them offend in any of the Premisses the persons deputing them if they be Bishops shall upon Admonition of their Superiour discharge the persons exceeding the Number so limited as aforesaid But if they were deputed by Inferiour Ordinaries such Ordinaries shall be suspended from the execution of their Office until they have dismiss'd the supernumerary Apparitors by them so deputed and the parties themselves so deputed shall for ever be removed from the Office of Apparitors And in case being so dismiss'd and removed they do not desist from the execution of their said Offices they are by the first said Canon to be proceeded against and punished by Ecclesiastical Censures as persons contumacious to the Jurisdiction And finally if upon experience the number of the said Apparitors be too great in any one Diocess in the judgment of the Archbishop of Canterbury for the time being in that case he is by the said Canon impower'd to abridge them to such a number as to himself shall seem meet and expedient An Apparitor came to the Church of a Parson and said to him He is to pay Tenths to such a one at such a place four miles distant from the Church to whom the Parson did not pay them and thereupon the Bishop Certified That he refused to pay them according to the Statute of 26 H. 8. It was Resolved The Demand was not according to that Statute and the Summons to pay them not according to the Statute for the Demand ought to have been by one who hath authority to receive them which the Summoner had not And they held the Demand not good although the Bishop certified it was duly made And in the Case between the Queen and Blanch it was Resolved That the Certificate of the Bishop that the Incumbent refused to pay his Tenths is not Peremptory but Traversable and that the Demand of the Tenths must be at the house of the Incumbent and the Refusal there More 's Rep. 1225. In a Action upon the Case against the Defendant the Case was this A Summoner in the Ecclesiastical Court having a Citation against the Plaintiff Returned That he had Summoned the Plaintiff whereas in truth he never Summoned him for which the Plaintiff was Excommunicated to his great dammage It was adjudged that the Action did lie 13. By the Premisses it is manifest that the Canon is very strict and exact both in abridging the Number and redressing the Abuses incident to the Office of Apparitors which Canon in most Circumstances seems to run very parallel with that in the Provincial Constitutions Lindw Provin Constit de Censibus Procur cap. cum Apparitorum the light whereof did probably influence it into that Form wherein we now find it For by that Decree of the said Provincial Constitunions it is Ordained That a Bishop shall have unum Apparitorem Equitantem duntaxat where the Gloss well observes that by this non prohibetur Episcopo quin plures habeat pedites And every Archdeacon one in every Deanary non Equitantem sed peditem where the Bishop might also appoint Apparitors as also in Rural Deanaries Gloss ibid. verb. Duntaxat And in case more than these were Deputed or they found to offend in their Office the Penalty was as above-said Deputantes sint suspensi donec c. Deputatos ab Officio Apparitorum perpetuo suspendimus ipso facto Constit ibid. 14. Action upon the Case For that the Defendant being an Apparitor under the Bishop of Exeter maliciously and without colour or cause of suspicion of Incontinency of his own proper malice procured the Plaintiff Ex Officio upon pretence of Fame of Incontinency with one Edith whereas there was no such Fame not just cause of Suspicion to be cited to the Consistory Court of Exeter and there to be at great charges and vexation until he was cleared by Sentence which was to his great discredit and cause of great Expences and Losses for which c. upon Not guilty pleaded and found for the Plaintiff it was moved by Ashley Serjeant in Arrest of Judgment That in this Case an Action lies not For he did nothing but as an Informer and by virtue of his Office But all the Court absente Richardson held That the Action well lies For it is alledged That he falso malitiose caused him to be Cited upon pretence of Fame where there was no offence committed And avers That there was not any such Fame so as he did it maliciously and of his own head and caused him to be unjustly vexed which was to raise gain to himself whereupon they conceived That he being found guilty for it the Action well lies And therefore Rule was given to enter Judgment for the Plaintiff unless other cause was shewn And upon a second motion Richardson Ch. Justice being present Judgment was given for the Plaintiff The Consistory of the Bishop may in some Cases enjoyn Penance Where Penance is enjoyned there may be Commutation but there may not be Commutation for Penance where none is enjoyned Commutation for Penance agrees with the Customes used in the Ecclesiastical Law justified in the Common Law in the Statute of Circumspecte agatis in the time of Ed. 1. and Articuli Cleri in the time of Ed. 2. Vid. Mich. 21. Jac. B. R. Dr. Barker 's Case in Camera Stellata Roll's Rep. 15. Commissary Commissarius is a Title of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction adapted to such one as doth exercise the same in such remote places of the Diocess and at such distance from the Bishops chief Consistory as that his Chancellor cannot without too great a prejudice conveniently call the Subjects to the same The duty of such Commissary or Officialis Fâ—ranei is to officiate the Bishops Jurisdiction in the remoter parts of the Diocess or in such Parishes as are the Bishop's peculiar and exempt from the Archdeacon's Jurisdiction The Authority of the Commissaries of Bishops is only in some certain place of the Diocess and some certain causes of the Jurisdiction limited unto them by the Bishops for which reason the Law calls them Officiales Foraneos quasi Officiales astricti cuidam foro Dioeceseos tantum Gloss in Clem. de Rescript And by the Canons and Constitutions Ecclesiastical no person may be a Commissary or Official under the Age of 26 years being at least a Master of Arts or Bachelor of Law Yet in the Argument of Buries Case for a Divorce the 5 Rep. 98. there was cited 35 Eliz. B. R. rot 605. That if a Lay-man be made a Commissary by the Bishop it is good until it be undone by Sentence although that the Canon says That he ought to be a Doctor or a Bachelor of Divinity But 21 H. 8. hath limited That a Doctor of the Civil Law may be a Commissary 16. Where a Commissary citing many persons of several Parishes to appear at his Visitation-Court Excommunicated them for not Appearing a Prohibition was granted because the Ordinary hath not
the different conditions of the persons of whom they were begotten As when they were begotten by persons of a single and unmarried Estate and of such as were kept as Concubines the Civil Law called them Filii Naturales if begotten of single Women not design'd for Concubines for satisfaction of present Lust then they were called Spurii if begotten of such as the Law styles Scorta or common Harlots by publick profession than they were called Manzeres if begotten of Married Women then they were called Nothi if begotten between Ascendents and Descendents or between Collaterals contrary to the Divine prohibition then they are called Incestuosi 6. Bastardy so stains the Blood that the Bastard can challenge neither Honour nor Arms and so disables him that he cannot pretend to any succession to inheritance The Temporal and the Ecclesiastical Laws with us do not differ as to matter of Bastardy but something as to the prosecution thereof The Ecclesiastical Law brings it two ways to Judgment Incidently and Principally the Common Law makes two sorts thereof General and Special Incidently at the Ecclesiastical Law when it is pleaded in Bar to a claim of something in right of Nativity Principally when by reason of some slanderous and reproachful speeches it is brought before the Court as the principal matter in Judgment to be alledged and proved that thereupon Sentence may be pronounced accordingly by the Ecclesiastical Judge Ad Curiam enim Regiam non pertinet agnoscere de Bastardia General Bastardy at Common Law is so called because it is in gross objected in Barr against a Man to disappoint him in the Principal matter of his Suit Which because it is of Ecclesiastical Cognizance is sent by the Kings Writ to the Ordinary to enquire whether the Party charged with Bastardy were born in or out of Lawful Matrimony And as the Ordinary finds the truth of the matter upon due examination so he pronounceth accordingly in his Consistory whereof he returns Certificate to the Temporal Courts Special Bastardy at the Common Law seems to be only that where the Matrimony is confest but the Priority or Posteriority of the Nativity of him whose Birth is in question is controverted General Bastardy ought to be Tryed by the Bishop and not by the Country But Bastardy in this sense cannot be tryed by the Ordinary otherwise than by vertue of the Kings Writ on some Suit depending in the Temporal Court When Issue is joyn'd on Bastardy before it be awarded to the Ordinary to Try it Proclamation thereof is made in the same Court and after Issue it is certified into Chancery where Proclamation is made once a Month for three Months and then the Lord Chancellour certifies it to the Court where the Plea is depending and after it is Proclaimed again in the same Court that all such whom the said Plea concerns may appear and make their Allegations before the Ordinary whose Certificate of Bastardy is nothing to the purpose unless it come in by Process at the Suit of the Parties And this Bastardy ought to be certified under the Seal of the Ordinary for it is not sufficient to certifie it under the Seal of the Commissary And although the Defendant be certified a Bastard by the Ordinary yet the Certificate shall lose its force if the Plaintiff be afterwards Nonsuit for then the Certificate is not of Record In the Case of Elborough against Allen it was said by Crook that for calling one Bastard generally there is not any sufficient Ground of Action at the Common Law but if there be any special Loss thereby it shall be a good ground of Action at the Comon Law as if a Man be upon Marriage or in treaty for the sale of Land whereby his Title is disparaged Doderidge Justice said That the word Bastard is generally of another Jurisdiction and belongs to the Ecclesiastical Court to determine what shall be Bastardy and their Judgement is given for the damage which the party had in his birth and for that their Entry is quia laesis est natalitiis And in this Case the Chief Justice said that generally to say J. S. is a Bastard J. S. hath not cause of Action given him thereby but if there be a Temporal cause averr'd the Common Law may proceed therein for though Originally Bastardy be of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction not Triable at the Common Law and therefore as in its general nature it is of the Spiritual Jurisdiction so being by its generality no ground of Action at the Common Law yet if one be to sue for a Childs part or sue for the Administration of his Fathers Goods and this be set forth in the Declaration it will maintain an Action at Common Law Doderidge Justice said That to say generally that one called him Bastard is not ground of Action if he doth not shew some special Loss thereby as when a Woman brings her Action and says that she was in Treaty of Marriage and that the Defendant called her Whore this will not maintain an Action unless she say withall that by reason of these words she lost her preferment but Chamberlain Justice said to call a Woman Whore is at this day a sufficient cause of Action for her for that it is punishable by the Statute he also further said that if a Man Libel in the Ecclesiastical Court that he hath Lands by descent and that J. S. call'd him Bastard they may not proceed there or if they do a Prohibition lies He further said that for calling a Man Bastard generally without special Loss alledged Action shall be maintained and Cited a Case in 6 Eliz. Dyer Where a Man recovered red great Dammages for that the Defendant had said that his Father was a Bastard And cited also one Nelson and Stokes Case in 5 Jac. where the Plaintiff did not alledge any special cause of Action and yet recovered 7. By the Civil Law such as were born in the beginning of the eleventh Month next after the decease of their Mothers Husband were to be accounted legitimate but such as were born in the end thereof were to be accounted Bastards Auth. Col. 4. yet the Gloss there relates a matter of Fact contrary to this Law and gives us an instance of a Widow in Paris who was delivered of a Child the fourteenth Month after her Husbands death yet the good repute of this Womans continency prevailed so much against the Letter of the Law that the Court Judg'd the causes of Child-birth to be sometimes extraordinary the Woman to be chast and the Child Legitimate Hoc tamen in exemplum trahi facile non oportet as the Gloss there concludes 8. By the Common Law if a Child be born but an hour after the solemnization of Marriage it shall be the Husbands though it were begotten by another Man who was not the Mothers Husband and may be the Heir of him who Married the Mother but a Day
account 10 Months and 40 Weeks or all one but by accident an Infant may be born after the 40 Weeks or before Si partus nascatur post mortem Patru qui dicitur Posthumus per tantum tempus quod non sit verisimile quod possit esse defuncti filius hoc probato talis dici poterit Bastardus 13. It is agreed on all hands that Bawardy is an Ecclesiastica Cause and of Ecclesiastical Cognizance and therefore if Bastardy be pleaded in disability of a plaintiff the saâ—◠〈◊〉 be tried by the Certificate of the Bishop whether it be in Real Action relating to Inheritance or Personal relating to 〈◊〉 otherwise where Action on the Case will lie But if it be pleaded that the Plaintiff was born at such a place before the Marriage solemnized and so he is a Bastard This the Common Law cals a Special Bastardy and shall be tried by Jury at the Common Law where the Birth is alledged So in the Duke of Suffolk's Case of Partition where Special Bastardy was pleaded and Issue thereupon taken the Trial was awarded to be by a Jury of London And where in an Action upon the Case brought for calling one Bastard the Defendant justified that he was a Bastard it was awarded that it should be tried by the Countrey and not by the Ordinary Which seems somthing Paradoxical that if Bastardy be pleaded in Disability of a Plaintiff then it shall be tried by the Bishops Certificate but if it be pleaded that the Plaintiff was born in such a place before the Marriage then by a Jury The former whereof is said to be a general Bastardy the other a special Bastardy whereas in truth they both seem to differ only in this that the former seems to be a general relating to the Plaintiffs condition in respect of his Disability the other seems to be a special relating to the circumstances of Place and Time of his Nativity but both referring to his Bastardy 14. If a man that is ordered by two Justices of the Peace to keep a Bastard-Child he being according to the said Order the reputed Father shall appeal from the said Order to the next Quarter Sessions according to the Stat. of 18. Eliz. and being there discharged and the said Order repealed shall yet afterwards at another Quarter-Sessions of the Peace upon re-examination of the matter be ordered according to the first Order in that case it hath been held by the Court that the second Sessions had no power to alter the Discharge made by the former Sessions v And in another Case it hath been resolved that before the Statute of 3. Car. c. 4. the Justices at the Sessions had no Authority to intermeddle in the Case of Bastardy till the two next Justices according to the Stat. of 18. Eliz. had made an order therein As also that by the Stat. 3. Car. the Justices of their several Limits are to make an Order in Case of Bastardy 15. C. commenced an Action in the Spiritual Court against W. for saying that he had a Bastard W. the Defendant alledged in the said Court that the Plaintiff was adjudged the reputed Father of a Bastard by two Justices of the Peace according to the Statute whereupon he spake the words The Spiritual Court accepted of his Confession but would not allow of his Justification whereupon he prayed a prohibition and it was granted It is not denied but that if the Spiritual Court try a thing that is of Temporal Cognizance a Prohibition may lie although all the Cause were originally Spiritual as was resolved in Kenns Case in which Case it was likewise resolved that where the Cause is Spiritual there the Spiritual Court hath Jurisdiction and in the Case between Banting and Lepingwell it was resolved that the Judges of the Common Law ought that is the word in the Report to give Faith Credit to the Proceedings of the Spiritual Court albeit it be against the Reason of their Law 16. If a man having a wife take another wife and hath Issue by her living the former wife such Issue is a Bastard for the second Marriage is void If a man marry one within the Degrees prohibited the Issue between them is not by the Common Law a Bastard until there be a Divorce for by that Law the Marriage is not till then void So it is although the Brother Marry the Sister If a Man hath Issue by A. and after Marries her yet the Issue is a Bastard at the Common Law An Ideot may consent to Marriage by the Common Law though he were an Ideot from his birth and his Issue by that Law is Legitimate If the Husband be castrated so that it is apparent that he cannot by any possibility beget any Issue and his Wife have Issue divers years after it shall be a Bastard although it be begotten under Marriage for that it is apparent that it could not be Legitimate 17. By the Law of the Land a Man cannot be a Bastard who is born after the Espousals unless there be some special matter in the case If a Woman be big with Child by A. and after A. Marry her and the Issue is born within the Espousals in this Case by the Common Law the Issue is a Mulier and not a Bastard So if a Woman be big with Child by one Man and after-wards another Marries her and after the Issue is born such Issue is a Mulier for that he is born under Espousals and cannot be held the Issue of him by whom she was with Child because that cannot be certainly known and so it is although the Issue were born within three days after Marriage 18. If a Woman Covert hath Issue in Avoutrie yet if the Husband be able to get a Child and be infra quatuor maria the Issue is no Bastard If a Woman Elope and live in Avoutrie with another Man during which Issue is born in Avoutrie yet it is a Mulier by the Common Law But then the Husband must be infra quatuor maria so as that by intendment he might come to his Wife otherwise the Issue is a Bastard But if a Woman hath Issue her Husband being beyond sea for 7 years together before the Issue was born such Issue is a Bastard at the Common Law If a Feme Covert hath Issue her Husband being beyond Sea for 6 years before the Issue is born it is a Bastard at the Common Law If a Woman hath Issue her Husband being within 14 years of age the Issue is a Bastard at the common Law quaere 19. If A. hath Issue by B. and after they intermarry yet the Issue is a Bastard by the Common Law but it is a Mulier by the Civil Law If the Parents be Divorced causa Consanguinitatis they being ignorant thereof at their Marriage the Issues they
After Verdict upon Not Guilty found for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgment by Grimston that these words are not Actionable For for calling Whore there lies not any Action and to say that her Children by her former Husband are Frambishes Bastards is repugnant in it self for they cannot be Bastards which were born in the time of her former Husband But all the Court held that the Action well lies For to say of a Widow who is in Comnunication of Marriage with another that she plaid the Whore in her former Husbands time is a great Discredit And to say that her Children are Bastards although in truth they cannot be Bastards in Law yet in Reputation they may be so is cause of loss of her Marriage and that none will marry with her wherefore it was adjudged for the Plaintiff 11. Action upon the Case Whereas he keepeth an Alehouse Licenced by Justices of the Peace that the Defendant to scandalize the Plaintiffs Wife spake these words of her Hang thee Bawd Thou art worse than a Bawd Thou keepest a House worse than a Bawdy house And thou keepest a Whore in thy House to pull out my Throat Upon not guilty pleaded found for the Plaintiff Stone moved in Arrest of Judgment that these words are not Actionable but agreed that for saying One is a Bawd and keeps a Bawdy house Action lies because it is a temporal Offence for which the Common Law inflicts punishment But to call one Bawd without further speaking an Action lies not no more than to call one Whore But it is a Defamation punishable in the Spiritual Court And to say That be keeps a House worse thaâ— a Bawdy house hath not any intendment what he means thereby wherefore the Action lies not And if it be intended that such words should hinder Guests from coming thither being an Alehouse the Husband only ought to have brought the Action And as to that the Court absente Richardson agreed But for the other words they held the Action lies by the Husband and Wife for the slander to his Wife and it is as much as if he had said that she keepeth a Bawdy house wherefore it was adjudged for the Plaintiff 12. A prohibition was prayed bâ—bâ—cause A. and his Wife sued in the Ecclesiastical Court for Defamation and speaking these words of the Plaintiff He was a Cuckold and a Wittal which is worse than a Cuckold and that Aylsworth had layen with Ayloffs Wife And for these Defamatory words he sued there and because it was alledged that for these words being but words of Spleen Prohibitions had been usually granted day was thereupon given until this Term to shew cause why a Prohibition should not be granted and divers presidents were shewd that for calling one Cuckold or Whore Prohibitions have been granted But now upon advertisement all the Court agreed that no Prohibition should be granted but that the Ecclesiastical Court should have Jurisdiction thereof For although they agreed that there ought not to have been any Suit for the first words they being too general yet being coupled with a particular shewing that the Wife committed such an Offence with such a particular person they be not now general words of spleen in common and usual discourse and parlance But they held it was a Defamation suable in the Spiritual Court whereupon the Prohibition was denied Brownlow chief Protonotary produced on that occasion several presidents where Prohibitions had been granted to stay Suits for such words viz. Trin. 15. Jac. rot 2260. Purchas vers Birrel for that he was presented at several enquests within his Parish for being a Drunkard and a Barretor And Pasch 6. Jac. rot 397. Prohibition to stay a Suit for calling a Parson Hedge-Priest And Mich. 21. Jac. Barker vers Pasmore She is a Quean and a tainted Quean Prohibition granted 13. H. Prays a Prohibition to stay a Suit in the Spiritual Court of Defamation for speaking these words Thou art a Bawd and I will prove thee a Bawd And because these are words properly dererminable in the Spiritual Court and for which no Action lies at the Common Law a prohibition was denied But for saying Thou keepest a house of Bawdry this being matter determinable at Common Law by Indictment Suit shall not be in the Spiritual Court vid. 27 H. 8. and Co. lib. 4. fo 20. 14. Prohibition was prayed to the Ecclesiastical Court to stay a Suit there for Defamation for these words Thou art a Drunkard or drunken fellow And by the opinion of Croke Jones and Berkley a Prohibition was granted For these words do not concern any Spiritual matter but meerly Temporal and they be but Convitium Temporale and a common phrase of brawling for which there ought not to be a Suit in the Spiritual Court and so it was held in Martin Calthorp's Case in C. B. but Richardson doubted thereof because the Spiritual Court as well as the Temporal may meddle with the punishment of drunkenness so it is not meerly Temporal But he assented to the grant of a Prohibition and the Party may if he will demurr thereto whereupon a Prohibition was granted 15. Prohibition was prayed by Bulstrod for Gobbet to stay a Suit in the Spiritual Court for Defamation in speaking these words He is a Cuckoldly Knave and cited presidents that for saying He is a Knave and a cheating Knave Suit being in the Spiritual Court a Prohibition was granted upon good advisement and the Court said that president is not like to this Case for there was not any offence wherewith the Spiritual Court ought to meddle but in this Case for these words it is properly to be examined and punished there pro reformatione morum for it is a disgrace to the Husband as well as to the Wife because he suffers and connives at it whereupon absente Richardson the Prohibition was denied Again it was moved that this should be granted upon the Statute of 23 H. 8. because he was sued in the Court of the Arches which is in the Archbishops Jurisdiction and the words were spoken at Thistleworth in London Diocess as appeared by the Libel But Jones said that he was informed by Dr. Duck. Chancellor of London that there hath been for long time a composition betwixt the Bishop of London and the Archbishop of Canterbury that if any Suit be begun before the Archbishop it shall be always permitted by the Bishop of London so as it is quasi a general License and so not sued there but with the Bishops assent and for that reason the Archbishop never makes any Visitation in London Diocess And hereupon also the Prohibition was denied 16. Action for that the Defendant had said of and to the Plaintiff being of good same and one who had served as Captain in the Wars haec verba in London Thou art a Pimp averring that in London that word was known to be intended a Bawd and further said that he
He may have a Writ out of Chancery to Absolve him 14 H. 4. fol. 14. And with this agrees 7 Ed. 4. 14. 2 When he is Excommunicated against the Law of this Realm so that he cannot have a Writ de Cautione admittenda then he ought Parere mandatis Ecclesiae in forma Juris i. e. Ecclesiastici where in truth it 's Excommunicatio contra Jus formam Juris i. e. Communis Juris But if he shew his Cause to the Bishop and request him to assoil him either because he was Excommunicate after the Offence pardoned or that the Cause did not appear in Ecclesiastical Cognizance and he refuse he may have as the Lord Coke sayes an Action sur le Case against the Ordinary and with this agrees Dr. Stu. lib. 2. cap. 32. fo 119. 3 If the party be Excommunicated for none of the Causes mentioned in the Act of 5 Eliz. cap. 23. then he may plead this in the Kings Bench and so avoid the Penalties in the Act. Note It was Resolved by the Court c. That where one is Cited before the Dean of the Arches in cause of Defamation for calling the Plaintiff Whore out of the Diocess of London against the Statute of 23 H. 8. and the Plaintiff hath Sentence and the Defendant is Excommunicated and so continues Forty daies and upon Certificate into Chancery a Writ of Excommunicato Capiendo is granted and the Defendant taken and Imprisoned thereby That he shall not have a Prohibition upon the Statute of 23 H. 8. for no Writ in the Register extends to it but there is a Writ there called De Cautione admittenda de parendo Mandatis Ecclesiae when the Defendant is taken by the Kings Writ De Excommunicato Capiendo and to assoil and deliver the Defendant 25. Where the Court of B. R. was moved for the Bailing of one who was taken by force of a Capias de Excommunicato Capiendo upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. cap. 23. and came to the Barr by a Habeas Corpus Williams Justice He that is taken by force of a Capis de Excommunicato Capiendo is not Bailable upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. cap. 23. which Statute doth only dispense with the Forfeiture of the Ten pounds and such a person is not Bailable and as to the other matter the same remains as it was before at the Common Law and the Statute of 5 Eliz. dispenseth only with the penalty of Ten pounds Yelverton Justice of a contrary Opinion and that in this case he is Bailable Flemming Chief Justice This is a Case which doth deserve very good consideration and that therefore he would consider well of it and also of the Statute of 5 Eliz. before he would deliver his Opinion Williams Justice clearly he is not Bailable in this Case Afterwards at another time it was moved again unto the Court to have him Bailed Yelverton Justice That he is Bailable and so was it Resolved in one Keyser's Case where he was taken by a Writ De Excommunicato Capiendo brought hither by a Habeas Corpus and upon Cause shewed he was Bailed by the Court de die in diem but neither the Sheriff nor any Justice of Peace in the Countrey can Bail such a one but this Court here may well Bail as in the Case before de die in diem It was further alledged here in this That in the Ecclesiastical Court they would not there discharge such a one being taken and Imprisoned by force of such a Writ De Excommunicato Capiendo without a great Sum of Money there given and a Bond entered into for the same otherwise no discharge there Yelverton Justice and the whole Court The Bishop ought not to 〈◊〉 such a Bond for the performance of their submission The Rule of the Court here in this was That upon their submission they shall be Absolved without any such Bond entred into Flemming Chief Justice They shall Absolve them and if they perform not according to their promise and undertaking they 〈…〉 again by the Writ De Corpore Excommunicato Capiendo but the Bishop is to take no Bond of them for their Absolution to perform their Submission the taking of such Bond by them being against the Law And as to the Bailment all the Judges except Williams Justice did agree that he was Bailable and so by the Order and Rule of the Court he was Bailed vid. Bulstr Rep. par 1. fo 122. Pasch 9 Jac. in Case of Hall vers King CHAP. XLIII Of the Statutes of Articuli Cleri and Circumspecte agatis 1. Several Statute-Laws relating to Ecclesiastical persons and things enacted under the Title of Articuli Cleri in the Ninth year of King Ed. 2. 2. Some other Statute-Laws touching Ecclesiastical matters made the Fourteenth year of King Ed. 3. 3. The Ratification and Confirmation of the 39 Articles of Religion The Subscription required of the Clergy 4. Certain Cases wherein a Prohibition doth not lie to the Ecclesiastical Courts according to the Statute of Circumspecte agatis made the Thirteenth of King Ed. 1. And in what case a Consultation shall be granted 1. THese are certain Statutes made in the time of King Ed. 1. and Ed. 2. touching Persons and Causes Spiritual and Ecclesiastical By the latter of these it is Enacted 1 That upon demand of Tithes Oblations c. under that Name a Prohibition shall not lie unless the demand be of money upon the Sale thereof 2 That upon debate of Tithes amounting to a Fourth part of the whole and arising from the Right of Patronage as also upon demand of a Pecuniary penance a Prohibition may lie Not so in case of demand of money voluntarily accorded unto by way of Redemption of Corporal penance enjoyned 3 That upon demand of money Compounded for in lieu of Corporal penance enjoyned for the Excommunication for laying violent hands on a Clerk a Prohibition shall not lie 4 That notwithstanding any Prohibition the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction may take cognizance and correct in Cases of Defamation and the money paid for redeeming the Corporal penance thereon enjoyned may receive notwithstanding a Prohibition be shewed 5 That no Prohibition shall lie where Tithe is demanded of a Mill newly erected 6 That in cases of a Mixt cognizance as in the Case aforesaid of laying violent hands on a Clerk whereby the Kings Peace is broken and such like the Temporal Court may discuss the same matter notwithstanding Judgment given by the Spiritual Court in the case 7 That the Kings Letters may not issue to Ordinaries for the discharge of persons Excommunicate save only in such Cases as wherein the Kings Liberty is prejudiced by such Excommunication 8 That Clerks in the Kings Service if they offend shall be correct by their Ordinaries but Clerks during such time as they are in his Service shall not be oblig'd to Residence at their Benefices 9 That Distresses shall not be taken in the Ancient
Otherwise it is where the Archdearonry is only by Contract or Covenant made between the Bishop and the Archdeacon for in that case if the Bishop so intermeddle within the Jurisdiction of such Archdeacon or hold Plea within the same he can have but an Action of Covenant against the Bishop and no Prohibition lies in that case The Cognizance which the Archdeacon hath is of matters meerly Ecclesiastical to which end he or his Commissary may hold his Court where and in what places the Archdeacon either by Prescription or Composition hath Jurisdiction in Spiritual Causes within his Archdeaconry and from him the Appeal is to the Diocesan 3. An Archdeaconryship being only matter of Function and as supposed not properly Local nor any Indenture made of it it hath been some question heretofore whether a Quare Impedit doth lie of it or not But it was held in the Affirmative for that an Archdeacon hath Locum in choro The power of an Archdeacon was derived from the Bishop and to him he is subordinate To which purpose the opinion of the Court in Hutton's Case upon a Quare Impedit was That if a Suit be before an Archdeacon whereof by the Statute of 23 H. 8. the Ordinary may license the Suit to a higher Court that the Archdeacon cannot in such case balk his Ordinary and send the Cause immediately into the Arches for he hath no power to give a Court but to remit his own Court and to leave it to the next for since his power was derived from the Bishop to whom he is subordinate he must yield it to him of whom he received it and it was said in that Case that so it had been ruled heretofore 4. If after the Clerk hath been presented by the Patron and Admitted and Instituted by the Bishop the Archdeacon shall refuse to Induct him into the Benefice an Action upon the Case lieth for the Clerk against the Archdeacon He hath power to keep a Court which is called the Court of the Archdeacon or his Commissary And this Court is to be holden where and in what places the Archdeacon either by Prescription or Composition hath Jurisdiction in Spiritual Causes within his Archdeaconry And from him the Appeal is to the Diocesan 5. Although by the Canon Law if one having a Benefice with Cure of Souls accepts an Archdeaconry the Archdeaconry is void yet it is conceived that upon the Stat. of 21 H. 8. 13. the Law is qualified in that point by reason of a Proviso there viz. Provided that no Deanary Archdeaconry c. be taken or comprehended under the Name of a Benefice having Cure of Souls in any Article above-specified and to this Opinion did Wray and the other Justices incline in Vnderhill's Case And indeed an Archdeaconry by the express Letter of that Statute is exempt from being comprehended under the name of a Benefice with Cure for the words are That no Deanary Archdeaconry Chancellorship Treasurership Chantership or Prebend in any Cathedral or Collegiate Church nor Parsonage that hath a Vicar endowed nor any Benefice perpetually Appropriate shall be taken or comprehended under the name of a Benefice having Cure of Souls 6. By the Ecclesiastical Constitutions and Canons of the Church of England no Archdeacon nor indeed any other Ecclesiastical Judge may suffer any general Process of Quorum Nomina to issue out of his Court Except the Names of those to be cited be first expresly entered by the Register or his Deputy under such Process and both Process and Names first subscribed by such Archdeacon or other Ecclesiastical Judge or his Deputy with his Seal thereto affixed And in places where both the Bishop and Archdeacon do by Prescription or Composition visit at several times in one and the same year the Archdeacon or his Official shall within one month next after the Visitation ended that year and the Presentments received certifie under his hand and Seal to the Bishop or his Chancellor the Names and Crimes of all such as are presented in his said Visitation to the end the Chancellor may not Convent the same person for the same Crime for which he is presented to the Archdeacon which course the Chancellor is in like manner to observe in reference to the Archdeacon after the Bishops Visitation ended The which was Ordained to prevent the Prosecution of the same party for the same fault in divers Ecclesiastical Courts And in cases of remitting Causes from the Inferiour Judge the Archdeacon cannot remit the Cause to the Archbishop but he must remit it to his Bishop and he to the Archbishop Trin. 11 Jac. 7. The Archdeacon within the Jurisdiction of his Archdeaconry may by vertue of his Office have his Visitation if he so please or need shall require once every year but of necessity he is to have his Triennial Visitation Lindw de Offic. Archid. c. 1. verb. Visitatione gloss But whether of Common right and by the Jus Commune the Archdeacon may Visit within the Jurisdiction of his Archdeaconry is some question yet resolved by distinguishing whether the Visitation be made per modum Serutationis simplicis by the Archdeacon as the Bishops Vicar and so he may Visit of Common Right but if in such Enquiries he take upon him nomine suo proprio to correct Faults other than such small ones as wherein Custome may warrant him in such case it is held that he hath not power of Visitation de jure communi Lindw ibid. And in all such things as belong to his Visitation he hath Jurisdiction and by Custome over Lay-persons as well as over the Clergy It seems therefore he may do all such things as without the doing and dispatch whereof his Jurisdiction could not clearly appear L. cui Jurisdictio ff de Jurisd om Jud. and therefore wherever he may take cognizance of a matter there he may also give sentence and condemn Extr. de Caus Poss propr c. cum Super. de Offic. Deleg c. ex Literis which is supposed to hold true by Custome and inasmuch as the cognizance and reformation of such matters do belong to the Ecclesiastical Court whence it is that an Archdeacon may impose a penalty on Lay-men for the not repairing their Parish-Church within his Jurisdiction Extr. eod c. ult Extr. de Offic. Ord. c. 1. Lindw ubi supr verb. Imperitiam For it is expresly enjoyned and ordained That Archdeacons and their Officials shall at their Visitation of Churches take the condition of the Fabrick thereof into special consideration specially of the Chancel and in case there be need of Reparations shall set or fix a time within which such Reparations shall be finished which time is likewise to be set under a certain penalty Lindw de Offic. Archidiac c. Archidiaconi 8. By the Canon Law a man cannot be an Archdeacon under the age of 25 years Can. Nullus in propositum 60 Dist And by the Council of Trent he ought to
power to cite any to that Court but the Church-Wardens and Sides-men and those he may Impannel and give Articles to them for to enquire as the Justices of Assize Vid. N. B. 41. 17. The Dean of the Deanary of Wolverhampton annexed to the Deanary of Windsor being a Peculiar and having Ordinary Jurisdiction makes a Commissary by his Deed which is Confirmed by the Chapter The Dean dies The question was if that was good to bind his Successor By Doderidge That such a Jurisdiction is Judicial and that Grant is but a Commission and Authority all times remaining in the Ordinary True it is That Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in Judicial Acts may be executed by a Substitute but in Law they are the Acts of them who Substitute the other Vid. 11 H. 4. 64. a. 7 E. 4. 14. 20 H. 6. 1. That a Commissary may Excommunicate and prove a Testament But that shall be made in the name of the Ordinary 20 E. 3. And a Grant of that by the Bishop is not good but during his life and shall not bind the Succâ—ssor For the Law hath appointed that he shall exercise that Jurisdiction Sede vacante c. The Grant being void cannot be made good by the Confirmation of the Chapter Coke Chief Justice If that should be a good grant to bind the Successor then the Successor cannot remove him And yet the Successor shall answer for the Acts and Offences of the Commissary which would be too hard 18. In Walker's Action upon the Case against Sir John Lambe For disturbance of the Plaintiff in exercising of the Officialty of the Archdeaconry of Leicester granted by the Archdeacon of Leicester and of the Office of Commissary of the Bishop of Lincoln Upon Not guilty pleaded a special Verdict was found That there were Ancient offices granted by c. and Offices of Judicature always granted to one person for life until 1609 and in 30 Eliz. so granted to Dr. Chippindale and after in 1609 granted to him and one Ed. Clerk for their Two lives no Surrender being actually made by Dr. Chippendale Afterwards 1614 both Offices were granted the one by the Archdeacon the other by the Bishop to Sir Jo. Lambe and to the said Ed. Clerk and these Grants confirmed by the Dean and Chapter That in An. 1622. Dr. Chippendale died and afterwards the Archdeacon who granted that Office and the Bishop who granted the Office of Commissary died and the Bishop of Lincolne who now is and the now Archdeacon by several Patents granted these Offices to the Plaintiff who was at the time of the Grant of the Patent a Lay-person and Bachelor of the Civil Law only And they find the Stat. of 37 H. 8. c. 17. That Lay-persons married or unmarried being Doctors of the Civil Law may be Commissaries Officials Scribes or Registers and that the Plaintiff exercised these Offices and the Defendant disturbed him Upon this the matter being argued at the Bar was reduced only to these Two Questions 1 Whether the Patent to the Plaintiff being a Lay-person and not a Doctor of the Law were good or restrained by the Statute of 37 H. 8. And as to that point all the Court conceived The Grant was good for the Statute doth not restrain any such Grant And it is but an affirmance of the Common Law where it was doubted if a Lay or Married person might have such Offices and to avoid such Doubts this Statute was made which explains That such Grants are good enough and it is but an Affirmative Statute and there is no restriction therein And although Doctors of the Law though Lay-persons or Married shall have such Offices yet this is not any restriction That none others shall have them but Doctors of the Law and the Statute mentions as well Registers and Scribes as Commissaries and that a Doctor of the Law shall have them yet in Common experience such persons as are meerly Lay and not Doctors have enjoyed such Offices And for this very point was a Case in this Court Hill 35 Eliz. Rot. 181. between Pratt and Stock where upon Demurrer this Statute was pleaded against the Plaintiff to whom a Commissaryship was granted being but a Bachelor of Law and he having granted Administration the Grant was adjudged good and the Book of Entries 484 489. was allowed good wherefore they Resolved the Grant was well enough And it was also Resolved That where an Officer for life accepts of another Grant of the same Office to him and to another it is not any Surrender of the first Grant The Second point was Whether the office of the Officialty of the Archdeaconry and the office of the Commissary of the Bishop be grantable by the Statutes of 1 Eliz. and 13 Eliz. because it was pretended they were not parcel of the Possessions of the Bishoprick or Archdeaconry so as they could have any profits by them and then the Statute doth not restrain the Grants of them But all the Court Resolved They were within the words and intent of the Statutes for they be Hereditaments and are pertaining unto them And that a Grant of these Offices to Two where they were only grantable to One for life and being granted in Reversion it is a void Grant by the Statutes against the Successors For the Statutes restrain all Grants of any thing to be avoidable against the Successor besides Grants of necessity and Leases for Three lives or 21 years where the ancient Rent is reserved And all other Grants as well of Offices as of other things not warranted by the Statutes are made void as against the Successors Vid. Coke 10. fo 60. the Bishop of Salisbury's Case Coke 5. fo 14. and a Case betwixt Vaughan and Crompton 14 Jac. at the Assizes before the Justices of the Assize for the Office of the Registership in Suffolk and between Johns and Powell for the Registers place of Hereford where it was Adjudged That such Offices granted in Reversion were void whereupon Rule was given That Judgment should be enter'd for the Plaintiff unless other cause were shewn And afterward being moved again Judgment was given for the Plaintiff 19. Noy Attorney Reports the foresaid Case of Dr. Sutton in this manner viz. That he was deprived of the office of Official of Gloucester by the Commissioners 3 Jac. appointed to examine the defects of Chancellors and that he was not read in the Canon or Civil Law He said That time out of mind c. the Bishops have used in their Diocesses to bestow the Chancellorship and that A. the Bishop of c. had made him Chancellor by Deed and that was Confirmed by the Dean and Chapter by which he had a Frank-tenement in that Office c. And Mr. Glanvile moved for a Prohibition but it was denied by the Court for it is lawful for the Commissioners to deprive for Insufficiency that being within their Commission But in a Suit in the Ecclesiastical Court for the Profits of that
which an Advowson appertains but only for term of their lives or of years by Intrusion or Disseism 6. A Church may become Litigious both before and by and after a Jure Patronatus Before as by a plurality of Presentations By as when in case of plurality of Presentations upon a plural Jure Patronatus the one Jury gives a Verdict for the Title of one Patron the other for the Title of the other Patron After as when after a Jure Patronatus awarded and Verdict thereupon given for one of the parties a third person presents before Admittance of his Clerk for whom the Verdict was given Upon a plural Jure Patronatus if one Jury give a Verdict for the Title of the one the other for the Title of the other Patron it is conceived in that case the Ordinary may refuse the Clerks of both Patrons and suffer the Church to Lapse And where a Third person presents after a Verdict as aforesaid but before the Clerk be Admitted whereby the Church becomes Litigious de Novo in that case the Bishop may award a new Jure Patronatus Also if the Bishop doubt the Patrons Title that presents he may as some conceive award a Jure Patronatus albeit the Church be not Litigious which is a safe way for prevention of any surprize to the rightful Patron or other Pretenders in which case if the Right of Patronage be found for another that had not before presented his Clerk may be admitted by the Ordinary who is no Disturber if he admit a Clerk that is presented before the Church becomes Litigious by a Second presentation for by the Verdict of the Jury aforesaid he is sufficiently warranted to admit and institute the Clerk for whose Patrons Title the Verdict is given in doing whereof he is no Disturber albeit the other Patron against whom the Verdict is given should after recover in a Quare Impedit And after a Verdict in a Jure Patronatus found for a Patron he ought to renew his Request to the Ordinary for the admission of his Clerk otherwise the Bishop may Collate in case the Church Lapse after Six months 7. Sir John Arundell and his Wife brought a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of Gloucester and others who pleaded in Bar that William Sturton was seized of a Mannor to which the Advowson was appendent and bound himself in a Statute-Merchant of 200 l. to one Long and the Statute was extended and conveyed the interest of the Statute to one of the Defendants and then the Church became void And by the Court the Advowson may be extended and if it become void during the Conusees Estate the Conusee may present 8. In Beverley's Case against the Archbishop of Canterbury where the question was Whether the Queen might take her turn to Present in regard she took not her turn when the first Lapse happened immediately at the first Avoidance by reason of the Incumbents having Two Benefices within the Stat. of 21 H. 8. And all the Justices of the Common Pleas after long and serious debate did Resolve That the Queen shall not now have her Presentation but the Patron because the Queen hath such Presentment by Lapse as the Bishop had and no other and could Present but to the present Avoydance then void And although Nullum tempus occurrit Regi yet we must distinguish it thus for where the King is limited to a time certain or to that which in it self is Transitory there the King is to do it within the time limited or in that time wherein the thing to be done hath Essence or Consistence or while it remaineth for otherwise he may not do it afterwards So where a Second presentment is granted to the King and he does not Present he may not after 9. During a Vacancy the Freehold of the Glebe is in Abeiance and not in the Patron who can take no benefit thereby in that time nor can he have any Action for Trespass done thereon in the time of such Vacancy Yet if a man hath an Annuity out of a Parsonage and he in the Vacancy thereof Release to the Patron it shall extinguish the Annuity 21 H. 7. 41 Co. 5. Forde 81. b. 10. If a Church becomes void by the death of the Incumbent or otherwise and the Patron within Six months bring a Quare Impedit against the Bishop and then Six months pass without any Clerk presented by the Patron to the Bishop in that case the Lapse shall incur notwithstanding the pendency of the Writ for it is not reasonable that the Ordinary should lose his Title of Lapse without any wrong done by him by a fraudulent Action brought without cause by the Patron and whereby the Ordinary is put to Expences without cause and by such fraudulent means the Patron might keep the Church perpetually void Hob. Rep. 270. Roll. Abr. verb. Presentment lit X. pag. 366. 11. The Jus Appellandi in defect of Justice and the Jus Praesentandi in case of Lapse seem to have a parallel resemblance with one another in their gradations for as they both primarily meet in the Ordinary so they both pass from him to the Metropolitan and from him to the King not only as Supream Ordinary but also as Patron Paramount of all the Bishopricks in England which as they were originally Donative per Annulum Baculum so now since King Johns time they are by Canonical Election for King John by his Charter dated the 15th of January in the 16th year of his Reign granted this priviledge to the Church in these words viz. Quod qualiscunque Consuetudo temporibus Praedecessorum nostrorum hactenus in Ecclesia Anglicana fuerit observata quicquid juris nobis hactenus Vindicaverimus de caetero in universis singulis Ecclesiis Monasteriis Cathedralibus Conventualibus totius Regni Angliae Liberae sint in perpetuum Electiones quorumcunque Praelatorum majorum minorum Salva Nobis haeredibus nostris Custodia Ecclesiarum Monasteriorum vacantium quae ad nos pertinent Promittimus etiam quod Nec impediemus nec impediri permittemus per Ministros nostros nec procurabimus quin in universis singulis Monasteriis Ecclesiis postquam vacuerint Praelaturâ—â— quemcunque voluerint Libere sibi praeficiant Electores Pastorum petita tamen à Nobis prius haeredibus nostris Licentia Eligendi quam non denegabimus nec differemus Et similiter post celebratam Electionem noster requiratur Assensus quem non denegabimus nisi adversus eandem Rationale proposuerimus legitime probaverimus propter quod non debemus consentire c. Vid. Davis Rep. in the case of Praemunire â—o 92 93. CHAP. XVII Of Parsons and Parsonages 1. Parson what he is in the intendment of Law 2. What is meant by Parson imparsonee 3. The Freehold of Church and Glebe is in the Parson what interest he hath in the Church-yard and
with the Parson for his Tithes for one year and it may be without Deed by Brownlowe That a Prohibition shall be awarded and that there are divers Presidents in this Court But otherwise if it be for more years it is not good without Deed And in Skinner's Case it was Ruled by the Court upon a Surmize to have a Prohibition That if it be proved before one of the Judges within the Six months although that it be not Recorded till after the Six months yet it is well enough and good also although that the Proof be in the Vacation Pasch 43 Eliz. B. R. Pottenger against Johnson 62. A Parson preferrs his Bill for Tithes of Hasle Holly Willow Whitethorn c. a Prohibition was moved because they were of 21 years growth and more And by the common Custome in Hampshire they were used for Timber to build and repair their Ploughs and cited Pasch 14 Jac. C. B. Rot. 1918. Cufflye's Case against the Parson for Holly Willows and Maple and a Prohibition was awarded And Hubbard said That in Cumberland Beech was used for Timber and the use of the Countrey for scarcity of other Trees will alter the Case The Parson Libels for Tithes of Hay c. The Parson said that the Custome of the Parish hath been That he that hath Corn within the Parish ought to reap the Corn and also the Tithes of the Parson and to make them into Cocks and to preserve them until the Parson shall carry them away And a Prohibition was granted for although that the Parishioners ought de jure to reap the Corn as it was agreed Trin. 28 Eliz. B. R. yet he is not bound to guard the Tithes of the Parson c. But if the Parson does not carry them away in convenient time an Action on the Case lies against him Pasch 20 Jac. B. R. Rot. 286. there such an Action was brought by Wiseman against the Rector of Landen in Essex for not accepting c. of the Tithes of Cheese 63. B. brought an Action upon the Case That P. sued for Tithes and recovered because there was nisi Testis singularis to prove the payment when in truth he had paid it before Two but now one was dead and by the Court Resolved That an Action doth not lie because the Cause was meerly Spiritual And for that it differs from 8 E. 4. 13. for there the Composition was a Temporal Contract although it was for Tithes 64. G. moves for a Prohibition and Surmizes that the Parishioners had Compounded with the Parson for the Tithes but yet the due Tithes were severed and exposed and the Parson takes and carries them away the Parishioner meets him and takes them from him And upon that the Parson sues in the Ecclesiastical Court And a Prohibition was awarded 65. W. Sues P. in the Ecclesiastical Court for not setting out the Tithes of two Acres P. prays a Prohibition because he had set out the Tithes of one Acre in specie and that a party unknown had taken them and for the other he suggests a Modus Decimandi for 2 s. 6 d. And upon that Issue is joyned and the Witnesses said That for a long time as they heard say the Occupiers of that Farm whereof that Acre c. had used to pay annually to the Parson three shillings for all Tithes and agreed by the Court 1 As to the first Quod Prohibitio stet for after the Tithes are severed if a Stranger takes them away the Parson hath his Remedy against him at Common Law and shall not sue the Parishioner in the Spiritual Court. 2 It was agreed That a Proof by hearsay was good enough to maintain the Surmize within the Statute of 2 Ed. 6. But as to the other Acre Popham held That the Modus Decimandi is not well proved but Fenner and Yelverton the contrary For by that appears the Parson is not to have Tithes in specie and for that had not any cause to Sue for them in the Spiritual Court 66. W. Sues P. in the Ecclesiastical Court for Tithes of a Dove-house P. upon suggestion had a Prohibition but he did not prove his Suggestion within the Sixth month W. takes issue upon the Suggâ—stion and it is found against him and yet he prays Costs by the Statute of 2 Ed. 6. for failure of Proof within the Six months But by the Court adjudged that he shall not have it for-â—he hath surceased his time to take advantage of that and he can never have a Consultation Frgo He shall not have double Costs Read the words of the Statute 67. Parson preferrs his Bill for Tithes of Corn and alledges that time out of mind c. in that Parish they have used to allot the Tâ—nth-Shock wherâ—upon the Parishioner suggests That the Parishioners and all those who have Estates c. have used only to set out the Tenth-sheaf for Tithes and had a Prohibition The Parson prays a Consultation but it was denied And Resolved by the Court That the Parson might Sue for a Modus Decimandi in the Ecclesiastical Court 2 R. 3. 3. a. But if the Parishioner deniâ—s that they ought to surcease and a Prohibition lies and that shall be tried at Common Law 68. A. Libels in the Ecclesiastical Court for the Tithes of Pilchards taken in the Sea And now the party had a Prohibition upon a Surmize that the Custome there is That the Fisher-Boat hath one Moity of the Fish and the Fishermen the other moity And that the Owner hath used to pay the Tenth of his Moity in discharge of all c. And it was held by the Court to be a good Surmize for by the Common Law he cannot have the Tithes of Fishes taken in the Sea because it is not within any Parish and then when the Parson by the Custome ought to have the Tithes of them he ought to take them according to the Custome And that the Tenth of the Moity may be a good discharge of the whole And the parties went to issue upon the Custome in Cornwal 69. By the Court Popham being absent it is clear That an Agreement betwixt the Parson and one of the Parishioners that he shall have his own Tithes for years it is good enough without Deed but otherwise if it had been for life And it is a better way to plâ—ad that as an Agreement and not as a Lease 70. A Prohibition for a Suit in the Ecclesiastical Court for Tithes of Rent in London It was held by the Court That by 33 H. 8. cap. 12. the Suit ought to be before the Major of London by complaint in Writing and not by word of mouth only in nature of a Monstrans de droit declaring all the Title And if the Suit be in the Ecclesiastical Court for Tithes in London that Court may grant a Prohibition and yet that Court hath
reference to the Cognizance of the Temporal and Spiritual Courts in point of Slander 5. Whether Action lies for calling one Quean 6. Prohibition for suing in the Ecclesiastical Court for words tending to the obstruction of a Marriage 7. Matters determinable at Common Law not Cognizable in the Ecclesiastical Courts 8. Whether these words Thou hast taken a false Oath be Actionable and in what Court 9. Whether Action lies at Common Law for saying Thou art a Whore c. 10. Words of Slander to the â—inderance of Marriage are Actionable at the Common Law 11. Defamatory words Thou art a Bawd and keepest a Bawdy house whether and where Actionable 12. To say A. is a Cuckold and that B. had layen with the Wife of A. is a Defamation suable in the Spiritual Court 13. The Difference as to Cognizance between the words Thou art a Bawd and I will prove thee a Bawd and the words Thou keepest a House of Bawdry 14. To say Thou art a Drunkard or a Drunken Fellow whether such words are suable in the Ecclesiastical Court 15. The words he is a Cuckoldly knave are suable not in the Temporal but in the Ecclesiastical Court 16. Whether the calling of Pimp Common Pimp be Actionable and in what Court 17. Welch Jâ—de expounded to be Welch whore and cognizable in the Ecclesiastical Court 18. Whether the words Quean or Base Quean be Actionable in the Ecclesiastical Court 19. Action in that Court for Scandalizing a Parson 20. Whether Action lies in the Ecclesiastical Court for saying of one that kept a Victualling house that she kept a House of Bawdry 21. Whether the words Thou art a Pander be Actionable at the Common Law 22. Church-wardens presentment of a Feme Covert upon a Common Report for Adultery and Action of Defamation brought in the Ecclesiastical Court thereon 23. Whether Action upon the Case for words lies against an Infant of Seventeen years of age 24. Several other Cases at the Common Law pertinent to this Subject of Defamation what of them cognizable in the Ecclesiastical Court and wherein the Prohibition lies or not 1. DEFAMATION properly so called is the utterance of Reproachful Speeches with intent of raising an ill Fame of the Party so reproached Defamare est in mala Fama ponere Bart. l. turpia ff de Legat. 3. This extends it self to Writing as by defamatory Libels as also to Deeds as by Reproachful Postures Signs and Gestures Lindw c. authoritate verb. quacunque in gloss de Sent. Excommunicat And as for the most part it proceeds of malice implying matters either of Crime or Defect so it generally aims at some prejudice or dammage to the Party defamed Whatever Cognizance the Temporal Laws of this Realm do take of Defamations by vertue of Prohibitions and Actions upon the Case yet it will not be denied but that the Cognizance of Defamations where they are duly prosecuted doth properly belong to the Spiritual Law specially where the matter of the Defamation is only Ecclesiastical 2. In all causes of Defamation the Party defamed had his Election by the Civil Law whether he would prosecute the Defamer ad Vindictam publicam or ad privatum interesse the former whereof was made choice of where the Defamed aimed more at the Defamers shame than his own Interest and chose rather to reduce him to a Recantation than augment his Cash by his own Credit 's diminution l. in constitutionib § ult ff L. Cornel. The other viz. ad privatum interesse was chosen by such Defamed ones as valued their Credit at a certain Rate and chose rather a Pecuniary Compensation than an unprofitable Recantation aiming more at their own private satisfaction than at the Defamers publick Disgrace l. stipulationum § plane ff de verbor obligat l. si quis ab alio ff de re judic But both of these the Defamed could not have for having determined his Election he was therewith to rest satisfied only having obtained a Sentence against the Defamer for his Recantation or publick Disgrace by prosecuting him ad publicam vindictam he might possibly have in Lieu thereof a pecuniary Recompence by way of Commutation The Prosecution ad publicam vindictam was left to the determination of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction the other to the Cognizance of the Secular Much in conformity to what the Laws of this Realm in Cases of Defamation seem to say viz. where the Prosecution is meerly for the Punishment of Sin and Money not demanded there the Spiritual Court shall have the Cognizance But where Money is demanded in satisfaction of the Wrong there the Temporal specially if the Defamer undertake to justifie the matter or the words express or imply a Crime belonging to the Cognizance of the Common Law These Actions of Defamation are of a higher Nature than they seem primo intuitu to be a mans good Name being Equilibrious with his Life and therefore the Law calls them Actiones praejudiciales that is such as draw lesser Causes to them but themselves are drawn of none 3. One Libelled against another in the Ecclesiastical Court for saying That he was a Drunkad or a Drunken Fellow and an addle Drunken Fellow and by the opinion of the whole Court a Prohibition was granted and for such words a Prohibition was granted in C. B. in the Case of Martin Calthorp 4. One moved at the Barr for a Prohibition to the Ecclesiastical Court on a Suit there depending for calling one Bawd Jones Justice conceived that these Differences ought to be observed where a Man calls a Woman Whore or such like Slander for which Suit lies in the Ecclesiastical Court against the Party if the matter appear in that Case Suit lies for Slander there and no Prohibition lies è contra if a man be called Thief Traytor or the like whereon no Suit lies for the Principal in the Ecclesiastical Court but at the Common Law if one be sued for such Slander in the Ecclesiastical Court a Prohibition lies If a man call one Bawd for which Suit lies at the Spiritual Court and also at the Common Law there if the Suit be for Slander in the Ecclesiastical Court in that case no Prohibition lies for the Party hath Election to sue in which Court she please So if a Woman be Slandered in her Reputation whereby she is hindered in her Marriage she may sue either at the Common Law or in the Spiritual Court for Slander And lastly if a man speak any words for which no Suit lies at Common Law nor are such as concern any thing whereof the Ecclesiastical Court takes Cognizance it seems that in such Case if Suit be in the Spiritual Court for Slander as for Convitia a Prohibition lies as for calling one Knave Drunkard or the like Quaere of that the Chief Justice agreed to that the others said nothing therein 5. A Suit was commenced in the Ecclesiastical Court where the Lilbel was that he called the Plaintiff
