June 5. 1852.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



541 



ment. The clause, with a slight variation, is still re- 

 tained in the writ by which the bishops are summoned 

 to Parliament." — Lathbury's History of the Convocation 

 of the Church of England, p. 121. 



It will be obvious, then, and plain to the reader 

 of the above passage, that when the clergy were 

 summoned by this clause Pramunientes, in the 

 writ directed to the archbishops, they were sum- 

 moned to be a part of Parliament ; but the King's 

 writ was that which made Convocation what it 

 was — which made it a legal, constitutional, par- 

 liamentary assembly, with definite power and au- 

 thority — instead of a simple synodical meeting of 

 the clergy, whose influence would be solely moral 

 or ecclesiastical. Convocation," from the time of 

 Edward I., that is, from its first beginning, has 

 been a part of parliament, being " an assembly of 

 ecclesiastics for civil purposes, called to parlia- 

 ment by the King's writ " to the archbishops ; and 

 before the time of Henry VIII. it voted subsidies 

 to the King independently of the Houses of Lords 

 and Commons. Of this clause Prcemunientes, 

 Canon. Ebor. has taken no notice whatever, al- 

 though in the extract from Collier it was expressly 

 stated that the proctors of the clergy were " sum- 

 moned to parliament " and " sent up to parlia- 

 ment " by it, and, when assembled in the Lower 

 House of Convocation, they were esteemed the 

 Spiritual Commons of the realm, and a constituent 

 part of " the great Council of the nation assembled 

 in parliament." But as mere assertions, or even 

 uncorroborated deductions, are but of little value 

 without facts, I must establish this much by pro- 

 ducing authorities. 



The design of Edward I. for reducing the clergy 

 to be a part of the Third Estate, by means of this 

 praemunitory clause, is sufficiently known, as is 

 also the fact that the clergy were unwilling to 

 give up their own synods ; and though, in obe- 

 dience to the King's summons, they came to par- 

 liament from both provinces, yet shortly after they 

 met by themselves, and constituted a body which 

 was at once synodical and parliamentary. 



" Now, then, though the Prcemunientes was obeyed 

 nationally, yet the clergy that met with the Parliament 

 acted provincially, i. e. the clergy of that province 

 where the Parliament was held acted as a Synod con- 

 vened by their metropolitan, and the clergy of the 

 other province sent their deputies to the Lay Assem- 

 bly to consult for them; but taxed themselves, and did 

 all manner of ecclesiastical business, at home in their 

 own province. And this was pitched upon as a means of 

 complying with the Canons of the Church, which required 

 frequent Provincial Councils, and yet paying their at- 

 tendance in Parliament : the Archbishop's mandate sum- 

 moned them to the one, and the prcemunitory clause to the 

 o<Aer, and both were oheyeA." — Atterhury oti Convoca- 

 tion, p. 243. 



The same view is taken by Kennet in his Eccle- 

 siastical Synods and Parliamentary Convocations in 

 the Church of England. 



Here, then, is the origin of Convocation, strictly 

 so called, viz. the Clergy withdrawing themselves 

 from the Commons into a separate chamber for 

 purposes of debate, and for transacting their own 

 business independently, but yet not ceasing there- 

 by at all to be a part of that parliament, to their 

 being summoned to which they owed the oppor- 

 tunity of meeting In their provincial synod, which 

 was Congregatio tempore Parliamenti. 



We hear of the clerical proctors being occasion- 

 ally present in the House of Commons in the 

 earlier part of our history ; and we may reason- 

 ably infer that they would not have been so pre- 

 sent unless they had a right to have been there. 

 If they had that right, then they were a part of 

 parliament. They certainly had that right by the 

 clause Prcemunientes so often referred to, " accord- 

 ing to antlent usage ;" but they waived the exer- 

 cise of it, on finding it more advantageous to 

 deliberate by themselves. At a later period they 

 wished to resume their right, and therefore peti- 

 tioned " to be admitted to sit in parliament with 

 the House of Commons, according to antlent usage,'* 

 of which Commons they had of usage considered 

 themselves the spiritual part. An instance ia 

 point we shall find in a petition of Parliament to 

 Henry IV. : — 



" Suppllent humblement les Communes de vostre 

 Roialme, sibien Espirituelz come Temporelz." — Rot. 

 Pari. 7 & 8 Henry IV, n. 128. 



And again, in a proclamation of the 35 Henry 

 VIII. : — 



" The Nobles and Commons both Spirituall and Tem- 

 poral!, assembled in our Court of Parliament, have, upon 

 good, lawful, and virtuous grounds," &c. 



And " Direction to Justices of Peace," by the 

 same King : — 



" Henry R. 

 " Trusty and right well-beloved, — We grete you well 

 .... and also by the deliberate advice, consultation, con- 

 sent, and agreement, as well of the Bishops and Clergie 

 as by the Nobles and Commons Temporal of this our 

 Realme assembled in our High Courte of Parliament, and 

 by authoritie of the same, the abuses of the Bishop of 



Rome but also the same our Nobles and Commons- 



bothe oithe Clergie and Temporaltie, by another several 

 acte," &c. — Weever's Fun. Mon,, p. 83., quoted by 

 Atterbury. 



For multitudinous examples of the Convocation 

 Clergy, " Prselati et clerus," being spoken of as 

 not only of the parliament, but present in it, I 

 must refer Canon. Eboe. to Atterbury's work, 

 pp. 61, 62, 63. 



And it is certain that, before the Commons can 

 be proved to have been summoned to parliament 

 at all, the inferior clergy sat there. In the par- 

 liament of Henry III. held at Westminster, 1228, 

 there sat "the Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, 

 Priors, Templars, Hospitallers, Earls, Barons, 



