LaWLoR — A Calendar of the Register of Archbishop Sivelenvin. 265 



Archbishops of Armagh and Dublin about the right and effect of 

 primacy. f. 25. 



Dated at Dromeskyn. 



The early part of the letter was written on a previous leaf now lost. 



131. Letter to Master Arthur (M^bruyn), official or seneschal in the city 

 14 January, 1367. of Armagh. f. 25. 



States that the Abbot of Armagh has written to the archbishop (MS. 

 vobis = Arthur, an obvious error for nobis), complaining that Arthur makes 

 a claim on (censuretis) his convent for 2 marks, 5s, and (et, probably 

 inserted in error) procurations due on account of visitations, and nevertheless 

 retains (portetis) the ecclesiastical cup pledged with the archbishop for 

 three ounces. Arthur is commanded to be at Dromeskyn on 21 January, 

 bringing the above sum, if paid, or the cup, and any other money he may 

 have collected (quamcumque aliam pecuniam collectionem vestram quali- 

 tercumque concernentem), in order to treat with the archbishop about 

 these and other matters, considering among other things (cogitantes inter 

 cetera de) a mark for the entrance (introitu) of Arthur's nephews and the 

 payment of the farm of the people of Ometh occupied for two years. Arthur 

 is to consult the dean about these things. 



Dated at Dromeskyn. 



132. Letter in which the archbishop binds himself to paj' 21 marks to 

 24 May, 1367. John, Prior, and the Convent of the house of St. Mary, Loueth 

 (in title, Louth), for the titles of corn and hay in Kyclogher, Glaspistyl, his 

 dominical lands at Tarmefechyn, Betaghtoun (in heading in modern hand, 

 Kilelogher, Glaspistell, Termon, Betaghton) and Canountoun, for 1367, on 

 1 August. 



Dated at Tarmefechyn. 



133. Letter to the archbishop's official at Armagh and the vicar 

 7 December, 1366. [of . . .] f. 25". 



States that since his coming to Armagh he has many times proceeded 

 by excommunication and interdict against Malachy Ohanloyn, King of 

 Erthir, and his people as usurpers of the goods of the Church. But, 

 on promises of amendment and restitution, Ohanloyn and some of his 

 followers were absolved and the interdict relaxed, whereupon they behaved 

 worse than before, and fell again under the same sentences. The persons 

 addressed are accordingly commanded to cite to appear before the archbishop, 

 in the chapel of Nerny near Eathskeagh on 22 December, Patrick and l^eter 

 Ohanloyn, Odo and C'onluch sons of Peter, and Eugenius Ohanloyn, with their 

 principal accomplices, to show why they should not be proceeded against with 

 extreme measvires, including the invocation of the secular arm. 



[85*] 



