Bishops and their Precedence (Vol. ii., pp. 9. 76.)—­The precedence of bishops is regulated by the act of 31 Hen.  VIII. c. 10., “for placing of the Lords.”  Bishops are, in fact, temporal barons, and, as stated in Stephen’s Blackstone, vol. iii. pp. 5, 6., sit in the House of Peers in right of succession to certain ancient baronies annexed, or supposed to be annexed, to their episcopal lands; and as they have in addition high spiritual rank, it is but right they should have place before those who, in temporal rank only, are equal to them.  This is, in effect, the meaning of the reason given by Coke in part iii. of the Institutes, p. 361. ed. 1670, where, after noticing the precedence amongst the bishops themselves, namely, 1.  The Bishop of London, 2.  The Bishop of Durham, 3.  The Bishop of Winchester, he observes: 

“But the other bishops have place above all the barons of the realm, because they hold their bishopricks of the king per baroniam; but they give place to viscounts, earls, marquesses, and dukes.”

ARUN.

Elizabeth and Isabel (Vol. i., pp. 439. 488.).—­The title of AElius Antonius Nebressengis’s history is, Rerum a Fernando et Elisabe Hispaniaram faelicissimis regibus gestarum Decades duae.

J.B.

Dr. Thomas Bever’s Legal Polity of Great Britain (Vol. i., p. 483.).—­Is J.R. aware that the principal part of the parish of Mortimer, near Reading, as well as the manorial rights, belongs to a Richard Benyon de Beauvoir, Esq., residing not very far from that spot, at Englefield House, about five miles on the Newbury Road from Reading. {255} This gentleman, whose original name was Powlett Wright, took the name of De Beauvoir a few years back, as I understand, from succeeding to the property of his relative, a Mr. Beevor or Bever.  This gentleman may, perhaps, be enabled to throw some light upon the family of Dr. Bever.

WP.

Eikon Basilike (Vol. ii., p. 134.).—­I would suggest to A.C. that the circumstance of his copy of this work bearing on its cover “C.R.,” surmounted by a crown, may not be indicative of its having been in the possession of royalty.  It may have been, perhaps, not unusual to occasionally so distinguish words of this description published in or about that year (1660).  I have a small volume entitled—­

“The History of His Sacred Majesty Charles II.  Begun from the Murder of his royal father of Happy Memory, and continued to this present year, 1660, by a person of quality.  Printed for James Davies, and are to be sold at the Turk’s Head in Ioy Lane, and at the Greyhound in St. Paul’s Church Yard, 1660.”

This volume is stamped in gold on both covers with C.R., surmounted by a crown.

E.B.  PRICE.

Earl of Oxford’s Patent (Vol. ii., PP. 194. 235.).—­LORD BRAYBROOKE no doubt knows, that the preamble to the patent was written by Dean Swift.  (See Journal to Stella.) I would add, in reply to O.P.Q., that there is no doubt that assassin and assassinate are properly used even when death does not ensue.  Not so murder and murderer, which are strict terms of law to which death is indispensable.