of Pope Julius the Third An. 1551. which had only Three Sessions by reason of Wars happening in Germany At this Second Meeting the French King protested against this Council The Third Meeting whereof was Nine years after the Second it being appointed by Pope Pius the Fourth there having been in this interval since the Second Meeting when Julius the Third was Pope two other Popes viz. Marcellus and Paulus the Fourth At this Third and last Meeting there were Nine Sessions the Last whereof began the Third of December An. 1563. The chief Points treated of at this Council were concerning the Scriptures Original Sin Justification the Sacraments in General Baptism the removing of the Council the Eucharist Repentance Extream Unction Communion of Lay-persons under one kind the Sacrifice of Masse the Sacrament of Order Matrimony Purgatory Worshipping of Reliques Invocation of Saints Worshipping of Images Indulgencies the choice of Meats Fastings and Festivals The History of this Council of Trent is extant Of National Councils there have been many more than what are before mentioned as here in Britain and in Italy Spain France Germany the Eastern and African In Italy it is said that there are to be found 115 such Synods as it were National which go under the Name of Roman Councils But such as are of the most Remark in each of these Countreys and the principal things they determined you may find a touch of and no more in the Learned Bishop Prideaux his Synopsis of Councils in the Eighth Chapter Edit 5. Oxon. 1672. CHAP. XLII Of Excommunication 1. What Excommunication is It is Twofold 2. By what Appellations the Greater and Lesser Excommunication are known and distinguished their respective derivations and significations and the nature of each 3. Ecclesiastical Censures in the general may be Threefold 4. What the Law intends by Excommunication ipso facto 5. What the Excommunicate is not debarr'd of by Law 6. Legal Requisites to the due pronunciation of the Sentence of Excommunication 7. What course the Law takes with an Excommunicate after Forty days so perisisting obstinate 8. The several Causes of Excommunication ipso facto enumerated by Lindwood 9. The Causes of Excommunication ipso facto by the Canons now in force in the Church of England 10. The several Writs at Law touching persons Excommunicate and the Causes to be contained in a Significavit whereon the Excommunication proceeded 11. What the Writs de Excommunicato Deliberando also de Excommunicato Recipiendo do signifie in Law 12. A sufficient and lawful Addition to be in the Significavit and in the Excom Capiend Vid. Sect. 10. 13. Several Statutes touching Persons Excommunicated 14. Excommunication for striking in the Church 15. Whether a Bishop hath Jurisdiction or may Cite a man out of his Diocese 16. What are the Requisites of a Certificate of Excommunication for stay of Actions and how it ought to be qualified 17. A Significavit of Excommunication for not Answering Articles not shewing what they were not good 18. By whom an Excommunication may be Certified and how 19. In what case the Significavit of an Excommunication ought to express one of the Causes mentioned in the Statute 20. Whether a General Pardon doth discharge an Excommunication for Contempt precedent to the Pardon or shall discharge the Costs of Court thereon 21. A man taken upon an Excom Cap. and discharged because the Significavit did not express the party to be Commorant within the Bishops Diocess at the time of the Excommunicat 22. Where a man is twice Excommunicated whether an Absolution for the latter shall purge the first Excommunication 23. Whether a Prohibition lies to the Ecclesiastical Court upon Costs there given not in an Action at the Suit of the party but upon an Information there exhibited 24. What Remedy in Law for a party wrong fully Excommunicated and so remaining Forty daies without suing a Prohibition 25. Whether a Person taken by a Capias de Excom Capiend be Bailable or not And whether the Bishop may take Bond of the Excommunicate to perform Submission for their Absolution 1. EXcommunication commonly termed in the Common Law in the Law-French thereof Excommengement is a Censure of the Church pronounced and inflicted by the Canon or some Ecclesiastical Judge lawfully Constituted whereby the party against whom it is so pronounced is pro tempore deprived of the lawful participation and Communion of the Sacraments And is also sometimes as to Offenders a deprivation of their Communion and sequestration of their persons from the Converse and Society of the Faithful And therefore it is distinguish'd into the Greater and Lesser Excommunication the Greater comprizing as well the latter as the former part of the abovesaid definition or description the Lesser comprizing only the former part thereof de Except c. a nobis Lindw de Cohab. Cler. gl in verb. Sacramenta Excommunicatio quasi extra Communionem For Excommunication is Extra Communionem Ecclesiae separatio vel Censura Ecclesiastica excludens aliquem à Communione Fidelium This Ecclesiastical Censure when it is Just is not by any means to be despised or opposed for Christ himself is the Author thereof Anciently among the Hebrews such persons as were Excommunicated were termed Aposynagogi as being quasi Synagoga exacti and to be shun'd or avoided of all men until they repented That of our Saviour in Matth. 18. 17. Let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a Publican seems to referr to some such Excommunication the power whereof by way of Judicature being then in the Jewish Sanhedrim or Colledge of Elders 2. This Ecclesiastical Censure when limited or restrained only to the Lesser Excommunication the Theologists will have to be understood by the Greek word Anathema Accursed or Separated and when it extends to the Greater Excommunication then to be understood by the Syriack word Maran-atha or Our Lord cometh Anathema Maran atha Anathema Let him be Accursed quasi Devoted to the Devil and separated from Christ and his Churches Communion Maran-atha Some take this for a Syriack word Others not so well satisfied with that Judgment will have it to be a Chaldee word yet used in the Hebrew and familiarly known among the Greeks Maran-atha viz. Our Lord cometh for Maran is our Lord and atha cometh or rather three words more properly viz. Mara-na-atha Our Lord cometh Being a word used in the greatest Excommunication among the Christians intimating or implying That they summoned the person Excommunicated before the dreadful Tribunal at the last coming of the Son of God or that such as were under this Censure of the Church were given up and reserved to the Lords coming to be judged by him and mean while without Repentance and Absolution are to expect nothing but the Terrible coming of Christ to take Vengeance of them To which that Prophesie of Enoch seems to allude Behold the Lord cometh with Ten thousands of his Saints to execute Judgment upon all
Diocess to which the Court viz. Jones and Whitlock answered That at the Common Law a Bishop cannot Cite a man out of his Diocess And that the Statute of 23 H. 8. inflicts a punishment c. and Whitlock said That a Bishop hath not power of Jurisdiction out of his Diocess but to Absolve him being Excommunicate 2 Upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. cap. 23. because the Case of Defamation is not within the Statute and then the Statute Enacts That it shall be void To which the Court answered That he ought to averr that by way of Plea and so also said the Clerks of the Court That he ought to have Sued a Habeas Corpus and upon Return thereof to Plead But the Plea was admitted de bene esse and the party bailed 16. No Letters of Excommunication are to be received in stay of Actions if they are not under the Seal of the Ordinary for an Excommunication under the Seal of the Commissary is not to be allowed in such case If the principal cause of the Action for which the Excommunication was be not comprized within the Letter of the Certificate it is not to be allowed that so it may appear to the Court that the Ecclesiastical Court had Jurisdiction of the Cause for which he was Excommunicated The Certificate ought to be Vniversis Ecclesiae Filiis or to the Justices of the Court where the Suit is to be stayed Also the Excommunication certified ought to be duly dated that is the Certificate ought to contain the day of the Excommunication A Certificate by the Archdeacon is sufficient by the Custome And upon an Excommunicato Capiendo if it appears that the Excommunication was by an Archdeacon of some certain place it ought also to appear either expresly or by implication in the Certificate that the matter for which the Excommunication was was within his Jurisdiction otherwise it is not good 17. F. being apprehended upon an Excommunicato Capiendo and the Significavit being That he was Excommunicated for not answering Articles and not shewing what they were his discharge was prayed for the Incertainty thereof and per Curiam it is not good and therefore was Bailed Coke 22 E. 4. is That a man was Excommunicated for certain Causes not good and so Co. 5. Arscots Case Schismaticus inveteratus is not good Excommunication nor shall be allowed in the cause of him who Excommunicates him 5 E. 3. quod fuit concessum per Doderidge 18. In Trollops Case it was Resolved That the Official cannot certifie Excommunication for none shall do that but he to whom the Court may write to assoil the party as the Bishop and Chancellor of C. or O. and for that if a Bishop certifie and die before the Return of the Writ it shall not be received but the Successor shall do it and one Bishop shall not certifie an Excommunication made by a Bishop in another Court but a Bishop after Election before Consecration may and so may the Vicar-General if it appears that the Bishop is in Remotis agendis also that the Suit and the Cause are to be expressed in the Certificate that the Temporal Court may judge of the sufficiency and if it be insufficient as if a Bishop certifie an Excommunication made by himself in his own Cause the Court may write to absolve him 19. H. was condemned in the Chancellors Court of Oxford in Costs and had not paid an Excommunicato Capiendo being awarded upon a Significavit returned and delivered here in Court according to the Statute of 5 Eliz. cap. 23. He was Arrested thereupon Resolved The Excommunication was good though the Significavit doth not mention any of these Causes in the Statute but it is for other Causes but if any Capias with Proclamations and Penalties be therein awarded the Penalties be void unâ—ess the Significavit express it to be for one of the Causes mentioned â—n the Statute 20. In another Case where a man was Excommunicated upon a Sentence in the Delegates for Costs in Castigatione Morum 21 Jac. a Capias with Proclamations issued and he being taken Quoad the Excommunicato Capiendo pleads That the Offence and Contempt was pardoned by the General Pardon of 21 Jac. It was Agreed That the Pardon did not discharge the Costs of the party which were taxed before the Pardon It was moved there That as the Costs were not taken away so no more was the Excommunication which is the means to enforce them to be paid But Resolved That this Excommunication before the Pardon is but for a Contempt to the Court and all Contempts in all Courts are discharged by the Pardon wherefore the same was discharged and for the payment of the Costs the party is to have new Process 21. A man was taken upon an Excommunicato Capiendo and the Significavit did not mention That he was Commorant within the Diocess of the Bishop at the time of the Excommunication and for that cause the party was discharged And in an Action where an Excommunication was pleaded in Bar and the Certificate of the Bishop of Landaph shewed of it but did not mention by what Bishop the party was Excommunicated it was for that reason adjudged void 22. Upon a Contract Sentence in the Ecclesiastical Court was That the Defendant should marry the Plaintiff he did not do it for which cause he was Excommunicated The Defendant appealed to the Delegates by whom the Cause was remitted to the Judge à Quo who Sentenced him again where he was also Excommunicated again for non-performance of the Sentence He appealed to the Court of Audience and then had 〈◊〉 He was taken by a Capias Excom upon the first Excommunication upon a Habeas Corpus it was Resolved That the Absolution for the latter had not purged the First Excommunication quia Ecclesia decepta fuit 2 That the Appeal did not suspend the Excommunication although it might suspend the Sentence 23. In Weston and Ridges Case it was Resolved That upon an Information exhibited in the Ecclesiastical Court for laying of violent hands upon a Clerk and Costs there given against the Defendant for which he was Excommunicated for not paying them a Prohibition should issue forth because it was not at the Suit of the party and Costs are not grantable there upon an Information 24 In the Case of Prohibitions it was Resolved Mich. 8 Jac. That if a man be Excommunicated by the Ordinary where he ought not as after a General Pardon c. And the Defendant being negligent doth not sue a Prohibition but remains Excommunicate by Forty daies and upon Certificate in Chancery is taken by the Kings Writ de Excommunicato Capiendo no Prohibition lies in this Case because he is taken by the Kings Writ Then it was moved what Remedy the party hath who is wrongfully Excommunicated to which it was Answered he hath Three Remedies viz. 1
s. 6 d. to the Scribe for Registring the same or else the said Scribe to be at his liberty to refuse the said 2 s. 6 d. and to have for writing every ten Lines of the same Testament whereof every Line to contain ten inches one penny If the Executor desire that the Testament in paper may be transcribed in parchment he must agree with the party for the Transcribing but the Ordinary c. can take nothing for that nor for the Examination of the Transcript with the Original but only 2 s. 6 d. for the whole duty belonging to him Where the Goods of the deceased do not exceed five pound the Ordinary c. shall take nothing and the Scribe to have only for writing of the Probat six pence so the said Testament be exhibited in writing with Wax thereunto affixed ready to be sealed Where the Goods of the deceased do amount to above the value of five pound and do not exceed the sum of forty pound there shall be taken for the whole but 3 s. 6 d. whereof to the Ordinary c. 2 s. 6 d. and 12 d. to the Scribe for Registring the same Where by Custome less hath been taken in any of the Cases aforesaid there less is to be taken And where any person requires a Copy or Copies of the Testament so proved or Inventory so made the Ordinary c. shall take for the Search and making of the Copy of the Testament or Inventory if the Goods exceed not five pound six pence and if the Goods exceed five pound and exceed not forty pounds twelve pence And if the Goods exceed forty pounds then two shillings six pence or to take for every Ten lines thereof of the proportion before rehearsed a penny And when the party dies Intestate the Ordinary may dispose somewhat in pious uses notwithstanding the Act of 31 Ed. 3. but with these Cautions 1 That it be after the Administration granted and Inventory made so as the state of the Intestate may be known and thereby the sum may appear to be competent 2 The Administrator must be called to it 3 The use must be publick and godly 4 It must be expressed in particular And 5 There must be a Decree made of it and entred of Record 7. The Court of Audience Curia Audientiae Cantuariensis The Lord Coke touching the Jurisdiction of Courts taking notice of this of the Audience among other of the Ecclesiastical Courts says That this Court is kept by the Archbishop in his Palace and meddleth not with any matter between party and party of any contentious Jurisdiction but dealeth with matters pro forma and Confirmations of Bishops Elections Consecrations and the like and with matters of voluntary Jurisdiction as the granting of the Guardianship of the Spiritualties Sede vacante of Bishops Admissions and Institutions to Benefices dispensing with Banns of Matrimony and such like This Court did belong to the Archbishop of Canterbury and was in point of Authority equal with but in point of Dignity and Antiquity inferiour to the Court of Arches It seems that Anciently the Archbishop of Canterbury did hear divers Causes of Ecclesiastical cognizance Extra-judicially and at home in his own Palace wherein before he would come to any final determination his usage was to commit the discussion thereof to certain persons learned in the Laws Civil and Canon who thereupon were styled his Auditors whence in process of time it center'd in one particular person styled Causarum Negotiorumque Audientiae Cantuariensis Auditor seu Officialis And from hence the Original of this Court is properly derived With this office of the Auditor the Chancery of the Archbishop is said to have been heretofore commonly joyned not controverting any matters of contentious Jurisdiction in any decisions of Causes between Plaintiff and Defendant but such only as were Voluntariae Jurisdictionis ex Officio touching such things only as are fore-specified and such like By the Provincial Constitutions it is Ordained That for the ease of the People they may at times convenient to be assigned by the Bishop have access to their Diocesan Et quod Praelati persâ—â— liter Audiant quaerelas in his Cathedral or next Parochial Church vel in aliqua Maneriorum suorum Capella si talis fuerit Lindw de Offic. Jud. Ord. cap. Statuimus in gloss verb. in Publico It seems not altogether improbable but that from the practice hereof this Court of Audience anciently had its Original as aforesaid And although it be not now in use as heretofore yet considering the Subject-matter it only took cognizance of it was a good Expedient to prevent many Suits at Law in Foro Contentioso 8. Faculty or Court of Faculties in the sense here meant and intended must not be understood according to its original and genuine signification but as a term of Art according to a limited construction restrained under that peculiar notion and particular understanding which the Law hath of it in reference to a branch of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction And so it is understood and commonly used for that Priviledge or especial Power which is legally granted to a man by License favour indulgence and dispensation to have or do that which otherwise by the Canon Law he could not as to eat Flesh upon days prohibited to Marry without Banns first published to hold Two or more Ecclesiastical Benefices incompatible the Son to succeed the Father in his Benefice and such like A Faculty granted to one who is not Incumbent to take a void Benefice is void But a Faculty to one who is Incumbent of a Benefice to retain the same is good It is called Faculties in the Statute of 28 H. 8. cap. 16. Sir Ed. Coke makes mention of the Court of Faculties although it holds no Plea of Controversie It belongs to the Archbishop of Canterbury and his chief Officer thereof is called Magister ad Facultates whose power is to grant Dispensations to the ends and purposes aforesaid and so may every Diocesan as to that of Marriage and eating of Flesh on days prohibited Faculty according to Sir Ed. Coke in the place fore-cited signifies a Dispensation so that Facultates in this sense Dispensationes Indulta are Synonyma Who likewise there says that this Authority was raised and given to the Archbishop of Canterbury by the Statute of 25 H. 8. c. 21. whereby Authority is given to the said Archbishop and his Successors to grant Dispensations Faculties c. by himself or his sufficient and substantial Commissary or Deputy for any such matters commonly called the Master of the Faculties and of all such matters as whereof heretofore such Dispensations Faculties c. then had been accustomed to be had at the See of Rome or by Authority thereof For by the Stat. of 28 H. 8. c. 16. it appears the Bishop of Rome did grant Faculties and Dispensations to the Kings Subjects as Pluralities Unions Trialities Appropriations Commendams Exemptions
sue the Parishioner in the Ecclesiastical Court for Tithes in kind no Prohibition to be granted on that discharge by Deed for they may well try that having cognizance of the Principal If a Parson Lease all the Tithes of his Benefice to the Parishioner and after sue him in the Ecclesiastical Court for his Tithes in his hands no Prohibition to be granted for the Lease is a good discharge there Likewise if the Parishioner grant Land to the Parson for and in lieu of his own Tithes and after the Parson sue him in the Ecclesiastical Court for the Tithes no Prohibition to be granted for that matter will be a good discharge there If a Parson sue for Tithes in the Ecclesiastical Court and the Defendant there plead an Arbitrement in Bar they shall try that there and no Prohibition to be granted upon that c. for by intendment it is a good discharge there Likewise if a Parson sue for Tithes in the Ecclesiastical Court and the Defendant there plead a Lease of them by Deed by the Parson to him rendring Rent to which the Plaintiff says the Rent was reserved upon condition of Non-payment to be void and averrs that it was not paid at a certain day and the other pleads payment at the day This shall be tryed there and no Prohibition granted If a Parson Lease by Deed the Tithes of the Parish and after sues for the Tithes in the Ecclesiastical Court and there the Lease is pleaded where the Question between them is Whether it be the Tithes of the whole Parish or only of some particular things yet no Prohibition lies for they have cognizance of the Original but if they judge contrary to the Common Law a Prohibition lies after Sentence If a man sue for a Legacy in the Ecclesiastical Court and the Defendant plead a Release in Bar and the Plaintiff deny it that shall be tryed there for that it arises from the Original cause whereof they have the Jurisdiction If an Administrator sue for a Legacy due to the Deceased in the Ecclesiastical Court and the Defendant plead the Release of the Deceased in Bar and the Plaintiff avoid it for that the Deceased was an Ideot That Ideocy shall be tryed there and no Prohibition granted for that they have Jurisdiction of the Original matter If a Parson sue in the Ecclesiastical Court and the Defendant there plead that the Plaintiff was presented upon a Simonaical Contract against the Stat. of 31 Eliz. That shall be tryed there for that they have Jurisdiction of the Original thing But the Ecclesiastical Court can take no cognizance of a Custome whereby the Inheritance is perpetually charged although the thing Customable be cognizable by them And therefore if the Church-wardens of the Parish of S. Libel in the Ecclesiastical Court against J. S. Farmer of the Farm of D. for a Contribution to the Reparation of the Church and alledge that part of the Farm lies in the Parish of S. and part thereof in the Parish of W. and alledge a Custome that the Farmers of the said Farm have used time out of mind to contribute to the Reparation of the Church of S. throughout the whole Farm if the Defendant saith that part of the Land of the said Farm lieth within the Parish of W. and that it had used time out of mind c. for that part to contribute to the Church of W. and not to S. and so deny the said Prescription This shall not be Tryed in the Ecclesiastical Court but at the Common Law and for that a Prohibition lies for they shall not try a Custome in the Ecclesiastical Court by which the Inheritance is to be perpetually charged If A. the Parson of D. sue for Tithes in the Ecclesiastical Court against B. who pleads a Lease for years made to him by the Parson To which A. the Parson Replies That he was Non-resident and absent 80 days and more in such a year c. from his Benefice by which the Lease became void No Prohibition lies upon that plea for that it is grounded on the Statute of 13 Eliz. and although it was Objected That the Judges Ecclesiastical shall not have the Exposition of a Statute yet for that they have Jurisdiction of the Original cause they shall have power to try that which incidently doth arise from thence and the Prohibition was denied 18. A Prohibition was prayed upon the Statute of 23 H. 8. for suing for a Legacy of ten pounds in the Prorogative Court whereas the party did dwell in another Diocess but because the Will was proved in that Court and there Sentence was given for the Legacy and an Appeal upon the Sentence to the Delegates where it was affirmed and endeavour was to stay the Suit by the Statute the party having so long allowed of the Jurisdiction of the Court Adjudged the party came too late now to have a Prohibition 19. In Norwood's Case it was held That where a man is sued in the Ecclesiastical Court for slanderous words a General Pardon doth not aid the party for staying the Suit there which is for or ad instantiam partis But contrary where the party is sued there ex officio Judicis 20. In order to a Prohibition it was surmised That the Defendant was a Clerk and assaulted his Servant and he coming to keep the Peace and to aid his Servant laid his hands peacably upon the Defendant for which he sued him in the Ecclesiastical Court where he pleaded this matter and they would not allow of his plea It was said by the Justices That this Case was out of the Statute of Articuli Cleri Circumspecte agatis for here the party had Quaere by what Law for this is not in the Case of Se Defendendo good cause to beat the Clerk and a Prohibition was granted 21. By the Justices if Issue be joyned whether a Church be void by Cession Deprivation or Resignation it shall be Tried by the Countrey because it is a thing mixt for the Avoidance is Temporal and the Deprivation is Spiritual But habilitie Bastardy ne unque accouple en Loyal Matrimony shall be tried by the Certificate of the Bishop but Bastardy pleaded in a Stranger to the Writ shall be tried by the Country 22. A Sentence was given definitive in the Ecclesiastical Court in a Suit there for Tithes pro triplici valore a Prohibition was prayed a special Prohibition was awarded That they should not proceed to the Execution of the Sentence as to the treble value because that Court is not to give the treble value but the double value only 23. In a Case between a Parson and Church-wardens against one Reynolds it was suggested That all those who had the House wherein the said Reynolds did dwell had used to find meat and drink for the Parson and them going in Procession in Rogation-week at his house and
because he did not find them meat and drink they sued him in the Ecclesiastical Court and a Prohibition was awarded because the Custome was a custome against the Law 24. In Babington's Case it was Resolved That if one be sued in the Ecclesiastical Court ex Officio or by Libel and he demand the Copy of the Libel which is denied That a Prohibition lieth in such case Vid. Stat. 2 H. 4. 25. In a Prohibition upon a Libel in the Ecclesiastical Court where the Suit was for Tithe-Apples in discharge of which he there pleaded an Award which was That he was to pay so much for the Tithe pleads there the Arbitrement the which plea they refused supposing this to be void upon this a Prohibition prayed Coke We will not grant a Prohibition in this case So in a Suit there for a Legacy if payment of the same be there pleaded which is not sufficient the payment is Triable there by 1 R. 3. fol. 4. When the Original begins in the Ecclesiastical Court although that afterwards a matter happens in Issue which is Triable at the Common Law yet this shall be tried there by the Ecclesiastical Law As if one do sue there for a Horse to him devised the Defendant there pleads that the Devisor did give this Horse unto him in his life time This is Triable by our Law yet this shall be tried there by their Law In the same manner it is where the Original doth begin here the same shall be tried here by our Law as in a Quare Impedit able or not able if it were otherwise they should there try nothing This is belonging to them But if they will there draw the matter ad aliud examen as upon proof of a Deed they judge otherwise than we do As in case of a Lease for years to be made they hold the same to be Traditione or void And so a Grant of Goods to be delivered or not good If they will judge in Common Law-matters otherwise than we do there in such case a Prohibition lies That which we call Orders they amongst them do call Acts The Court all clear of Opinion That this plea of the Award there pleaded and by them refused no ground for a Prohibition and so by the Rule of the Court a Prohibition was denied And in Dicke's Case against Browne a Prohibition was denied and a Consultation granted because the Ecclesiastical Court as was then admitted having cognizance of the Principal hath cause also there to determine of the Accessory 26. If a Parson sue upon the Stat. of 2 Ed. 6. in the Ecclesiastical Court for the double value for not setting forth the Tithes and the Defendant surmize That he did set them forth and that they would not there allow or admit the proof thereof by one Witness no Prohibition lies for that because they have the cognizance of the matter In this case the Prohibition was denied per Curiam 27. If the Bounds of a Village in a Parish come in question in the Ecclesiastical Court in a Suit between the Parson Impropriate and the Vicar of the same Parish as if the Vicar claim all the Tithes within the Village of D. within the Parish and the Parson all the Tithes in the residue of the Parish and the question between them is Whether certain Lands whereof the Vicar claims the Tithe be within the Village of D. or not yet inasmuch as it is between Spiritual persons viz. between the Parson and the Vicar although the Parson be a Lay-man and the Parsonage appropriate a Lay-see yet it shall be tried in the Ecclesiastical Court and no Prohibition be granted And in this case the Prohibition was denied 28. Where Suit hath been in the Ecclesiastical Court for something Spiritual mixt with other matter Triable at Common Law In such case a Prohibition hath been granted as to the matter Triable by the Common Law and not as to the rest if they may be severed As if a Suit be in the Ecclesiastical Court to avoid the Institution of one is Instituted to A. his Chappel of Ease as he pretends if the other suggest That A. is a Parochial Church of it self a Prohibition lies as to a Trial whether it be a Parochial Church of it self or not for that they shall not try the Bounds of the Parish but not as to a Trial concerning the Institution for that belongs to the Ecclesiastical Court to examine whether it be well done or not But Houghton said they cannot well try the Institution without trying the Bounds of the Parish If a Testament be made of Lands and Goods and there be a Suit in the Ecclesiastical Court for the Goods and the question be whether the Testator did revoke his Will in his life time or not a Prohibition lies as to the Land and not as to the Goods So if a man sues for the Probat of a Testament in the Ecclesiastical Court and in the Testament there be Lands devised and other personal Goods a Prohibition lies as to the Land but not as to the rest Upon an Allegation in such case That the Devisor revoked his Will before his death a Prohibition was granted as to the Land 29. If a man be sued out of his Diocess and there Answers without taking Exception thereunto and afterwards Sentence be given against him he shall not after have a Prohibition for that he did not take Exception to the Jurisdiction before but affirmed the Jurisdiction In this case Prohibition hath been denied If it appears in the Libel that the Court hath not Jurisdiction of the cause a Prohibition lies after Sentence but otherwise it is if it doth not so appear in the Libel but by averment Generally if a Suit be in the Ecclesiastical Court and Sentence there given for the Plaintiff and thereupon the Defendant Appeals and after pray a Prohibition no Prohibition is to be granted although if he had come before Sentence it ought to have been granted for that it is inconvenient after so much Expence and no Exception taken to the Jurisdiction then to grant a Prohibition Where a man by intendment shall have remedy by Appeal no Prohibition lies And therefore if a man devise a Legacy to B. to be paid him within one year after his death Provided that if he die within the year that then the Legacy shall be void and shall be divided between D. and E. and after B. die within the year and his Executor sue for the Legacy and Sentence given for him for that they there held the Condition to be void yet no Prohibition lies for that by intendment he hath his remedy by Appeal and in this case a Prohibition was denied If a man hath a Prohibition on a Libel for Tithes of Faggots on a Suggestion that the Faggots were made of great Trees above twenty years growth and in the Suggestion the quantity of
