Calendar of Papal Registers Relating To Great Britain and Ireland: Volume 13, 1471-1484. Originally published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1955.
This free content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.
'Lateran Regesta 721: 1471-1472', in Calendar of Papal Registers Relating To Great Britain and Ireland: Volume 13, 1471-1484, (London, 1955) pp. 307-315. British History Online https://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-papal-registers/brit-ie/vol13/pp307-315 [accessed 23 April 2024]
In this section
Lateran Regesta, Vol. DCCXXI. (fn. 1)
1 Sixtus IV.
De Exhibitis.
| 1471. 7 Kal. Sept. (26 Aug.) St. Peter's, Rome. (f. 28r.) |
To John, bishop of Ardfert, William, bishop of Sidon, [both] residing (fn. 2) in the city of London, and the abbot of Holy Cross, Waltham, in the diocese of London. Mandate, as below. The recent petition of William Say de Saxlyngham, layman, of the diocese of Norwich, contained that he brought John Cheneley, layman, of the same diocese, who had defamed him, before the official of Norwich, who promulgated an unjust definitive sentence in favour of the said John and against William, and condemned the latter in costs; and that he appealed therefrom to the apostolic see, but has been prevented by a lawful impediment from prosecuting the appeal within the due time. The pope therefore orders the above three, if they find true what is alleged concerning the said impediment, to summon the said John and others concerned, proceed in the said appeal cause, and confirm or annul the said sentence, without appeal. Humilibus supplicum votis. [1⅓ pp.] |
|---|---|
|
Prid. Kal. Oct. (30 Sept.) St. Peter's, Rome. (f. 34r.) |
To the abbots of St. Agatha's and Alnewyk, in the dioceses of York and Durham. Mandate, as below. The recent petition of Robert Mason, rector of Richmond in the diocese of York, contained that although he formerly obtained by canonical collation the said church and a canonry and prebend of Norton in the diocese of Durham, or a portion in that church, and was in peaceful possession thereof, John Nevvill, lord of the place of Montagu (de Monteacuto), put him in prison, and kept him there until he resigned the said benefices in favour of Oliver Bland, the said John's chaplain, who, under pretext of such resignation and of a subsequent de facto collation, despoiled the said Robert of the said benefices. The pope therefore orders the above two abbots to summon the said Oliver and others concerned, restore Robert, who is an LL.D., (fn. 3) hear both sides, and decide what is just, without appeal, causing their decision to be observed by ecclesiastical censure. Humilibus etc. |
| 1472. Non. June. (5 June.) St. Peter's, Rome. (f. 57v.) |
To the treasurer of Limerick. Mandate to collate and assign to Rory Okalli, priest, of the diocese of Limerick, the perpetual vicarage of Kilkelle in the said diocese, with cure and value 6 marks sterling, collation and provision of which, on its voidance by the death extra R.c. of Cornelius Macnamara, were made to him by Thomas, bishop of Limerick, in virtue of which he obtained possession, and has held it for between about a year and a half and two years, but now doubts whether the said collation and provision hold good; whether the said vicarage be void as stated, or by the resignation of the said Cornelius or of the late Laurence Yamnyn, or in any other way. Dignum arbitramur. (At the end: P. xx. Quinto Kal Julii Anno Primo. de Varris.) [3½ pp.] |
| 1471. 8 Kal. Sept. (25 Aug.) St. Peter's, Rome. (f. 185v.) |
To Master John de Cesarinis, a papal chaplain and auditor. Mandate, as below. It was set forth to Paul II on behalf of Ralph Longley, priest, of the diocese of Coventry and Lichfield, that a dispute had arisen between him and John, bishop of Exeter, about the wardenship, called the mastership, of the church of Mamcestre in the said diocese, to which, on its voidance by the said pope's promotion of the said bishop to the church of Exeter, and by his consecration, the said Ralph alleged that he was lawfully presented by certain laymen, who alleged that they possessed the right of presenting, to John, bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, and instituted by that bishop, but that the said John, bishop of Exeter, alleged that the said wardenship had not become void by the said promotion and consecration, and that he could hold it by papal indult along with the said church of Exeter; that the said pope committed the cause (although not lawfully devolved to the Roman court, etc.) to Master Nicholas de Ubaldis, a chaplain of the said as of the present pope, and an auditor of causes of the apostolic palace, at the instance first of the said John, bishop of Exeter, and afterwards at the instance of the said Ralph; that the said auditor promulgated a definitive sentence, by which he absolved the said Ralph from the claim of the said John, bishop of Exeter, (fn. 4) and imposed perpetual silence on the said bishop, from which appeal was made on behalf of the latter to the apostolic see; that, at the instance of the said bishop, the said pope Paul committed the appeal cause to Master John de Ceretanis, also a chaplain of the said as of the present pope, and an auditor, etc., who confirmed the aforesaid sentence by his definitive sentence, from which latter appeal was made on behalf of the said bishop to the said see; that, at the instance of the said Ralph, the said pope committed the second appeal cause to Master Matthew de Porta, also a chaplain of the said as of the present pope, and an auditor, etc., who also by his definitive sentence confirmed that of the said auditor John, and adjudged the said wardenship to Ralph, with costs and fruits, from which sentence of Matthew de facto appeal was made on behalf of the said bishop to the said see; that, at Ralph's instance, the said pope committed the last appeal cause, along with the cause of nullity of the said third appeal, to the above Master John de Cesarinis, who proceeded, but short of a conclusion. And whereas it was added in the said exposition [of the said Ralph] that some alleged that neither the said Ralph nor the said bishop had any right in or to the said wardenship, the said pope granted, viz. under date Id. Aug. anno 4 [13 Aug., 1468], a mandate to the said Master John, if by the event of the suit he found this to be so, to collate and assign the said wardenship, a principal dignity with cure, value not exceeding 220 gold florins of the Camera (whether it were void as above, or were void by the death extra R.c. of John Huntyngdon, sometime warden, or by the free resignation of the said John, bishop of Exeter, or were void in any other way, etc., even if it were elective, etc.), to the said Ralph, notwithstanding, etc. The said pope having died before his letters were drawn up, the pope hereby decrees that the said grant etc. shall nevertheless hold good and take effect from the said date, and that these presents shall be sufficient proof thereof, and orders the above Master John, if by the event of the suit he find that neither Ralph nor bishop John has a right, as above, to collate and assign the said wardenship (if void on the said day, etc.) to Ralph, and induct him, after first receiving from him the usual oath of fealty according to the form enclosed, etc. Rationi congruit. (At the end: N. xxx. Septimo Id. Aug. Anno Primo. Garilliati.) [5 pp. See Reg. Lat. DCCXXII., f. 310r., below, p. 319. See also Cal. Pap. Lett., XII., pp. 242, 244, 245, 253, 254.] |
| 1472. 4 Id. May. (12 May.) St. Peter's, Rome. (f. 231r.) |
To Nicholas [sic.], bishop of Bangor, and William, bishop of Dromore, and Richard, bishop of Waterford, [all] dwelling (fn. 5) in the city of London. Mandate, as below. The recent petition to the present pope of Richard Lessy, a citizen of London, contained that it was set forth on his behalf to the late pope Paul II that upon Agnes Cokkesson', mulier, of London, falsely relating to Thomas Winterburn', auditor of the court of Thomas, archbishop of Canterbury, legatus natus of the apostolic see, that although the said Richard had contracted marriage with her per verba legitime de presenti, and had cohabited with her for some time, he had left her and had deprived her of conjugal rights, (fn. 6) the said auditor, proceeding de facto, suspended the said Richard from entering church (fn. 7) and excommunicated him, he having been neither summoned nor cited, at least lawfully, but being absent, not through contumacy, and the said archbishop, also de facto, caused him to be publicly proclaimed to be suspended and excommunicate; that as soon as he heard of the foregoing he appealed to the apostolic see; that the said pope ordered Thomas, bishop of London, and John, bishop of Ardfert, who was residing in the city of London, (fn. 8) to summon Agnes and others concerned, conditionally (fn. 9) absolve the said Richard from the said excommunication and suspension, hear both sides, taking cognizance also of the said principal matter, and decide what was canonical, without appeal, causing their decision to be observed by ecclesiastical censure. Afterwards, inasmuch as George, abbot of Westminster (to whom the said John, bishop of Ardfert, had given commission to act in his stead), after having been duly requested on behalf of the said Richard, refused to proceed in the said cause or administer justice to him, appeal was made on his behalf to the apostolic see, and the said pope Paul committed the appeal, together with the principal matter, to John, bishop of Calahorra (Calaguritan.), then, too, (fn. 10) residing in the Roman court, [and] holding the place of a papal auditor, who is said to have proceeded, short of a conclusion. At the said petition, which added that the said Agnes has not prosecuted the said cause, which has for more than three years been before the said bishop without a decision, that no one has appeared in it on her behalf, and that she is living away from London, (fn. 11) the pope hereby calls up the cause to himself, and orders the above three bishops, [summoning] the said Agnes and others concerned, (fn. 12) to resume the cause, hear it further, and decide what is canonical, without appeal, causing their decision to be observed by ecclesiastical censure. Humilibus etc. (fn. 13)Exhibita siquidem nobis. petitio. [1¾ pp.] |
| 10 Kal. May. (22 April). St. Peter's, Rome. (f. 258v.) |
To John, bishop of Ardfert, William, bishop of Sidon, and Thomas, bishop of St. Asaph, [all] residing (fn. 14) in the city and diocese of London. Mandate, as below. The recent petition of Richard Smalwode, layman, dwelling in the city of London, contained that he contracted marriage with Agnes Twytyng per verba de presenti, in ignorance that, as he afterwards learned, she had contracted marriage per similia verba with Robert Hilton, layman, of the said diocese; that with the view of having his marriage with Agnes decreed null, he brought the said Robert and Agnes before the official of London; that although whilst the suit was pending, the said Robert and Agnes clandestinely solemnized their said marriage before the church, and cohabited for some time, the said auditor, wrongfully proceeding, promulgated an unjust definitive sentence by which he adjudged Agnes to Richard as his wife, from which sentencehe has appealed to the apostolic see. At the said petition, the pope hereby orders the above three bishops to summon Robert and Agnes, and decide what is canonical without appeal, causing their decision to be observed by ecclesiastical censure. Humilibus supplicum votis. [1½ pp.] |
| 1471[–2]. Id. Jan. (13 Jan.) St. Peter's, Rome. (f. 292r.) |
To the dean and the archdeacon of Annaghdown (Enachdunen.), and David Brennach, a canon of the same. Mandate, as below. The recent petition of Maurice Macgillavanach, clerk, of the diocese of Kilmacdaugh (Duacen.), contained that although on the perpetual vicarage of the parish church of Magrayd (fn. 15) in the diocese of Annaghdown, of lay patronage, becoming void by the resignation of Donald Macgillavanach to the late pope Pius II, the said Maurice got provision made to him thereof in virtue of letters of the said pope granted to him, then absent from the same [sic] (fn. 16) [Roman] court, and expedited to him, as though present in the said court, by his lawful proctor, he being ignorant, nevertheless (fn. 17) William Olachnay, (fn. 18) priest, of Tuam, unjustly opposing the said letters, etc., hindered, as he still does, the said Maurice from obtaining possession, falsely alleging the said letters to be invalid because they had been expedited for one who was present [in the said court] (fn. 19); that although Maurice won a sentence in his favour and against William, and although the latter appealed from it to the apostolic see and presecuted the appeal cause for some time, he nevertheless only obtained apostolic letters in common form to certain judges, against the form of law, (fn. 20) under pretext of which, without the said Maurice being summoned or cited, at least lawfully, one of the said judges, wrongfully proceeding, has promulgated an unjust definitive sentence in favour of William and against Maurice. At the said petition, which added that it is alleged that neither Maurice nor William has a right in or to the said vicarage, the pope hereby orders the above three to summon William and others concerned, hear the said cause and decide it, without appeal, causing their decision to be observed by ecclesiastical censure, and moreover, if by the event of the suit they find that neither Maurice nor William has such right, to collate and assign the said vicarage, value not exceeding 6 marks sterling, howsoever void, etc., to the said Maurice, who was lately dispensed by papal authority on account of illegitimacy, as the son of a priest and an unmarried woman, to receive and retain the said vicarage (if collated to him in virtue of the said letters) and any other benefice with or without cure compatible therewith, and to be promoted to all even holy and priest's orders, and who after the said dispensation was made a clerk and obtained, and at present holds, a canonry of Kilmacduagh and the prebend of Termundysuonayd (fn. 21) therein, value not exceeding 1 mark sterling. The pope specially dispenses him to receive and retain the said vicarage, notwithstanding the said defect, etc. Vite etc. (At the end: N. xxii. Expedita xiiiio Kal. Aprilis Anno Primo. de Bonaparte.) [4⅓ pp. See Cal. Papal Lett. XI. p. 491.] |
