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.). C.G.