And it was said That the Excommunication was only for his Contempt And it is lawful for the Bishop to grant such an Inhibition for the peace of the Church And Doderidge agreed That if the Bishop did Inhibit any from making a disturbance in the Church it was good and therefore would not grant a Prohibition for well-doing Crew Jones c. but here he had not done well Doderidge è contra Then it was said That here the Bishop had Inhibited till the matter were determined before himself And the whole Court agreed That a Seat in a Church claimed by Prescription and the priority therein likewise claimed by Prescription is Triable in this Court by an Action upon the Case and not in the Spiritual Court And at last it was agreed by the parties that H. should remain in possession till the matter were tried by Prohibition And a Prohibition was awarded in the Case Note That a Prohibition may not be granted after a Consultation And as it seems by the course of Proceedings in the Court of the King's Bench a Prohibition shall not be granted the last day of a Term and such a Motion ought not then to be made but upon a motion there may be a Rule to stay proceedings till the next Term 19. It was moved in the King's Bench for a Prohibition to the Ecclesiastical Court at Worcester and shewed for cause 1 That the Suit there was for Money which by the assent of the greater part of the Parishioners of D. was Assessed upon the Plaintiff for the Reparation viz. for the Re-casting of their Bells The truth is That the charge was for the making of new Bells where there were Four before whereby it appears that it is meerly matter of curiosity and not of necessity for which the Parishioners shall not be liable to such Taxations and herein it was relied upon 44 E. 3. 19. by Finchden 2 The party there is overcharged of which the Common Law shall judge 3 The party hath alledged that he and all those who have an Estate in such a Tenement have used to pay but Eleven shillings for any Reparation of the Church But the Prohibition was denied and by Doderidge in the Book of 44 E. 3. there was a By-law in the Case to distrain which is a thing meerly Temporal for which the Prohibition was granted per Curiam in this case the Assessment by the major part of the Parishioners binds the party albeit he assented not to it And the Court seemed to be of opinion That the Custome was not reasonable because it laid a burden upon the rest of the Parish Littleton of Counsel of the other side Suppose the Church falls shall he pay but Eleven shillings Whitlock If the Church falls the Parishioners are not bound to build it up again which was not denied by Justice Jones 20. Roberts and others of East-Greenwich were cited in the Ecclesiastical Court to pay money that the Church-wardens had expended in Reparation of the Church and the Inhabitants alledged That the Tax was made by the Church-wardens themselves without calling the Freeholders and also that the Moneys were expending in the Re-edifying Seats of the Churches which belonged to their several houses And they never assented that they should be pulled down And now the Allegation was not allowed in the Ecclesiastical Court but Sentence was given against them And then they Appealed to the Arches where this Allegation was also rejected and for that he prayed a Prohibition And the Court agreed That the Tax cannot be made by the Church-wardens but by the greater number of the Inhabitants it may and a Prohibition was granted But by Yelverton if they be cited by Ex Officio a Prohibition will not lie for so it was Ex insinuatione c. For the Wardens came and pray'd a Citation c. But by Richardson Harvey and Crook privately a Prohibition will lie in both Cases 21. E. Libels in the Ecclesiastical Court against A. pretending that a Seat that the other claimed alwaies in the Church belonged to his House and Sentence in that Court was given against E. and Costs pro falso clamore And he Appealed to the Arches and there when they were ready to affirm the Sentence he prayed a Prohibition And it was moved by Davenport that it might be granted and he cited one Tresham's Case 33 Eliz. where in such a case a Prohibition was granted after an Appeal Richardson There is no cause for any Prohibition but in respect of the costs Hutton said it was a double vexation and the party shall not have Costs for that Hitcham said they came too late to have a Prohibition for the Costs Richardson That is not like to the Probat of a Will where a thing may fall out Triable at the Common Law But there the Principal was tried at the Common Law for they had it as in right Hutton Seats in the generality are in the power of the Ordinary to dispose It is the Prescription which makes that triable at the Common Law and if Prescription be made there and it be found then he shall pay Costs Richardson All Disturbances appertain also to them if it be not upon the Statute of 5 Ed. 6. But if a Title be made there by Prescription it is meerly coram non Judice and if they cannot meddle with the Principal it is not reason that they should tax Costs And a Prohibition was granted 22. H. Farmer of a Mannor A. and other Church-wardens Libel against him in the Ecclesiastical Court for a Tax for the reparation of the Church Henden moved for a Prohibition because that first the Libel was upon a custome That the Lands should be charged for Reparations which Customes ought to be tried at the Common Law And secondly Because the custome of that place is that Houses and Arable Lands should only be taxed for the Reparations of the Church and Meadow and Pasture should be charged with other Taxes But the whole Court on the contrary First although that a Libel is by a Custome yet the other Lands shall be dischargeable by the Common Law but the usage is to alledge a Custome and also that Houses are chargeable to the Reparations of the Church as well as Land And thirdly that a custome to discharge some Lands is not good Wherefore a Prohibition was granted Note that where a man sued in the Ecclesiastical Court prescribing to have a Seat in a Church ratione Messuagii where he inhabited upon the motion of Serjeant Henden a Prohibition was granted for it is a Temporal thing Note By Coke Chief Justice That the keeping of a Church-Book for the age of those which should be born and christned in the Parish began in the 30th year of Henry the Eighth by the instigation of the Lord Cromwel A man was indicted upon the Statute of Ed. 6. That in the Church-yard such
for the avoiding of Leases made by a Parson by his Absence from his Living by the space of eighty daies in one year and also shews that one Stallowe who was Parson of Sharrington to whom these Tithes did belong and in whose Right the Defendant claimed them was Absent from his Parsonage by the space of eighty daies in one year and shews in what year and so by this his interest determined and Agreement with the Plaintiff by this made void but they found further as the Plaintiff made it to appear That Stallowe the Parson of Sharrington was not Absent in manner as it was alledged for that they found that he did dwell in another Town adjoyning but that he came constantly to his Parish-Church and there read Divine Service and so went away again They did also find hat he had a Parsonage-house in Sharrington fit for his habitation and whether this were an Absence within the Statute as to avoid his Lease they left that to the Judgment of the Court Yelverton Justice This is a good Non-Residency within the Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 13. but not an Absence to avoid a Lease made within the Statute of 13 Eliz. cap. 20. It cannot be said here in this Case that he was Absent for he came four daies in every week and in his Parish-Church did read Divine Service Williams Justice upon the Statute of 13 and 14 Eliz the Parson ought not to be Absent from his Church eighty daies together in one year à Rectoria sua but this is not so here for he came to his Church and read Divine Service there every Sunday Wednesday Friday and Saturday and therefore clearly this cannot be such an Absence within the scope and intention of these Statutes as thereby to avoid his Lease Yelverton Justice he ought to be Absent eighty daies together per spatium de Octogin diebus ultra and this to be altogether at one time and so the same ought to have been laid expresly the which is not so done here for that it appears here that he was at his Parsonage-house and did read Prayers every Sunday Wednesday Friday and Saturday and so the whole Court were clear of Opinion that this Absence here as the same appeared to be was not such an Absence by the space of eighty daies in one year to avoid his Lease within the said Statute and so the Defendants Plea in Barr not good and therefore by the Rule of the Court Judgment was entered for the Plaintiff 17. An Information was Exhibited against Two Parsons by J. S. upon the Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 13. against one of them for Non-Residency and against the other for taking of a Farm the one of them pleaded Sickness and that by the Advice of his Physicians he removed into better Air for Recovery of his health and this is justifiable by the whole Court vid. more for this Coke 6. par fo 21. in Butler and Goodall's Case The other pleaded That he took the Farm for the maintenance of his House and Family And this also is justifiable by the Opinion of the whole Court Crooke moved the Court for the Defendants That the Plaintiff was a Common Informer and that he did prefer this Information against them only for their vexation and so to draw them to compound with him as formerly he hath so done by others for which they prosecuted an Indictment in the Countrey upon the Statute of 18 Eliz. cap. 5. made to punish Common Informers for their Abuses The whole Court did advise them to prosecute this Indictment against him Crooke moved for the Defendants That in regard the Informer is a man of no means that the Court would order him to put in sufficient Sureties to answer Costs if the matter went against him and that then the Defendants would presently answer the Information Williams Justice nullam habemus talem legem this is not to be done but the Rule of the Court was That the Defendants should not answer the Information until the Informer appeared in person 18. In an Action of Covenant the Plaintiff in his Declaration sets forth that the Defendant was Parson of D. and did Covenant That the Plaintiff should have his Tithes of certain Lands for thirteen years and that afterwards he Resigned and another Parson Inducted by which means he was ousted of his Tithes and for this cause the Action brought The Defendant pleads in Barr the Statutes of 13 Eliz. cap. 20. and 14 Eliz. cap. 11. for Non-Residency upon which Plea the Plaintiff demurr'd in Law It was urged for the Plaintiff That the Plea in Barr was not good because it is not averred that the Defendant had been Absent from his Parsonage by the space of Eighty daies in a year for otherwise the Covenant is not void by the Statutes For the Defendant it was alledged That the pleading of the Statute of 13 Eliz. is idle but by the Statute of 14 Eliz. this Covenant is made void for by the Statute all Covenants shall be all one with Leases made by such Parsons And in this case if this had been a Lease this had been clearly void by Surrender of the Parson and so in case of a Covenant Doderidge and Houghton Justices The Statutes of 13 and 14 Eliz. do not meddle with Assurances at the Common Law nor intended to make any Leases void which were void at the Common Law and therefore this Covenant here is not made void by the Statute unless he be Absent Eighty daies from his Parsonage Coke Chief Justice agreed with them herein They all agreed in this Case for the Plaintiff and that by the Preamble of 14 Eliz. it is shewed the intent of the Statute to be to make Covenants void within the Provision of 13 Eliz. by Absence for Eighty daies And Judgment in this Case was given for the Plaintiff CHAP. XXIX Of Abbots and Abbies also of Chauntries and of the Court of Augmentations 1. Abbot what why so called the several kinds thereof and how many anciently in England 2. A famous Abbot anciently in Ireland The manner of their Election prescribed by the Emperour Justinian Anciently the Peers of France were frequently Abbots 3. The ancient Law of King Knute concerning Abbots 4. The Abbot with the Monks making a Covent were a Corporation 5. Abbots were either Elective or Presentative they were Lords of Parliament How many Abbies in England and which the most Ancient Founded by King Ethelbert 6. Chaunter and Chauntries what and whence so called their use and end 47 belonging anciently to St. Pauls in London when and by what Laws their Revenues were vested in the Crown 7. Before King John's time Abbots and Priors were Presentative afterwards Elective 8. Six Differences taken and Resolved in a Case at Law touching Chauntries 9. Certain Cases in Law touching Lands whether under pretence of Chauntries given by the Statute to the King or not 10. What the Court of Augmentations was the end
setting forth of Tithes which Action is to be sued in the Temporal Courts Trees of all sorts regularly and generally except Timber-Trees as aforesaid Root and Branch Body Bark and Fruit used or sold by the Owner are Tithable Tithes shall be paid of Hasel Willows Holley Alder and Maple although above twenty years growth Mich. 5. Jac. B. Resolved and Consultation granted accordingly So that Trees of all kinds not apt for Timber though exceeding 20 years growth nor ever cut before may be Tithable And all Trees under the notion of Sylva Caedua aforesaid Underwoods and Coppices felled and preserved to grow again are Tithable to the Parson when the Owner takes his Nine parts But Trees cut only for Mounds Plow-gear Hedging Fencing Fewel for maintenance of the Plough or Pail be it Underwoods of Coppices Parings of Fruit-Trees or the like are not Tithable but Trees bearing Fruit of all sorts are Tithable in their Annual increase And therefore as to Fruit-Trees as Apples Pears c. the Tenth of the Fruit shall be set out and delivered when they are newly gathered for the omission whereof if loss come to the Parson the Owner is chargeable to him in the Treble Dammages If a man pay Tithes for the Fruit of Trees and after cut down the same Trees and make them into Billets and Faggots and sell them he shall not pay Tithes for the Billets or Faggots for that it is not any new Increase Coke Magna Charta 652. 621. If Trees be Fell'd no Tithes shall be paid of the Roots Coke Pasch 29 Eliz. B. R. nor of the young Sprouts that grow of such ancient Stock M. 12 Jac. B. R. Stampe Clinton Roll. Rep. And as Fruit-Trees pay Tithes in their Fruit so also may young Trees which as yet bear no Fruit pay Tithes in another kind for where a Parson Libelled in the Ecclesiastical Court for the Tithes of young Trees planted in a Nursery upon purpose to be rooted up and sold to be planted in other Parishes The Question was Whether Tithes should be paid for them It was said they were of the nature of the Land and Tithes should not be paid of them no more than of the Mines of Coles or Stones digged or for Trees spent in Fewel in the House But it was the Opinion of the whole Court That forasmuch as he made a profit of such young Trees Tithes thereof should be paid when they are digged up and sold into another Parish as well as of Corn and Carret or other things of like nature Note by the Justices If one cut Trees which are or may be Timber although they be under the age of 20 years no Tithes are due and so it is of new Germins growing under that age And where in a Prohibition for that it was Libelled in the Ecclesiastical Court for Tithes of Timber Trees the Defendant said the Trees were long since aridae mortuae putridae It was the Opinion of the Justices That no Tithes should be paid of those Trees for being above the growth of 20 years they were discharged of Tithes Also in Brook and Rogers Case where a Parson sued in the Ecclesiastical Court for the Tithes of the Boughs of Trees above the age of 20 years growth and the Defendant prayed a Prohibition and shewed that the Trees were aridae siccae in culminibus putridae It was held by the better Opinion that Tithes should not be paid of them In an Action upon the Case Declared whereas by the Statute of 45 Ed. 3. cap. 3. Tithes ought not to be paid for Gross Trees That she had cut down such Timber Trees being above the growth of twenty years and that the Defendant as Parson sued her for Tithes of them against the Statute upon which it was Demurred Resolved by the whole Court That the Action did not lie for none shall be punished for Suing in the Ecclesiastical Court for any matter which is properly demandable there although perhaps he hath no cause of Action But if he Sues in the Ecclesiastical Court for matter which appears by his Libel is not Suable there nor the Court hath Jurisdiction thereof there an Action upon the Case lieth Turkeys Tithes shall not be paid of them nor their Eggs quia Ferae naturae Turves used for Fewel or Firing do pay Tithe and are Tithable as Predial Tithes yet held that Tithes shall not be paid thereof Hill 14 Jac. B. R. per Houghton Hill 11 Jac. B. R. per Cur. Tile-Stones or Brick Tile are not Tithable Tythes or Tithes are a Tenth or otherwise a certain part or portion of the Fruit or lawful Increase of the Earth Beasts or Mens Labour and Industry and are payable by every person having things Tithable that cannot shew a Special Exemption either by Composition Custome Prescription Priviledge or some Act of Parliament And they are to be paid without any Diminution for which reason the Owners of things Tithable ought not to have the Nine parts till the Tenth be first severed there-from And on the other side the Tithe is in no case to be taken by the Parson or Vicar before the same be severed from the Nine parts The Parson de mero Jure is to have all the Tithes if there be no Endowment of the Vicarage and a Vicar cannot have Tithes but by Gift Composition or Prescription for that all Tithes de jure do belong to the Parson In Suit for Tithes it is not necessary to demand the very value for the Duty is uncertain Mich. 16 Jac. B. R. Case Pemberton Shelton Roll. Rep. If Tithes be payable by one who dies before he pays it it must be paid by his Executor if he hath Assets But if the Parishioner setteth forth his Tithes and they stand upon the Land two or three daies and afterwards he taketh or carrieth them away this is not a setting forth of his Tithes within the Statute of 2 Ed. 6. But if the Parson or Vicar shall suffer his Tithes being severed to lie long upon the Land to the prejudice of the Owner of the Ground he may have his Action of the Case And whoever taketh away the Tithes not having Right thereto is a Trespasser Also an Action lieth against a Disseisor for the Tithes or if one cut them and another carrieth them away an Action lieth against either of them And although in the Ecclesiastical Courts no Plea is allowed in Discharge of Tithes yet Lands in the hands of Ecclesiastical persons may be Discharged of Tithes and now since the Statute of 31 H. 8. in the hands of the Kings Patentees also by Suspension Priviledge or Unity And since in the Ecclesiastical Courts no Plea as aforesaid is allowed in Discharge it is nothing strange that the Common Law holds that the Court Spiritual hath not Jurisdiction in matters of Tithes where the Prescription is de non Decimando otherwise where it is de