| 1472. Prid. Id. May. (14 May.) St. Peter's, Rome. (f. 301r.) |
To the prior of Lowth in the diocese of Armagh and the official of Armagh. Mandate, as below. The recent petition of John Alleyn, priest, of the diocese of Meath, (fn. 22) contained that although on the voidance of the perpetual vicarage of St. Columba's, Scryne, in the said diocese, he was presented by the ancient patrons, the abbot and convent of St. Mary's without the walls of Dublin to William, bishop of Meath, within the lawful time, the said bishop unduly refused to institute him, and instituted Richard Fichet, priest, of the said diocese, who alleged that he had been presented within the said time by a certain layman, whom he falsely alleged to be the patron; that the said John appealed to the apostolic see, but that the said bishop, contemning the appeal, of which he was not ignorant, and aware that the said layman had no right in the said vicarage, and that it belonged to the presentation of the said abbot and convent, made collation of it (the said Richard having resigned) to Thomas Hunte, priest, of the said diocese. The said John alleging that he has been prevented by a lawful impediment from prosecuting his appeal within the lawful time, the pope hereby orders the above two, if they find true what is alleged in regard to the said impediment, to summon the said Thomas and others concerned, hear both sides, and decide what is just, without appeal, causing their decision to be observed by ecclesiastical censure. Humilibus etc. [1¼ pp.] |
|
Ibid. (f. 302r.) |
To the abbots of St. Thomas the Martyr's and St. Mary's without the walls of Dublin, and the prior of Holun [sic] Patrike in the diocese of Dublin. Mandate, as below. The recent petition of John Alleyn, dean of Dublin, contained that although on the voidance in a certain way [not expressed] of the deanery of the said church, an elective non-major dignity, (fn. 23) he was canonically elected by the chapter and confirmed by the late Michael, archbishop of Dublin, nevertheless the late Thomas Clinton, a canon of the said church, asserting that he had been similarly elected by the chapter, and falsely alleging that he had been unduly aggrieved (fn. 24) by the said confirmation, appealed to the apostolic see, obtained by a falsi suggestio apostolic letters in the matter of his appeal, addressed to the prior of St. Peter's by (fn. 25) Trym, in the diocese of Meath, and caused the said John to be summoned in the said appeal cause before Edmund, prior of Fore (Fauorie) in the said diocese (whom, as he said, Nicholas Herbarde, prior of St. Peter's, had commissioned to act in his stead); and that when the said Edmund had proceeded, but short of a conclusion, James Dalcon (recte Dalton), abbot of Clonarde in the same diocese (whom, as he said, the said Nicholas had similarly commissioned to act in his stead), wrongfully proceeding, without the said John being summoned or cited, etc., promulgated an unjust definitive sentence by which he adjudged the deanery to the said Thomas, from which sentence the said John, as soon as he heard of it, appealed to the said see, but has been promoted by a lawful impediment from prosecuting the appeal within the lawful time; and that in the meantime the said Thomas has died. At the said petition the pope hereby orders the above three to summon those concerned, conditionally (ad cautelam) absolve the said John from any sentence of excommunication by the said prior of Fore or abbot after the said appeal, and, if what is alleged in regard to the said impediment be true, to hear both sides … censure (as in the preceding). Humilibus supplicum votis. [1½ pp.] |
| 12 Kal. June. (21 May.) St. Peter's, Rome. (f. 302v.) |
