to the point, and say that the Lord Archbishop did assist in an unlawful act, because he was on hunting; for that was interdicted to a bishop by the canon De Clerico Venatore; and so by a consequent he must needs be irregular. To which objection, see how many clear and true answers there be. As first, that the canon being taken. out of the decrees, is by Gratian himself branded to be palea, no better than chaff. Secondly, it is cited out of the fourth council of Orleans; and there is no such thing to be found, as the gloss well observeth. Thirdly, it forbiddeth hunting cum canibus aut accipitribus; and none of these were at Bramzil. And if you will enforce it by comparison or proportion, mark, when hunting with dogs or hawks is forbidden, it is not for fear of slaughter, for there is no such danger in either of them. Fourthly, the canon forbiddeth hunting voluptatis causa, but not recreationis or valetudinis gratia, which the books say is permitted etiam episcopo. Fifthly, the canon hath, if he make a life or occupation of it; which the world knoweth, is not the Archbishop's case, but a little one time in the year, directed so by his physician, to avoid two diseases whereunto he is subject, the stone and the gout. Sixthly, it is clamosa cenatio against which the canon speaketh, not quieta or modesta, which the canonists allow; and this

whereof the question ariseth was most silent and quiet, saving that this accident, by the keeper's unadvised running in, hath afterwards made a noise over all the country.

"These exceptions, as they naturally and without any enforcing, give answer to this objection of the canon; so there is another thing that may stop the mouth of all gainsayers, if any reason will content them. And that is, that by the statute of Hen. VIII., 35, ca. 16, no canon is in force in England which was not in use before that time, or is not contrary or derogatory to the laws or statutes of this realm, nor to the prerogatives of the royal crown; of which nature this is. For, in Charta de Foresta, Archbishops and Bishops by name have liberty to hunt: and 13 Rich. II., cap. 13, a clergyman who hath £10 by the year may keep greyhounds to hunt. And Linwood, who lived soon after that time, and understood the ecclesiastical constitutions and the laws of England very well, in treating of hunting, speaketh against clergymen using that exercise unlawfully, as in places restrained or forbidden; but hath not one word against hunting simply. And the Archbishop of Canterbury had formerly more than twenty parks and chases of his own, to use at his pleasure; and now by charter hath freewarren in all his lands. And by ancient record, the Bishop of Rochester,

at his death, was to render to the Archbishop of Canterbury his kennel of hounds as a mortuary. To this may be added the perpetuated use of hunting by Bishops in their parks, continued to this day without scruple or question. As that most reverend man, the Lord Archbishop Whitgyfte used in Hartlebury park while he lived at Worcester; in Ford park in Kent; in the park of the Lord Cobham, near Canterbury, where, by the favour of that Lord, he killed twenty bucks in one journey; using hounds, greyhounds, or his bow, at his pleasure, although he never shot well. And the same is credibly reported of the Lord Archbishop Sandes. And it is most true that the Deans and Chapter of Winchester use it as they please in their franchise. To say nothing of Dr. Rennal, whose hounds were long famous throughout all England; and yet he was by profession a canonist, and knew well what induced irregularity.”

James Howell, in a letter to Sir Thomas Savage, dated 9th November, 1622, writes-" Since that sad disaster which befel Archbishop Abbot, to kill the man by the glancing of an arrow as he was shooting at a deer (which kind of death befel one of our Kings once in New Forest), there hath been a commission awarded to debate whether upon this fact, whereby he hath shed human

blood, he be not to be deprived of his Archbishoprick, and pronounced irregular: some were against him; but Bishop Andrews and Sir Henry Martin stood stiffly for him, that in regard it was no spontaneous act, but a mere contingency, and that there is no degree of men but is subject to misfortunes and casualties, they declared positively that he was not to fall from his dignity or function, but should still remain a regular, and in statu quo prius. During this debate, he petitioned the King that he might be permitted to retire to his alms-house at Guilford, where he was born, to pass the remainder of his life; but he is now come to be again rectus in curia, absolutely acquitted, and restored to all things; but for the wife of him who was killed, it was no misfortune to her, for he hath endowed herself and her children with such an estate that they say her husband could never have got."

The subsequent rustication of the Archbishop to his house at Foord was altogether unconnected with the unfortunate event which gave rise to the proceedings related above, and resulted not from his killing a man, but according to Bishop Hacket, merely from his refusal to license Dr. Sibthorpe's Sermon.

MEN AND THEIR WIVES SUFFERING TOGETHER THE EXTREME PENALTY OF THE LAW.

THE circumstance of married people being executed together is extremely rare in English criminal records. There have occurred indeed but three very memorable instances; among which, the first is historic and of universal knowledge and never fading interest. It is that of the Lady Jane Grey and her consort, Lord Guilford Dudley. Yet even the case of these illustrious victims of the rash and restless ambition of their own relatives, scarcely amounts to an example of this strange and sad kind of matrimonial death, because though they both suffered on the same day, and by the same means, the exact locality and hour were different. Of Lady Jane's untenable claim to the English crown, of the unwise assumption of the sceptre by her, or rather by her head