* * * * *
BISHOPS AND THEIR PRECEDENCE.
(Vol. ii., p. 254.)
Arun is not right, in reference to this Query, in saying that the
precedence of bishops over the temporal barons is regulated by the
statute of 31 Hen. VIII. The precedence of bishops over the temporal
lords is not regulated by the Act of 31 Hen. VIII. for placing the
lords. They may have originally been summoned to sit in parliament in
right of their succession to certain baronial lands annexed to, or
supposed to be annexed to their episcopal sees; but as some of the
temporal peers were also summoned in right of lands held of the king
_per baroniam_, that is not a satisfactory reason why they should take
precedence of temporal barons.
The precedency must have been regulated by some other laws, rules, or
usage than are presented by the Act of 31 Hen. VIII. The Archbishop of
Canterbury precedes the Lord Chancellor; the Archbishop of York the Lord
President of the Council and the Lord Privy Seal; and all bishops
precede barons. This precedency, however, is not given by the _statute_.
The Act provides only, in reference to the spiritual peers, that the
Vicegerent for good and due ministration of justice, to be had in all
causes and cases touching the ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and for the
godly reformation and redress of all errors, heresies, and abuses in the
{302} Church (and all other persons having grant of the said office),
shall sit and be placed in all parliaments on the _right side_ of the
parliament chamber, and upon the same form that the Archbishop of
Canterbury sitteth on, and above the same archbishop 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
Winchester; and then all the other bishops of both provinces of
Canterbury and York shall sit and be placed on the same side, after
their ancienties, as it hath been accustomed.
There is nothing here to show in what order they are to rank among the
great officers, or other temporal peers; nor is the precedency given to
the Lord Chancellor over the Archbishop of York.
By the Act of Union of Great Britain and Ireland, the archbishops of
that kingdom have rank immediately after the Archbishop 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 for 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 precedence?--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 baroniam_. But the holding
_per baroniam_, 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.),
_judgment_ 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 for (Vol. ii., p. 76.).