^88 - Proceedings of the Royal iriisli Academy. 



Belmount, which is a smith's place (locus fabri), (he may levy) four horse- 

 shoes (ferra equorum) valued at 4d. every Christmas (ad quodlibet Nat'). 



247. Acts of a process before the Archbishop of Armagh. f. 52. 



1362 X 1373. While [the archbishop] was sitting judicially (pro tribunali) 

 at [Termonfeckin] on [Monday ....], Thomas Britas, vicar of Mandevillston, 

 [called] by apostolic [authority] John Tafie, son of Eichard Taffe, 

 [Sir Thomas Verdon, knight, and others], who had been cited to 

 show cause why they should not be pronounced heretics because they 

 had [taken possession of] the parish church of Feld and subsequently 

 had broken a box (cistam) in the church iu which the Lord's Body 

 was kept, on the Saturday last past. [On hearing of this outrage] the 

 archbishop had risen from his dinner table (mensa sui prandii) with the 

 Bishop of [. . . .] his suffragan and [. . . .], ll.d., ' and others, and hastened 

 to the church. But Verdon and his accomplices had left, and heard of the 

 arrival of the archbishop after supper (cenam). Meanwhile the archbishop 

 cited [Sir Thomas Verdon and] Simon Jordan, and having seen that the door 

 of the church and the box were broken proceeded to examine certain witnesses 

 there present in proof of the outrage. The proceedings were then adjourned 

 till Monday. The persons cited laot appearing on that day were pronounced 

 contumacious and heretical. Subsequently Sir Thomas went to Tarmefeghyn, 

 where he found the archbishop. On Tuesday in the chapel of the manor of 

 Tarmefeghyn the archbishop pronounced Sir Thomas heretical in a form of 

 words quoted, iu the presence of Masters Bartholomew, official of the Bishop 

 of Meath, Walter de Eldon, Henry Bertyn, Master Johu de Strode, clerk, 

 William Pyron, notary. Brother John Aubrey, " ad ecclesiam Droghadensem 

 [. . . .]," Sir Thomas Byrford and others; on which Thomas de Verdon, pre- 

 tended knight, immediately replied that he pronounced the archbishop 

 heretical. But (not) withstanding these proceedings, James, the pretended 

 provisor, asserted that he had been cited to appear on that day with 

 Sir William Eedypak. The archbishop asserting that he had been cited for 

 the following day (Wednesday), James, nevertheless, in the presence of the 

 archbishop, "fecit fieri collationem principalis executoris copiam dicto 

 archiepiscopo vel manu publica factam." Apparently a papal mandate (for the 

 induction of James to the church of Feld ?), directed to the archbishop by 

 Peter, Abbot of Anagni, who had been appointed executor of the Pope in thiu 

 matter, was read by Bartholomew, and was compared with a copy of the 

 same which had been put in by James, and James and WiUiam Eedypak were 

 cited to appear the next day. The copy was found to be inaccurate, especially 

 in the substitution of the phrase " amoto quocunque detentore " for"amoto 



