302 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[No. 49. 



Chiircli (and all other persons having grant of the 

 said office), shall sit and be placed in all parlia- 

 ments on the right side of the parliament chamber, 

 and upon the same form that the Archbishop of 

 Canterbury sitteth on, and above the same arch- 

 bishop and his successors : and next to the said 

 Vicegerent shall sit the Archbishop of Canterbury; 

 and then, next to him, on the same form and side, 

 shall sit the Archbishop of York ; and next to him, 

 on the same form and side, the Bishop of London ; 

 and next to him, on the same side and form, the 

 Bishop of Durham ; and next to him, on the same 

 side and form, the Bishop of Vrinchester : and then 

 all the other bishops of both provinces of Canter- 

 bury and York shall sit and be placed on the same 

 side, after their ancienties, as it hath been accus- 

 tomed. 



There is nothing here to show in what order they 

 are to rank among the great officer?, or other tem - 

 poral peers ; nor is the precedency given to the 

 Lord Chancellor over the Archbishop of York. 



By the Act of Union of Great Britain and Ire- 

 land, the archbisliojis of that kingdom have rank 

 immediately after the Archbishoji of York, and 

 therefore before the great officers (excepting only 

 the Lord Chancellor), as well as above dukes ; 

 and the Irish bishops immediately after those of 

 England. 



It may be rightly stated that the high spiritual 

 rank of the bishops is a reason fur giving them 

 precedence over the temporal lords sitting as 

 barons : but has that reason been assigned by any 

 writer of authority, or even any writer upon pre- 

 cedence? — the Query suggested by E. (Vol. ii., p. 9.) 

 Lord Coke does not assign that reason, but says, 

 because they hold their bishopricks of the king 

 per haroniam. But the holding per haroniam, 

 as before observed, would equally apply to the 

 temporal lords holding lands by similar tenures, 

 and sitting by writ, and receiving summons in 

 ancient times in virtue of such their tenure. 



The precedence of bishops over barons was 

 clearly disputed in the reign of King Henry VI., 

 when Baker says in his Chronicle (p. 204.), judg- 

 ment was given for the lords temporal : but where 

 the judgment, or any account of the dispute for 

 precedence, is to be found I cannot say. That is 

 what your correspondent G. inquired lor (Vol. ii., 

 p. 76.). C. G. 



Your correspondent Akun (Vol. ii., p. 254.) 

 states, on the authority of Stephen's Blackstone, 

 that — 



" Bishops arc temporal barons, and sit in the House 

 of Peers in riglit ot succession to certain ancient ba- 

 ronies annexed or supposed to be annexed to their 

 episcopal lands." 



This position, though supported by Lord Coke 

 in more places than one (see Coke upon Littleton, 

 134. a,b; 3 Inst. 30. ; 4 Inst. 44.), and adopted by 



most other legal text-writers on his authority, 

 cannot, it is conceived, be supported. It seems to 

 be clearly ascertained that bishops sat in the great 

 councils of this and other kingdoms not ratione 

 haroniarvm but jure ecclesiarinn, by custom, long 

 before the tenure per haroidam was known. In 

 the preambles to the laws of Tini (Wilkins' Leges 

 Aug.- Sax. f 14.), of Athelstan {ih. .54.), of Edmund 

 (ii'Z). 72.), the bishops are mentioned along with 

 others of the great council, whilst the tenure per 

 ha?-oniam was not known until after the Conquest. 

 The truth seems to be that 



" The bishops of tlie Conqueror's age were entitled to 

 sit in his councils by the general custom of Europe 

 and by the common law of England, whicli the con- 

 quest did not overturn." — Ilallam's Mid. Jg. 13T-8, 

 9lh ed. 



Can any of your readers throw any light on the 

 much disputed tenure per haroniam f What was 

 its essential character, what its incidents, and in 

 what way did it differ from the ordinary tenure 

 in capite ? Baro. 



JlrijTic^ to iiltiior caticn'c^. 



Leicester and the repided Poisoners of his Time 

 (Vol. ii., ])p. 9. 92.). — This subject receives inter- 

 esting illustration in the Memoirs of G err as Holies, 

 who at some length describes the seduction of the 

 Lady Sheffield, by Leicester, at Belvoir Castle, 

 while attending the Queen on her Progress. A 

 letter from the Earl to the lady of his love, con- 

 tained the suspicious intimation — 



" That he had not been unmindful in removing that 

 ohttade which hindered the full fruition of their con- 

 tentments : that he had endeavoured one expedient 

 already which had failed, but lie would lay another 

 which he doubted not would hit more sure." 



This letter the Lady Sheffield accidentally dropped 

 from her pocket ; and being picked up and given 

 to the Lord Sheffield by his sister Holies, he read 

 it with anger and amiizement. That night he 

 jiarted beds, and the next day houses; meditating 

 in what manner he might take honouralile and just 

 revenge. Having resolved, he jwsted up to London 

 to effect it : but the discovery had preceded him 

 to the knowledge of Leicester, who finding a 

 necessity to be quick, bribed an Italian physician 

 ("whose name," says Holies, "I have foigotten") 

 in whom Lord Sheffield had great confidence, to 

 poison him, which was immediately effected after 

 his arrival in London. Leicester, after cohabiting 

 with the Lady Sheffield for some time, married the 

 widow of the Earl of Essex, who, it is thought, 

 sajs Holies, " served him in his own kind, every 

 war/." 



in the suit afterwards instituted by Sir Eobert 

 Dudley, with the view of establishing his legiti- 

 macy, the Lady Sheffield was examined, and swore 



