I omitted to ask if it can be explained why Myler Magrath, in his letter of 24th June, 1592, given _in extenso_ by Father Meehan in Duffy’s _Hib. Magazine_, March, 1864, calls, “Darby Creagh”, Bishop of Cloyne, his cousin. Dermot or Darby Creagh, or Gragh, or MacGragh, or M’Grath—for by these various names he is called, is stated in the paper on Cork and Cloyne in your last number to be a native of Munster; whereas Myler Magrath was eldest son of Donogh, otherwise Gillagmagna Magrath, of Termon Magrath, county of Fermanagh, of which the family had been erenachs. He married Anne O’Meara, by whom he had five sons—Terence, alias Tirlagh, Redmond, Barnaby, _alias_ Brien, Mark, and James, besides two daughters, Cecily or Sheelagh, married to Philip O’Dwyer, and Eliza or Ellis, married to Sir John Bowen. How came the relationship? I don’t understand why Myler is named as the foster-brother of the great Shane O’Neill. The latter was fostered by the O’Donnellys of Tyrone, and hence frequently styled Shane Donnellagh. Terence Donnelly, alias Daniel, Dean of Armagh, was his foster-brother. J. W. H. April 8, 1865. II. _To the Editors of the Record_. GENTLEMEN, The following remarks on a subject of great importance to the priests of the mission may not be uninteresting to the readers of the _Record_. My attention was directed to the matter on reading the erudite work of Dr. Feye, of Louvain, on Matrimony. The opinions of St. Liguori are looked upon as possessing high authority, and, as every one knows, very justly so. Hence it is that he is copied even in the casual mistakes he made; and all the casuistical works recently published have inserted in their pages those mistakes. Take, for example, the works on moral theology most in circulation at present, such as the works of Gousset, Gury, Scavini, and it will be found that in the very latest editions of these works those errors are left untouched. At page 591, n. 876, of Gury, 13a ed., it is remarked regarding the _gradus inaequalis consanguinitatis, vel affinitatis_, that for the validity of the dispensation it is not required to mention in the petition the _gradus remotior_ “nisi sint conjuncti secundo gradu attingente primum”. In the “Casus Conscientiae” he makes the very same observation. If the reader refer to Scavini he will find the same opinion adopted. It will appear from the remarks of Card. Gousset, t. 2, n. 1136, that he adheres to the opinion of St. Liguori. At page 118, l. 6, t. 6, n. 1136, St. Liguori treats of the question, and cites the Breve of Benedict XIV., “Etsi Matr.”, of 27th September, 1755, upon which he remarks, “_Matrimonium esse quidem illicitum sed non invalidum modo propinquitas non sit 1__mi__ aut 2__di__ gradus consanguinitatis_”.