With respect to the Convocations sitting at Westminster. The first Convocation of 1283 sat "at the New Temple;" the next was summoned on St. Matthew's day, 1294, to meet _at Westminster_. On April 22, 1523, a National Synod of both Convocations was held _at Westminster_ by Cardinal Wolsey, the Papal Legate. The Convocation sat _at Lambeth_ in 1555 and 1558. In 1586 and 1588, we find Convocation often sitting _at Westminster_. In 1624 the Upper House sat _at Christ Church_, Oxford, and the Lower _at Merton College_. On May 16, 1661, the Convocation met in "the Collegiate Church _at Westminster_." The first Convocation of William III. had its amended commission brought to it on the 4th of December, while both Houses were sitting together _in Henry VII.'s Chapel_. The last Convocation of the same king met on the 10th of February, 1701, at St. Paul's, where they heard divine service, and then went to the chapter-house, where they chose for their prolocutor Dr. Hooper. On the 25th of February, the Lower House was sitting in Henry VII.'s Chapel; and on the 6th of March they were both sitting _in the Jerusalem Chamber: where_ twice in this present year it has sat. It is true that the writ which summoned James I.'s first Convocation called the clergy to appear before the archbishop "in our cathedral church of St. Paul in London, the twentieth day of March then next ensuing, or elsewhere, as he should have thought it most convenient;" and it seems that they did assemble "at the time and place before-mentioned;" yet, supposing they were not at Westminster then, they were in almost equal danger from the Popish Plot, as it is not likely they would have received any greater mercy at the hands of the conspirators. I have always imagined that it was still a moot-point as to whether all the Estates ever _deliberated_ together in the presence of the sovereign. It is not generally known, I think, that they all re-assemble for the formal passing of every act: and with respect to the authority of all three being recited in the preamble, I beg to point out to CANON. EBOR. the following exceptions:--In the Act of Uniformity, the style of "Lords Spiritual" is omitted throughout, as every one of the bishops voted against it. It has also been ruled by the judges that the King may hold a parliament without any Spiritual lords; and, in fact, the first two parliaments of Charles II. were so holden. I will presume CANON. EBOR. intended to say that Prelates do not sit in the Upper House as _Peers_, otherwise the charge of "mistake" will fall upon Blackstone, _Comm._ book i. ch. 2.: