Skip to main content

Montgomery manuscripts

(42) Page 28

‹‹‹ prev (41) Page 27Page 27

(43) next ››› Page 29Page 29

(42) Page 28 -
The Montgomery Manuscripts.
moiety unto the said Patrick 3 2 and Thomas,33 as a requital of their pains for him, which he afterwards
performed, the said Laird signing as consenting to the said instrument, the said agreements being
fully indorsed and registered (as I was told) in the town council book of the Royal Burgh of Air or
Irwine, the original of that indenture to the Laird I had, and shewed to many worshipful persons,
but it was burnt with the house of Rosemount, the 16th February, 1695.34
Upon the said agreement the said Laird and Con went to Westminster, where the said George
had been many months Chaplain and Ordinary to his Majesty, and was provided with a living in
London, in Commendum,35 worth above ^200 per annum, and the Laird was there assumed to be an
3= Said Patrick. — Patrick Montgomery is more than
once mentioned afterwards by the author in these manu-
scripts. Scottish genealogists represent him as a nephew
of sir Hugh Montgomery, but William Montgomeryspeaks
of him only as brother-in-law to sir Hugh. He obtained
a grant of lands from sir Hugh at Creboy, or Craigbuye,
about a mile and a half southward from the town of
Donaghadee. We can find no mention of Con O'Neill's
granting lands directly to Patrick Montgomery. Sir
Hugh granted to him, by deed dated 19th July, 1616,
the lands of Ballyhannode and Ballygortevil, which he
held in 1623, as appears by the Inquisition taken at Down-
palrick in that year. These lands lay in Con's division,
but afterwards passed into the hands of sir Hugh Mont-
gomery, and the deed received by Patrick from the latter,
in 1616, was, most probably, a confirmation of the grant
originally derived from O'Neill. The report of the com-
mission appointed to hold the Inquisition abovenamed was
delivered into Chancery on the 22nd of June, 1624, and ori-
ginally filled twenty-one membranes. This most valu-
able document has, unfortunately, been mutilated, the
halves of all the leaves, from eleven to twenty inclusive,
having been cut away. — Supplement to Eighth Report of
the Irish Record Commission, p. 468, note. See Reeves,
Eccles. Antiquities, p. 347, note p., where this record
is first noticed. Extracts from this mutilated original have
been printed in Morrin's Calendar of the Patent and Close
Rolls of Chancery in Ireland of the Reign of Charles I. ,
1863, pp. 225 — 233; and its whole contents have been
published in the Appendix to the Hamilton Manuscripts,
1867, pp. xxix — lx. The copy to which the editor of the
Montgomery Manuscripts had access belongs to J. B.
Houston, Esq., Orangefield, near Belfast. It is probably
an almost complete copy of the original MS., and contains,
in addition, as appears from marginal notices, several most
interesting documents described as not being in the manu-
script, but supplied from papers in the possession of Dean
Dobbs. By the kindness of Mr. Houston we are enabled
to print its entire contents, including the documents above-
mentioned, which the reader may find in Appendix A,
at the end of this volume.
33 Thomas. — This gentleman's name is not after-
wards mentioned by the author. In return for his very
important services, he received grants of lands in the
Ards from Con O'Neill and Sir Hugh Montgomery.
The former gave him an enfeoffment, dated 25th April,
1606, of the lands of Ballyrossbuye, in the Gallough, be-
tween Castlereagh and Belfast, with all the appurtenances
and privileges belonging thereto. — Inquisition of 1623.
Among the Rolls of Chancery is an indenture, whereby
Thomas Mountgomery, of Scotland, dwelling in the
Newtowne, in the higher Clandeboys, granted and
conveyed to James Cowper, of Neither Manes, then
(1609) residing at Comber, and Alice, his wife, half
of the lands of Ballyhosker, in the Great Ardes — to
hold in fee-farm and heritage of the right worshipful sir
Hugh Montgomery, one of the esquires of his majesty's
body, as of the manor of Gray Abbey, for ever. — Feb-
ruary 6, 1609. — Morrin's Calendar, Reign of Charles I.,
P- 397-
34 The 16th February, 1695. — At page 1, the author
states that he lost by this conflagration several " authentic
papers and parchments," among which, we are now told,
was the original indenture between Con O'Neill and the
sixth laird of Braidstane. The loss of this document is
to be regretted, as, unfortunately, the copy of it which
was registered in the "town-council Book of the Royal
Burgh of Air or Irwine," does not now exist. The Town
Council Minutes of Ayr were carefully searched, but in vain;
and, on the editor's application to the proper authorities
in the sherifl's court, he received the following reply: —
" County Buildings, Ayr, 19th Dec, 1866.
"Dear Sir, — I have made a complete search for the document
referred to by you in your letter of the 15th current, but have failed
in finding any trace of its having been recorded in the Sheriff Court
Books of this county. — I am, dear sir, yours truly,
" Thomas Kerr."
James Paterson, Esq. , author of the Account of the Par-
ishes and Families of Ayrshire, made a diligent search at
Irvine for the indenture, but without success, as the fol-
lowing note from him will explain : —
" I went to Irvine on Thursday, and returned yesterday, and I am
sorry to say that there is not a vestige of the contract between Con
O'Neil and the laird of Braidstane to be found. Mr. Gray, the
town clerk, gave me every facility of search. The Record of Deeds
and the Town Council Minutes have not been preserved farther back
than 1659 ; but he thought it might be amonfe the loose papers.
These consist of documents of various kinds — deeds, accounts, por-
tions of Town Council Minutes, &c, some of them dating back to
1594, 1601, &c. ; but although I looked carefully over them all, no
trace of the contract could be found. I regret this result ; but it is
at all ever.ts satisfactory to ascertain that the record does not exist.
" Edinburgh, 15th June 1867."
35 In Commendum. — Commenda was a term of the canon
law, which, in its original sense, was applied when the
custody of a vacant benefice was committed to one who
would discharge the spiritual duties without meddling with
the profits, and who was thus said to hold the office or
trust in commendam. This practice of honorary custody
soon degenerated, however, into an actual reception of the
profits, and the device of holding livings in commendam
was found to be a convenient method of entirely evading
the canon law against pluralities. The dispensation to

Images and transcriptions on this page, including medium image downloads, may be used under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence unless otherwise stated. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence