In the March number of your valuable periodical there was a most interesting paper on the See of Down and Connor. I apprehend, however, it contained a few slight mistakes, which I would have pointed out, but hoped that some person more intimately conversant with the subject would have done so in your April number. Such not having been the case, I shall endeavour to do so. However, before entering on these matters, I beg to say, in illustration of your learned contributor’s notes, that the “_Ecclesia de Rathlunga_”, of which Bishop Liddell had been rector, is now called Raloo, and lies between Larne and Carrickfergus, in the county of Antrim (see Reeves, p. 52); that _Lesmoghan_, of which Bishop Killen had been pastor, still bears the same name, forming a sub-denomination of the parish of Ballykinler, county Down (Ib., p. 28); that _Arwhyn_, of which John of _Baliconingham_ (now Coniamstown, near Downpatrick) was rector, is now the mensal parish of Ardquin, in the barony of Ardes, county Down (Ib., p. 20); and that _Camelyn_, of which Bishop Dongan was pastor, is now called Crumlin, being united to the parish of Glenavy, near Lough Neagh, county Antrim (_Ib._, p. 4). Returning from this digression, it is quite plain from the Bull dated June, 1461, given by De Burgo (_Hib. Dom._, p. 474), and cited by your contributor, p. 267, appointing Richard Wolsey to the See of Down, that Wolsey was not the immediate successor of Bishop John, who died in 1450. It expressly states, as mentioned in the article, that the See was _vacant_ by the death of THOMAS, last bishop of the canonically united dioceses of Down and Connor, repeating the same name in the body of the Bull. How this is to be reconciled with the statement that Wolsey was John’s successor, I cannot say; but it follows, on the principle laid down by your contributor in ignoring John Logan, placed by Ware between William, bishop from 1365 to 1368, and Richard Calf II., 1369, that we must have a Bishop Thomas between John and Richard Wolsey. Dr. Reeves (_Eccl. Ant. Down_, etc., p. 257), on the authority of this very Bull, has accordingly done so, marking him as succeeding in 1450, and the see vacant in 1451. He conjectures him to have been _Thomas Pollard_, who in 1450 was appointed custose of the temporalities. Dr. Cotton (vol. iii. p. 201) adopts this view without hesitation, and it would appear by a complaint of the beforementioned Bishop John, shortly after the union of Down and Connor in 1441, that even then Pollard claimed to have an apostolical provision for the See of Down (Primate Mey’s _Registry_, cited by Reeves, p. 37; see also Harris’s _Ware_, p. 203, where it is likewise mentioned that Pollard contested the See of Down with John of Connor, both carrying themselves as bishops thereof, Harris adding that it was thought Pollard was supported by the primate, and that it was only in 1449 Pollard lost his cause, just two years before Wolsey’s appointment).