Oct. 11. 1851.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



279 



_ 



Parliament to sit after the king's death, no provision 

 was made to continue the Convocation. The Earl of 

 Rochester moved, in the House of Lords-, that it might 

 be considered, whetUer the Convocation was not a part of 

 the Parliament, and whether it was not continued in conse- 

 quence of the act that continued the Parliament. But 

 that was soon let fall; for the judges were all of opinion 

 that it was dissolved by the king's death." 



In A Reconciling Letter, Sj-c, a pamphlet pub- 

 lished in 1702 : 



" Pray inform me to which notion I may subscribe ; 

 whether to the Convocation being a Parliamentary 

 body, and part of Parliament, as Dr. A. has made it? 

 Or to the Convocation having a Parliamentary relation, 

 and such an origin and alliance," &c. 



On going back to an earlier date : — In Statutis 

 21 Richard II. c. 2., and 21 Richard 11. c. 12. the 

 preambles state that — 



" These statutes were made by the assent of the pro- 

 curators of the clergy, as well as of other constituent 

 members of parliament." 



And we know that the Procuratores Cleri occa- 

 sionally sat in parliament in the Lower House, as 

 the Judges do now in the Upper : in a treatise 

 quoted by Coke {De inodo teneudi Purliamentum') — 

 " It appcareth that the proctors of the clergy should 

 appear, 'cum prassentia eorum sit necessaria ' (which 

 proveth they were voiceless assistants only), and having 

 no voices, and so many learned bishops having voices, 

 their presence is not now holden necessary." — 4 Inst. 5. 

 Perhaps they were not altogether voiceless, for 

 we find that on Nov. 22, 1547, a petition was pre- 

 sented by the Lower House of Convocation to the 

 Upper, the second clause of which was — 



" Sdly. That the clergy of the lower house of Con- 

 vocation may be admitted to sit in Parliament with the 

 House of Commons according to antient usage." 



In support of this, the clause Pramunientes in 

 the writ directing the elections of Proctors was 

 appealed to. This " Prsemunitory Clause," which 

 at a later period of the history of Convocation 

 was the cause of much discussion, ran thus: — 



" Tlie Bishop was commanded to ' give notice to the 

 (Prior or) Dean and Chapter of his Calhedral Church, 

 and to the Archdeacons and all the clergy of Iiis diocese, 

 that the Prior, Deans, and Archdeacons, in their own 

 persons, the chapter by one, and the clergy by two, 

 proper proxies, sufficiently empowered by the said 

 cliapter and clergy, shuuld by all means be present at the 

 Parliament with him to do and to consent to those 

 things, which, by the blessing of Gon, by their common 

 advice happened to be ordained in the matters aforesaid, 

 and that the giving this notice should by no means be 

 omitted by him.' " 



" Tlie clergy thus summoned to Parliament hy the 

 King and Diocesan, met for the choice of their proxies ; 

 for this purpose the Dean or Prior held his chapter, 

 and the Archdeacon his synod. The representatives 

 being cho'.en in these a'semldies were suit vp to Pur- 

 tlamenl, with ])rocuratorial lutti rs from the chapter and 

 clurgy to give them an authority to act in tl.cir naines. 



and on the behalf of their electors." — Collier's Eccles. 

 Hist., Part I [. book iv. 

 Also — 



" All the members of both Houses of Convocation 

 have the same privileges for themselves and their ser- 

 vants as the members of parliament have, and that by 

 statute." — Chamberlayn's Maff. Brit. Notitia, p. 94. 



It may be reasonably doubted, whether a little 

 research would not aSbrd further reasons for 

 thinking that there was some ground for ap- 

 plying the phrase " assembled in Parliament " to 

 Convocation. 



With respect to the Convocations sitting at 

 Westminster. The first Convocation of 1283 sat 

 "at tlie Xew Temple;" the next was summoned 

 on St. ilatthew's day, 1 294, to meet at Westminster. 

 On April 22, 1523, a National Synod of both Con- 

 vocations was held at Westminster by Cardinal 

 Wolsey, the Papal Legate. The Convocation sat 

 at Lambeth in 1555 and 1558. In 1586 and 1588, 

 we find Convocation often sitting at Westminster. 

 In 1624 the Upper House sat at Christ Church, 

 O.Kford, and the Lower at Merton College. On 

 May 16, 1661, the Convocation met in " the Col- 

 legiate Church at Westminster!' The first Con- 

 vocation of William III. had its amended com- 

 mission brought to it on the 4th of December, 

 while both Houses were sitting together in Henry 

 VII.'s Chapel. The last Convocation of the same 

 king met on the 10th of February, 1701, at St. 

 Paul's, where they heard divine service, and then 

 went to the chapter- house, where they chose for 

 their prolocutor Dr. Hooper. On the 25th of 

 February, the Lower House was sitting in 

 Henry VII.'s Chapel ; and on the 6th of March 

 they were both sitting in the Jerusalem Chamber: 

 where twice in this present year it has sat. It is 

 true that the writ which summoned James I.'s 

 first Convocation called the clergy to appear before 

 the archbishop " in our cathedral church of St. 

 Paul in London, the twentieth day of I\Iarch then 

 next ensuing, or elsewhere, as he sliould have 

 thought it most convenient;" and it seems that 

 they did assemble " at the time and place before- 

 mentioned ;" yet, supposing they were not at 

 AVestminster then, they were in almost equal 

 danger from the Popish Plot, as it is not likely 

 they would have received any greater mercy at 

 the hands of the conspirators. 



I have always imagined that it was still a moot- 

 point as to wlietlier ail the Estates ever deliberated 

 together in the presence of tlie sovereign. It is 

 not generally known, I tliink, that they all re- 

 assemble for the l()rnial ])assing of every act: and 

 with res[)ect to the authority of all three being 

 recited in t!ie j)reamble, I beg to point out to 

 Canon. Enou. the following exceptions: — In the 

 ' Act of UniCormity, the style of " Lords Spiritual" 

 is omitted ihroiigliout, as every one of the bishops 

 j voted against it. It has also been ruled by the 



