were wholly silent in regard of religion. These conditions are given in full by Cox (p. 275).[3] About the same time, O'Brene made also his submission, and the articles exacted from him omit all reference to the royal supremacy or other matters of religion. The letter of the King, March 5th, 1543 (_Morrin_, i. 99), giving instructions to the Deputy regarding O'Neil Connelaghe, nephew of the earl of Tyrone, in like manner makes no mention of the religious articles. On the 24th of May an agreement was made with the Magennises, as Cox informs us, yet without the obnoxious clauses; and on the 9th of July, 1544, these clauses were again omitted, when several grants in Dublin, including 140 acres of the beautiful "Grange of Clonliffe" (_Morrin_, i. 103), were made to the earl of Desmond. These examples sufficiently prove that the government in 1543 was anxious to conciliate the Irish princes, and hence was not particular in exacting the obnoxious declaration of supremacy. 4. That a portion of the diocese of Down and Connor was subject to the English government in the beginning of Elizabeth's reign, admits of no doubt; but it is equally certain that the greater portion of it remained under the control of O'Neill. Hence, a Vatican paper, written about 1579, adds to a list of the Irish sees, the following important note: "Ex praedictis Dioecesibus duae sunt in quibus libere et sine periculo possunt Episcopi vel Vicarii; residere. Una est Ardfertensis, quod sita sit in ea Desmoniae parte quae Kierri nominatur in qua Comes Desmoniae omnino liber est et jus plane regium habet. Altera est Dunensis et Connorensis quae in ditione est O'Nellorum qui continenter contra reginam bellum habent, suntque Catholicissimi principes".--_Ex Archiv. Vatican._ 5. As regards the year of Dr. Macgennis's demise, the letter of the Queen, dated 6th of January, 1564, appointing his successor, though at first sight it seems so conclusive an argument, nevertheless, is far from proving that our bishop had died in 1563. For at the period of which we treat, January was not the first month of the year 1564, but was rather one of its concluding months; according to our present manner of reckoning it would be the 6th of January, 1565. (See Shirley, _Original Letters_, page 132).