I have set down the arguments necessary for maintaining my first position against CANON. EBOR., whether they be good or bad, with sufficient positiveness and distinctness to prevent their being again mistaken. I would close the subject with the words of Atterbury: "If I should affirm that the Convocation attended the Parliament as _One of the Three States of the Realm_, I should say no more than the Rolls have in express terms said before me; where the King is mentioned as calling _Tres status Regni_ ad Palatium suum Westm., viz. _Prælatos et Clerum_, Nobiles et Magnates, necnon Communitates dicti _Regni_."--_Rot. Parl._ 9 Henry V. n. 15. WILLIAM FRASER, B.C.L. * * * * * BURIALS IN WOOLLEN. (Vol. v., p. 414.) Your correspondent the Rev. E. S. TAYLOR is referred to 30 Car. II. c. 3., and 32 ejusdem c. 1., for an answer to his inquiry respecting burials in woollen. The former Act is entitled, "An Acte for the lessening the importation of linnen from beyond the seas, and the encouragement of the woollen and paper manufactures of the kingdome." It prescribes that the curate of every parish shall keep a register, to be provided at the charge of the parish, wherein to enter all burials, and affidavits of persons being buried in woollen; the affidavit to be taken by any justice of peace, mayor, or such like chief officer in the parish where the body was interred: and if there be no officer, then by any {543} curate within the county where the corpse was buried (except him in whose parish the corpse was buried), who must administer the oath and set his hand gratis. No affidavit to be necessary for a person dying of the plague. It imposes a fine of 5l. for every infringement; one half to go to the informer, and the other half to the poor of the parish. I have not been able to ascertain when this act was repealed, but imagine it to have been of but short continuance. Is there no mistake in the date of the affidavit quoted by Mr. Taylor? Is 1769 a _lapsus_ for 1679? The first entry in the book provided for such purposes in this parish bears date August, 1678, and there is no entry later than 1681, which appears also to be the limit of the Act's observance in the adjacent parish of Radcliffe. There, the entries immediately follow the record of the burial itself in the registers, and not in a separate book, as with us. Under the year 1679 occurs the following memorandum in the parish registers of Radcliffe: "An orphan of Ralph Mather's, of Radcliffe, was buried y^e 9th day of April, and sertefied to be wounde uppe in woollen onely, under the hand of M^r William Hulme." In the churchwardens' accounts of this parish (Prestwich) for the year 1681 is found the following item of receipt: "Received a fine of James Crompton ffor buringe his son and not bringinge in an affidavitt according to the Acte for burying in woollin, 02.10.00." JOHN BOOKER. Prestwich, Manchester.