Your correspondent ARUN (Vol. ii., p. 254.) states, on the authority of
Stephen's _Blackstone_, that--
"Bishops are temporal barons, and sit in the House of Peers in
right of succession to certain ancient baronies 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 baroniarum_ but _jure ecclesiarum_, by custom, long before the
tenure _per baroniam_ was known. In the preambles to the laws of Ina
(Wilkins' _Leges Ang.-Sax._ f. 14.), of Athelstan (_ib._ 54.), of Edmund
(_ib._ 72.), the bishops are mentioned along with others of the great
council, whilst the tenure _per baroniam_ was not known until after the
Conquest. The truth seems to be that
"The bishops of the Conqueror's age were entitled to sit in his
councils by the general custom of Europe and by the common law
of England, which the conquest did not overturn."--Hallam's
_Mid. Ag._ 137-8, 9th ed.
Can any of your readers throw any light on the much disputed tenure _per
baroniam_? What was its essential character, what its incidents, and in
what way did it differ from the ordinary tenure _in capite_?