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.).

C.G.


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