542 



NOTES AND QUEKIES. 



[No. 136. 



Hectors of churches, and they that held of the King 

 in chief" (Mat. Paris, p. 361.), in which the order 

 of precedence is worth observing. 



One more argument of Canon. Ebor.'s has to be 

 met. He says (Vol. iv., p. 197.), " The Convoca- 

 tion of the Clergy never met either the sovereign 

 or the parliament." The following quotations will 

 destroy this position : — 



" Though sometimes the King himself has vouch- 

 safed to appear and sit in Convocation, when it was 

 called for some extraordinary cause ; as in Arundel's 

 Register Henri/ IV. is remembered to have done (in Conv. 

 hablta 23 Jul. 1408, causa Uniones)." — Atterbury, 

 p. 20. 



Also : 



«" Until the reign of Henry VII., there is a doubt 

 •whether the Convocation of the Clergy, then in sepa- 

 rate existence from the Parliament since Edward I., 

 had transacted purely ecclesiastical business not con- 

 nected with the Government, or where the King was 

 not present in person. (Henry IV., Wilkins, p. 310.) 

 In the reign of Henry VIII., who also sat in Convoca- 

 tion, no Church Provincial Synod was held, and the 

 House of Lords met and adjourned on the days on 

 which Convocation transacted business in consideration 

 to the bishops, who were barons of Parliament, and 

 also members of the Upper House of Convocation. 

 < Wake.y"— Diocesan Synods, by Rev. W. Pound, M.A. 



3. The Clergy were not, and are not, represented 

 in parliament by the Spiritual Lords. The bishops 

 are called to the House of Lords as barons ; just 

 in the same manner as the abbots and priors were 

 formerly summoned, not as representing any body 

 of men, but as holding in capite of the King. The 

 prelates have sat in the House of Lords since 

 William I., not as peers or nobles by blood, nor 

 as representatives, but by virtue of this tenure. 

 They certainly were not considered as representa- 

 tives before the Reformation ; and that the same 

 opinions respecting them prevailed still later, will 

 appear from the decision of the House of Com- 

 mons in 1 Mary, that a clerk could not be chosen 

 into that House, " because he was represented 

 already in another House ; " and again, from a 

 speech in the Commons by Mr. Solicitor St. John 

 on the " Act to take away Bishops' Votes in Par- 

 liament : " 



" 1. Because they have no such inherent right and 

 liberty of being there as the Lords Temporal and 

 Peers of the Realm have ; for they are not there repre- 

 sentative of any body else ; no, not of the clergy ; for if so, 

 then the clergy were twice represented by them, viz. 

 in the Lords' House and in the Convocation ; for their 

 writ of election is to send two clerks ad consentiendum, 

 &c. Besides, none are there representative of others, but 

 those that have their suffrages from others ; and there- 

 fore only the clerks in Convocation do represent them. 



" 5. If they were representative of the clergy, as a 

 third estate and degree, no act of parliament could be 

 good if they did wholly disassent ; and yet they have 



dlsassented, and the law good and in force, as in the 

 Act for establishing the Book of Common Prayer in 

 Queen Elizabeth's time. They did disassent from the 

 confirming of that law, which could not have been 

 good if they had been a third estate, and disassented."— 

 Rapin's History of England, book xx. 



And in the same parliament Lord Falkland — ■ 

 " Had heard many of the clergy protest, that they 

 could not acknowledge that they were represented by the 

 bishops. However, we might presume that, if they 

 could make that appear, that they were a third estate, 

 the House of Peers, amongst whom they sat, and yet 

 had their votes, would reject it." — Clarendon's History 

 of the Rebellion, book iii. 



That the Clergy in Convocation make state- 

 ments to the House of Peers through the bishops, 

 only proves that the latter were a medium of 

 communication between the two; as does also, that 

 on March 18th, 1662, "the President Informed 

 the Convocation that the Lord Chancellor had 

 desired the Bishops to thank them in the name of 

 the Peers" Canon. Ebor. admits that the bishops 

 do not represent the clergy, except by a fiction ; 

 the Canons declare that Convocation does represent 

 them. His position therefore falls at once to the 

 ground. 



I have set down the arguments necessary for 

 maintaining my first position against Canon. 

 Ebor., whether they be good or bad, with suf- 

 ficient posltlveness and distinctness to prevent 

 their being again mistaken. I would close the 

 subject with the words of Atterbury : 



" If I should affirm that the Convocation attended 

 the Parliament as One of the Three States of the Realm, 

 I should say no more than the Rolls have in express 

 terms said before me ; where the King is mentioned as 

 calling Tres status Regni ad Palatium suum Westm., 

 viz. Prcelatos et Clenim, Noblles et Magnates, necnon 

 Communitates dicti Regni." — Rot. Pari. 9 Henry V. 

 n. 15. 



William Fbaseb, B.C.L. 



BCBIALS IN WOOLLEN. 



(Vol. v., p. 414.) 

 Your correspondent the Rev. E. S. Taylor is 

 referred to 30 Car. 11, c. 3., and 32 ejusdem c. 1., 

 for an answer to his inquiry respecting burials in 

 woollen. The former Act is entitled," An AQte 

 for the lessening the importation of linnen from 

 beyond the seas, and the encouragement of the 

 woollen and paper manufactures of the kingdome." 

 It prescribes that the curate of every parish shall 

 keep a register, to be pi'ovlded at the charge of the 

 parish, wherein to enter all burials, and affidavits 

 of persons being buried In woollen ; the affidavit 

 to be taken by any justice of peace, mayor, or such 

 like chief officer In the parish where the body was 

 interred : and if there be no officer, then by any 



