interim vicarios habebunt, injuncta eis poenitentia secundum hoc quod episcopis corum visum fuerit." In 1138 the penalty for priests marrying was deprivation of their benefices, and exclusion from the celebration of divine service:--"Sanctorum patrum vestigiis inhaerentes, presbyteros, diaconos, subdiaconos uxoratos, aut concubinarios, ecclesiasticis officiis et beneficiis privamus, ac ne quis eorum missam audire praesumat Apostolica auctoriate prohibemus." Many such decrees have been made at various synods and councils holden for reformation of the clergy, but I can find none wherein marriage is interdicted to clerks generally. I will refer to one more only, viz. that made in the Council of London, held at Westminster in 1175. Here it will be seen most distinctly that the prohibition against entering the marriage state was confined expressly to _Clerici in sacris ordinibus constituti_, and that is was not only lawful for clerks below the grade of subdeacon to marry, but that having subsequently once entered the marriage state and being subsequently desirous _ad religionem transire_, and to continue in the service of the Church, they could not do so and be separated from their wives unless _de communi consensu_; if they continued, however, to live with their wives, they could not hold an ecclesiastical benefice: "Si quis sacerdos vel clericus in sacris ordinibus constitutus, ecclesiam vel ecclesiasticum beneficium habens publice fornicarium habeat," &c.... "Si qui vero infra subdiaconatum constituti matrimonia contraxerint, ab uxoribus sius nisi de communi consensu ad religionem transire voluerint, et ibi in Dei servitio vigilanter permanere, nullatenus separentur: sed cum uxoribus viventes, ecclesiastica benficia nullo modo percipiant. Qui autem in subdiaconatu, vel supra, ad matrimonia convolaverint, mulieres etiam invitas et renitentes relinquant." This it will be seen that the title "Clericus" under some circumstances, affords no certain indication that a lawful marriage may not have been contracted by the person so described and consequently that he might not have _prolem legitimam_. W.H. It does not follow that William de Bolton was an ecclesiastic because he was called Clericus; that designation being, even in that early time, often used in a lay sense. I have just come across an instance of a prior date. In the Liberate Roll of 26 Henry III. the king directs a payment to be made "to Isabella, the wife of our beloved clerk, Robert of Canterbury, to purchase a robe for our use." Even in the reign of Richard I. it may be doubtful whether the term was not used with both meanings; for in the charter of Walter Mapes, granting certain lands, among the witnesses are "Rogero, capellano, Willelmo, capellano, Thoma, _clerico meo_, Waltero, clerico, Jacobo, clerico, Bricio, fermario meo." [Symbol: Phi]