NOTES AND QUERIES. [io s. xu. JULY 24 ,
matter of conjecture. His biographers,
Lowth and Moberly, in the pedigrees they
constructed, have offered different solutions
of the point, but, in the absence of further
evidence, it must remain questionable
whether either solution is correct. My
suggestion, which is, I believe, a new one,
that Agnes was the wife of Guy Heyno of
Stenbury, may possibly lead to the dis-
covery of her parentage. H. C.
THE PARKER CONSECRATION" AND
THE LAMBETH REGISTER. (See 3 S. viii. 390 ; 4 S. ii. 435, 493.)
THERE appears to be a curious flaw in the above-mentioned document, which escaped the notice of Perceval, Haddan, and Stubbs, who relied implicitly on the record. It will be seen that such an over- sight would easily occur, as the mistake consists of a misdescription of one of the minor dignitaries.
The register states that the Archbishop's two chaplains, viz., Nicholas Bullingham and Edmund Gest, respectively Archdeacons of Lincoln and Canterbury, were present on 17 Dec., 1559, and rendered their assistance : " Cui ministrabant, operamque suam pre- bebant, duo Archie'pi Capellani, viz., Nicholaus Bullingh'm, Lincoln., et Edmun- dus Gest, Cantuarien respective Archi'ni." Now the fact is that Edmund Geat was at that time Archdeacon of Canterbury, but Nicholas Bullingham was not Arch- deacon of Lincoln. He had been Arch- deacon of Lincoln under Edward VI., but he fled the kingdom on the accession of Queen Mary, and never again became Archdeacon. Owen Hodgson was made Archdeacon on 14 Jan., 1558. He died, or resigned, or was deprived (most probably the last), in 1558 or 1559 ; and the next Archdeacon was John Aylmer, 1562. In December, 1559, the Archdeaconry was vacant. The following table of dates will explain the matter :
1549. Sept. 22. Nicholas Bullingham installed as Archdeacon of Lincoln.
1553. July 6. Mary succeeded to the throne :
shortly after this event Bullingham fled the realm.
1554. May 23. Thomas Marshall was installed
as Archdeacon.
1558. Jan. 14. Owen Hodgson was installed as
Archdeacon.
1358. Nov. 17. Elizabeth succeeded to the throne.
1559. June 27. Thomas Watson, Bishop of
Lincoln, was deprived.
1559. Nov. 5. The royal licence issued for the election of a bishop.
1559. Nov. 6(?). Bullingham accepted the see.
1559. Dec. 17. Parker consecration at Lambeth.
1560. Jan. 12. Royal assent to election of
Bullingham as Bishop.
1560. Jan. 18. The Queen grants the arch- deaconry to Bullingham for three years, commencing with his acceptance of the bishopric, to be held in commendam the grant expressly stating that the archdeaconry is vacant.
1560. Jan. 21. Bullingham is consecrated for Lincoln.
1562. Nov. 6. John Aylmer is installed as Arch- deacon.
1571. Bullingham is translated to Worcester.
1576. Bullingham dies.
The main particulars are gathered from certain letters published in The Weekly Register, 18579, the author being the Rev. Canon John Williams (R.C.). They were collected into a small volume in 1859. Canon Williams was not a thoroughly accurate writer ; but in these points he is correct. The list of archdeacons is taken from Le Neve's 'Fasti' (1716), p. 157. The royal licence, assent, and grant are set forth in Rymer's ' Fcedera,' xv. 549, 561, 564. And I have verified the citation from the Lambeth Register with the photographic copy of the same.
The date of Bullingham's acceptance of the See of Lincoln is conjecturally stated, on the supposition that the three years' grant ended when the new Archdeacon was installed.
It must be evident to every lawyer that if Bullingham was not Archdeacon of Lincoln in December, 1559, and if he was Bishop designate ; and if the Lambeth Register fails to describe him as Bishop designate, and does describe him as Arch- deacon ; then the Lambeth Register, as we have it, is not the original record of the transaction which it describes, but must have been made up sufficiently long after the transaction for the mistake to occur ; for surely no keeper of the records, making them up during or near December, 1559, could possibly have styled Bullingham Archdeacon. And in that case what became of the original record ? For an original record there certainly was.
I wish to say plainly that I am not trying to introduce into these columns any debate concerning Anglican Orders, for in my view the question now raised does not materially affect them.
I therefore beg that any contributor who may comment adversely on the present note will confine himself to proving, either that Bullingham was Archdeacon of Lincoln in December, 1559, or, if he was not, that
