and in the hands of any enemies of this realm and until he and they that shall lawfully come of him be put to free liberty to pass and ride within this realm at their own free will and pleasure, providing always that the said James, eldest son to my said lord governor, and they that shall lawfully come of him being put to liberty as said is, they shall have free regress and ingress in and to all rights of succession as well of the crown as of others, likewise as the said James might have if he was now at freedom and liberty.