86 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[2°d S. IX. Feb. 4. '60. 



that they are not of the degree of nobility (see 1 

 Inst.3l.; 3 Inst. 30.). Selden seems clear that this 

 is the only privilege bishops have not in common 

 with other peers. However, it seems to be agreed 

 that while Parliament is sitting, a bishop shall be 

 tried by the peers (2 Hawkins, 424.). The result, 

 therefore, seems to be that a bishop elect cannot 

 sit in Parliament. J. A. Pn. 



J. S. S, remarks, that " the bishops sit in the 

 House of Lords as spiritual peers," and that they 

 " could not come under that denomination until 

 entitled to it by the act of cousec?-ation." Is this 

 strictly correct ? The bishops sit in convocation 

 as spiritual peers, no doubt ; anrl, being spiritual 

 pe? % sons, they sit as peers in the House of Lords. 

 But they sit there in right of their temporal baronies. 

 It is probable, therefore, that they are entitled to 

 take their seats, not upon consecration, but upon 

 their being legally invested with their baronial 

 rights. I speak, of course, of their constitutional 

 right as peers, — without reference to the writs of 

 summons, by which they take their seats in the 

 present day. J. Sansom. 



I think J. S. S. does not recollect that the 

 bishops are spiritual lords, not peers, and are en- 

 titled to a Writ to the Parliament in virtue of 

 their temporalities, held, as the old law writers 

 say, per baroniam. It is certain that in early 

 times bishops elect could sit. See the Pari. Rolls, 

 18 Edw. I. 15 b, when the Parliament granted an 

 aid to the king upon the marriage of* his daugh- 

 ter, when many bishops were present, and amongst 

 them " Willielmus Electus Eliensis." (William de 

 Luda, Archdeacon of Durham, elected 12 May, 

 1290, consecrated 1 Oct. following.) C. A. 



THE MACAULAY FAMILY. 



(2" d S. ix. 44.) 



Permit me to correct a slight inaccuracy into 

 which your correspondent Fitzgilbert has fallen 

 as to the ancestors of Lord Macaulay. The Rev. 



Macaulay (Dumbarton)," whom he mentions 



as great-grandfather of the historian, was never 

 located in Dumbarton. He was minister of Har- 

 ris, one of the parishes in the Western Isles, and 

 will be found alluded to along with his son John 

 in the Jacobite Memoirs of the Rebellion, edited 

 from the MSS. of Bishop Forbes by Robert Cham- 

 bers. This John was first ordained minister of 

 South-Uist, in 1745 ; in 1756 he removed to Lis- 

 more, and nine years afterwards made a second 

 change to Inverary, where he was minister when 

 Dr. Johnson made his tour to the Hebrides. In 

 1774, and in the face of considerable opposition 

 from the Ultra-Calvinistic section of the Presby- 

 tery, he was translated to the parish of Cardross 



in Dumbartonshire, where he died in 1789. As 

 appears from the gravestone in the churchyard 

 there, he had a family of twelve children by Mar- 

 garet, third daughter of Colin Campbell of Invers- 

 re<ian. One of his daughters, Jean, married, in 

 1787, Thomas Babington, Esq., of Rothley Tem- 

 ple, Leicestershire, who, I am informed, had been 

 in the habit of i - esiding for a few months in the 

 year at the manse of Cardross for the benefit of 

 his health. A son, Zachary, whose career is well 

 known, had (besides other children) by a daugh- 

 ter of Quaker Mills of Bristol, a son Thomas, 

 christened Babington, in honour of the husband 

 of Aunt Jane, who I dare say made the best mar- 

 riage of the family. This Thomas Babington be- 

 came, ns we all know, Lord Macaulay. The 

 descent, therefore, seems to stand thus : — 



Rev. Aulay M'Aulay, of Harris. 

 Rev. John M'Aulay, Cardross=Margaret Campbell. 



Zachary Macaulay=Sarah M ills, Bristol. 



Jcan=Thoma9 Babiir/ton, 

 Rothley Temple. 



Thomas Babington Lord Macaulay. 



Your correspondent alludes to the late lord's 

 kinsmen in Leicestershire as claiming descent 

 from the ancient house of M'Aulay. If he means 

 the Babingtons, I fear the claim could only be 

 made out with reference to the present represen- 

 tative of the family, Thomas Gisborne Babington, 

 Esq., whose mother was the Jean M'Aulay above 

 mentioned. From the descent as given in 

 " Burke," there appears to have been no earlier 

 connexion with the house of M'Aulay, nor in the 

 papers formerly belonging to the present family 

 of Ardinciple (which I had occasion to examine 

 somewhat minutely when preparing their scheme 

 of descent for my Histo?-y of Dumbartonshire) did 

 I see anything leading me to believe that any 

 member of the clan had settled so far south. I 

 have not been able, I may say, to connect Lord 

 Macaulay's ancestors with the Dumbartonshire 

 house of Ardincaple, but there was no other clan 

 of the name in Scotland, and it may be therefore 

 reasonably inferred that a connexion more or less 

 distant existed between the minister of Harris 

 and his contemporary Aulay Aulay, the last lineal 

 representative of the once powerful family of Ar- 

 dincaple. As the descent of this clan is but 

 imperfectly understood, I will be glad on a future 

 occasion (by permission of the Editor of " N". & 

 Q.") to make certain salient points in its history 

 the subject of another paper. J. Irving. 



Dumbarton. 



THE YOUNG PRETENDER IN ENGLAND. 



(W S. ix. 46.) 



The evidence as to Charles Edward having wit- 

 nessed the coronation of George III. is very slight, 

 and not trustworthy. It consists entirely of what 



