322 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 



interesting to note that it preserves a tradition that the castle stood on 

 land which originally belonged to the Bishop. Our Charter, on the contrary, 

 represents the advowsons of the churches of Donaghrnoyne as the property 

 of the Priory of Louth. The tradition embodied in the story and the evidence 

 of our Charter are nevertheless consistent with each other. For a study of 

 the documents, and especially of Cristin's Charter of 1188, has led us to 

 the conclusion that the chapter of the Bishop of Louth consisted of the 

 Augustinian canons of St. Mary's. This, as I have already shown, involves 

 the supposition that the Bishop, as long as he remained at Louth, had no 

 separate property. The possessions of the Bishop were the possessions of the 

 Priory. When in the story which I have quoted we are told that Donagh- 

 rnoyne was episcopal property, we are given to understand that it was the 

 property of the Bishop as head of the Priory, or, in other words, of the 

 Priory itself. But when the Bishop retired from Louth to Clogher, he 

 ceased to have a direct interest in the possessions of the Priory. Hence we 

 are not surprised to learn from Donat's Charter that the Prior and canons, 

 with the assent of the Bishop of Clogher, dealt with the advowsons of 

 Donaghrnoyne as though they belonged absolutely to themselves. Donat's 

 Charter confirms the theory which was in the main based upon the Charter 

 of Cristin. 



I may conclude this paper by correcting an error into which I fell in my 

 account of the Charter of 1188. By that Charter the Bishop, Prior, and 

 Convent granted certain presentations with the assent and counsel of the 

 Chapter. Assuming that the Convent and the Chapter were the same body, 

 I found this difficult to understand ; and I offered as a solution of the difficulty 

 the suggestion that the form of the Charter was imperfectly adapted from 

 that used by a Bishop whose Chapter was not constituted on the Augustinian 

 model. 1 That explanation, inasmuch as it is inapplicable to the Charter now 

 under consideration, in which a similar assent clause is found, is plainly 

 incorrect. A communication from my friend, Dr. James Wilson, who has 

 made a special study of Augustinian foundations, enables me to substitute 

 for it the true account of the matter. The Convent and the Chapter were 

 not the same body. The former consisted of those canons who were in 

 residence at the Priory ; the latter included those who were in charge of 

 churches outside the Priory. An instrument ran in the name of the 

 Prior and Convent; but it was ineffective without the assent of the entire 

 Chapter. 



1 Pruceedings, I. c. , p. '65. 