To the bishop of Derry (Deren.), the prior of St. Mary's de Vrso without the walls of the town (fn. 26) of Drogheda, in the diocese of Armagh, and the official of Armagh. Mandate, as below. The recent petition of Henry Fox, archdeacon of Down (Dunen.), contained that whereas Patrick, William, Thomas, and Robert Macgyan, Ralph Hassard, James Waren, and John Wareyn, and certain others their accomplices, clerks and laymen, of the diocese of Down, at the order, as they said, of Patrick Savage, captain of the land (fn. 27) de Lacayl, in the said diocese, violently and sacriligiously seized (fn. 28) the said archdeacon, then vicar-general in spirituals of Thady, bishop of Down, and kept him a prisoner for some time in fetters, (fn. 29) until from reasonable fear (fn. 30) he resigned the said archdeaconry to the said Patrick Macgyan; that whereas the said clerks and laymen de facto despoiled him of the said archdeaconry and of a certain mill in the said diocese, and other his goods; that whereas the said Patrick Macgyan intruded himself in the said archdeaconry and detained possession of it, as he still does; and that whereas the said captain without any reasonable cause exiled the said archdeacon from the said land, (fn. 31) in contempt of ecclesiastical liberty, the said bishop excommunicated the said persons, and ordered them to be publicly proclaimed, etc., but that they have sustained the said sentence for several (fn. 32) months, and still do so. At the said petition the pope therefore orders the above three to aggravate the said sentence, as often as necessary, summon the said captain, Patrick Macgyan, clerks and laymen, and others concerned, restore the said archdeacon to the said archdeaconry, hear both sides … censure (as in the preceding); provided that they do not by authority of these presents lay the said land under sentence of interdict, unless they receive special mandate from the pope. (fn. 33)Humilibus etc. [12/3 pp.] |
| 1472. Ibid. (f. 305v.) |
To the priors of Loweth and Dundalke, in the diocese of Armagh. Mandate, as below. The recent petition of Richard Eustace, treasurer of St. Patrick's, Dublin, contained that although the prebend of Luske in that church was, on its becoming void in a certain way, united to the precentorship and treasurership of the said church, a moiety to each, and that although in virtue of the said union the said treasurer had obtained the said second portion, and was in peaceful possession thereof, nevertheless Richard Queyterote, a canon of the same church, falsely alleging that one portion of the said prebend belonged to him, and that William Lintoy, Robert Waren, and certain other clerks and laymen were unjustly hindering him from obtaining the said portion, obtained apostolic letters to the abbot of Navan in the diocese of Meath, and then, falsely alleging that the said portion belonged to him, and that the said treasurer was hindering him from obtaining it, brought him before E[d]mund, prior of Fore in the said diocese (to whom, as he said, Peter, abbot of the said monastery, had given commission to act in his stead), under pretext of the said letters and commission; but that it was set forth before the said prior by way of exceptions on behalf of the said treasurer that by the clause ‘quidam alii’ in the said letters he, the said Richard Eustace, who holds the treasurership of the said church, which is a dignity therein, could not and ought not to be lawfully summoned under pretext of the said letters, which had been obtained by the said Richard Queyterote when under sentence of the greater excommunication, and also because no one of the rank of dignitary was mentioned in them; and seeing that the said prior, after and against the aforesaid and certain other lawful exceptions, declinatory or against his jurisdiction and the said letters and commission (which exceptions were exhibited before him in proper place and time, and in regard to which the said treasurer had previously lawfully made his protest), rejected them, and by his unjust interlocutory declared himself to be a competent judge in the said cause, and that it should be proceeded with, the said treasurer appealed to the apostolic see; but the said prior, in contempt of the said appeal, of which he was aware, and whilst the said treasurer was well within the time for prosecuting it, has proceeded to a number of acts; that subsequently James, abbot of Clonarde in the said diocese (to whom, as he said, the said abbot Peter had afterwards given commission to act in his stead), promulgated, without the said treasurer being cited or summoned, an unjust definitive sentence in favour of the said Richard Queyterote and against the said treasurer, from which sentence the latter, as soon as it came to his knowledge, appealed to the said see, but has been prevented by a lawful impediment for prosecuting the appeal within the due time. (fn. 34) At the said petition the pope hereby orders the above two priors, if what is set forth in regard to the said impediment be found to be true, to summon the said Richard Queyterote and others concerned, hear both sides, and, taking cognizance of the principal matter also, decide what is just … censure (as in the preceding). Humilibus etc. [12/3 pp.] |