may consult the Authors in the Margent The Parson of Henley brought an Action of Debt for 600 l. upon the Statute of E. 6. for not setting forth Tithes of Wood and shews that the Defendant had cut down 200 Loads of Wood to the value of 200 l. and saith that the Tenth part of that did amount to 200 l and so he brought his Action for 600 l. upon the Statute And the Plaintiff was Non-suit for one fault in his Declaration for whereas he declares the price of the Wood to be 200 l. it was mistaken for it should have been 2000 l. for he demanded more for the Tenth part than the Principal is by his own shewing If a man buy Wood Tithable and burn it in his own House he shall not pay Tithes thereof as hath been Resolved And no Tithes shall be paid for Wood cut and employed for the enclosures in the Husbandry Also if a man cut Wood and burn it to make Brick for repairing of his Dwelling-house for himself and his Family within the Parish no Tithes shall be paid for that Wood in regard the Parson hath benefit by the labour of the Family otherwise it is in case the Bricks were only to enlarge his house within the Parish and more than needful for his Family as for his pleasure or delight If a man sell Wood to me and I burn it in my house the Vendor shall stand charged for the Tithes thereof and not the Vendee for no Tithes are due for Wood burnt in the Parishioners house as hath been Resolved Pasch 14 Jac. in B. Parson Ellis Drakes Case and Prohibition granted accordingly Although it was said That by the Civil or rather Canon Law the Parson hath his Election to Sue either of them which is contrary to the Common Law In the Lord Clanrickard's Case against Dame Denton the Plaintiff surmized to the Court That all the Vill. of Kent which is a Precinct containig above forty Parishes time out of mind c. have been discharged of the payment of Tithes of Wood under the age of 20 years and the Defendant had sued him in the Ecclesiastical Court and hereupon had a Prohibition And the Defendant Traversed the Custome which a Jury was taken at the Bar to try and for inducement of the Custome Lindwood was produced in Cap. de Decimis where it is said That before that time Tithes were not paid for Wood which is contrary to the Old and New Testament and that Assertion is made by Stratford Archbishop of Canterbury for that this was a Provincial Constitution that at that time viz. 17. E. 3. Tithes of Sylva caedua shall be paid By which Constitution the Comminalty finding themselves grieved exhibited a Bill in Parliament the same year 17 E. 3. reciting the Ancient Usage of not paying such Tithes and the last Constitution to the contrary and prayed a Prohibition to the contrary To which Bill answer was made in this manner viz. Be it done in this case as it hath been done before this time And the next year another Petition was made in Parl. for the same cause to which it was answered also That where Tithes of Wood have not been used to be paid by Custome that a Prohibition shall be granted And these Acts of Parliament the Plaintiffs Counsel produced out of the Parliament-Rolls Crook Justice gave the Rule viz. Quod de grossis aâ—boribus Decimae non dabuntur sed de Sylva Caedua Decimae dabuntur Vid. Dr. Stu. 164. a. 169. b. Anscombe said The Doctor and Student mistook the maker of that Constitution of Stratford Archbishop In a Prohibition for Tithes of Wood it was suggested That in the Parish there is a Custome that all the Parsons of the said Church time out of mind Habuerunt gavisi fuerunt such Lands parcel of the Manner of F. in recompence of all Tithe Wood within the Parish It was the Opinion of the Justices that it was a good Prescription for it may be that at the beginning all the Land was parcel of the Mannor and then the allowance of the Profits of this Land was alotted in discharge of the Tithes of all the Woods within the Parish In Prohibition to stay a Suit in the Ecclesiastical Court for Tithes Wood it was shewed that the Custome of the Parish is That the Owners of any House and Land in the Parish who pay Tithe to the Parson ought not to pay Tithe for Wood spent for Fuel in their Houses It being found for the Defendant the Issue being upon the Custome It was said That notwithstanding there were any such Custome yet Tithe ought not to be paid for Wood spent for Fuel nor for Fencing-stuff but per Legem terrae he ought to be discharged thereof Resolved It is not de jure per Legem terrae that any one is discharged of them for it is usual in Parishioners to alledge a Custome but not to alledge that per Legem terrae he is discharged And in this case the Plaintiff in the Prohibition having alledged a Custome and it being found against him a Cousultation was awarded A Composition was betwixt an Abbot and a Parson that in recompence of the Tithes of all the Woods within the Mannor whereof the Abbot Owner That he should have to him and his Successor 20 Loads of Wood every year in 20 Acres of the said Mannor to burn and spend in his House The Parsonage was Appropriate to the Abbey and after the Abbey was dissolved the King granted the Parsonage to one and the 20 Acres to another It was Resolved That by the Unity the Estovers were not extinct for it they be Tithes they are not extinct by this Unity of possession for that Tithes run with the Lands and Tithes de jure Divino Canonica Institutione do appertain to the Clergy Wool of Sheep is Tithable proportionably to the time they are in the Parish as thus viz. The Parson shall have Eight pound of Wool in Eighty of Forty Sheep in the Parish a whole year Four pound of Wool in Forty if they were there but half the year Two pound of Wool in Twenty if they were there but Three months and but the Tithe or Tenth of the Twelfth part of the Wool if the lay and fed but One month in the Parish The Wool of Sheep shorn and dying before Easter next following such shearing is not Tithable unless the Parson or Vicar can alledge a special Prescription for it Therefore Q. where by Prescription such Tithe is claimed It is said also That a Custome to pay a Halfpeny for the Wool de ovibus venditis after shearing and before Michaelmass is good and that the Sheep discharged shall be Weathers as well as Ewes Also Wool-locks and Flocks of Wool after the Wool made are likewise Tithable if there be more than ordinary left otherwise not And if a Prescription be alledged to be discharged of Locks of Wool it
Church This double value shall be accounted according to the very or true value as the same may be let and shall be tried by a Jury and not according to the extent or taxation of the Church Co. par 3. Inst cap. 71. And albeit the Clerk be not privy to the Simoniack Contract yet it seems the Patron shall pro hac vice lose his Presentation But the Title of the rightful and uncorrupt Patron shall not be sorscited or prejudiced by the Simoniacal Contract of an Usurper albeit the Clerk be by his presentation admitted instituted and inducted nor entitle the King to present 4. The Church notwithstanding the Admission Institution and Induction becomes void whether the Clerk presented were a party or privy to the corrupt and Simoniacal Contract or not But Sir Simon Degee in his Parson's Counsellor puts the material Question viz. Whether the Clerk that is presented upon a Simoniacal Contract to which he is neither party nor privy be disabled for that turn to be presented by the King to that viz. the same Church In order to the resolution whereof he acquaints us with a Case reported wherein it was adjudged that if a Clerk were presented upon a Simoniacal Contract to which he was neither party nor privy that yet notwithstanding it was a perpetual disability upon that Clerk as to that Church or Living The like in another Case where B. the Church being void agreed with the Patron to give him a certain Sum of Money for the Presentation B. presented C. who knew nothing of the Simoniacal Contract till after his Induction In this Case it seem'd by Warburton Justice that C. was disabled quoad hanc Ecclesiam In which Case it was clear that the grant of the Presentation during the vacancy was meerly void that B. presented as an Usurper that C. was in by the corrupt Contract and that were it not for the same the Patron would not have suffered the Usurpation In further confirmation hereof it is also reported to us that Sir Edward Coke affirmed it hath been adjudged that if a Church be void and a Stranger contracts for a Sum of Money to present one who is not privy to the Agreement that notwithstanding the Incumbent coming in by the Simoniacal Contract is a person disabled to enjoy that Benefice although he obtain a new presentation from the King for that the Statute as to that Living hath disabled him during Life Notwithstanding all which Premises Sir Edward Coke in his Comment upon the said Statute of 31 Eliz. asserts it to have been adjudged in the forecited Case of Baker and Rogers that where the Presentee is not privy nor consenting to any such corrupt Contract there because it is no Simony in him he shall not be adjudged a disabled person within the said Act for the words of the Statute are And the person so corruptly giving c. And so says he it was resolved Mich. 13. Jac. Where the Presentee is not privy nor consenting to any corrupt Contract he shall not be adjudged a disabled person within the Act because it is no Simony in him Coke Inst par 3. cap. 71. Also it was so resolved in Doctor Hutchinsons Case by the whole Court viz. That if a Clerk be presented upon a corrupt Contract within the said Statute although he be not privy thereunto yet his presentation admission and induction are all void within the Letter of that Statute but not within the clause of disability within the same Statute 5. The Contracts which are commonly held corrupt and Simoniacal may be diversified almost into as many kinds as transferences and proprietary negotiations are capable of but those which have been most in practice as appears by the Cases reported in the Law have been by way of unlawful purchasing the next Advowson by Exchanges by Resignation Bonds by Matrimonial compacts by contracts remote and conceal'd from the Presentee by Obligations of an indirect nature and the like To the purposes aforesaid it hath been held Simony for a Parson to promise his Patron a Lease of his Tithes at such a Rent in case he would present another Parson into his Benefice with whom he was to exchange albeit that other was not privy to the Contract he making the Lease after It was likewise held Simony for a Father to present his Son by vertue of a purchase of the next Advowson which he made in the presence of his Son a Clerk when the Incumbent was not like to live by reason of a Sickness whereof he soon after died Otherwise in case the purchase had been made in the absence of the Son as is hereafter mentioned But per Hutt it was held Simony to purchase the next Advowson the Incumbent being sick The like in Winchcombes Case against the Bishop of Winchester and Puleston a Case hereafter often Margined on several accounts where it was held Simony in one Say who was presented upon a Contract which he made with the Patron the Incumbent being then sick for Ninety pound to present him when the Church should be void And as to Resignationbonds Sir Simon Degge affirms That in the case of Jones and Lawrence the sense of the Court was that if a Man be preparing his Son for the Clergy and have a Living in his disposal which falls void before his Son is capable thereof he may Lawfully take a Bond of such person as he shall present to resign when his Son becomes capable of the the Living otherwise in case the Patron take a Bond absolutely to resign upon request without any such or the like cause as for avoidance of Pluralities Non-residence or other such reasonable design The like you have in Babbington and Wood's Case hereafter mentioned So that it seems Bonds and Obligations given and taken upon just and honest grounds to resign are not in themselves Simoniacal Otherwise where ther 's is corruption in the case accompanied with some subsequent Act in pursuance thereof And although presentations made upon Simoniacal Bonds and Obligations are void in Law yet such Bonds themselves though corrupt and Simoniacal are not made void by the Statute of 31 Eliz. 6. B. brought Action against C. upon an Obligation The condition whereof was that whereas the Plaintiff did intend and was about to present the Defendant to the Benefice of Stow if the Defendant at the request of the Plaintiff should resign the same to the hands of the Bishop of London then the Obligation to he void The Defendant demanded Oyer and demurr'd and adjudg'd for the Plaintiff for the resignation might be upon a good intention to prevent pluralities or some other cause and it shall not be intended Simony if it be not specially pleaded and averr'd and Mich. 37. and 38. Eliz. Between Jones and Lawrence it was adjudg'd accordingly and affirmed an Error which the Court viewd and thereupon Judgement was given for the Plaintiff 7.
The Plaintiff declared that the Rectory of St. Peters infra Turrim London was void and that the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff would bestow his labour and endeavour to cause or procure him to be Rector of the said Rectory promised to give him Twenty pounds and that after the said Plaintiff procured him to be Rector by the Kings Commission and notwithstanding that he had requir'd him to pay the said Twenty pounds c. and thereupon he brought his Action upon the Case in the Court of the Tower of London and upon Non Assumpsit it was found for the Plaintiff and Judgement was there given upon which the Defendant brought Error and una voce all agreed that the Judgement was erroneous for the consideration was Simoniacal and against Law and not a good consideration therefore the Assumpsit was not good the Judgement was revers'd the Atturney said that that Court was a Court-baron as appears by a Record in the time of King Henry the Sixth 8. If A. be obliged to present B. c. and he presents by Simony yet the obligation is forfeited Or if one contract with the Patrons Wife to be presented for Money and is accordingly presented by her Husband it is Simony within the Stat. of 31 Eliz and makes the presentation void For the contract of the Wife is the contract of the Husband Likewise if the Patron present one to the Advowson having taken an Obligation of the Presentee that he shall resign when the Obligee will after Three months warning this is Simony within the Stat. of 21 Eliz. cap. 16. per Curiam Also if one promises to a Man that hath a Mannor with an Advowson appendant that if he will present him c. after the then Incumbents death he will give him such a certain Sum of Money and the other agree thereto and that by agreement between them the next avoidance shall be granted to B c. who after the then Incumbents death presents accordingly this is Simony because there was a corrupt Contract for the Advowson For although the next avoidance may be bought and sold bona fide without Simony yet if it be granted to one to perform a corrupt Contract for the same it is otherwise But if the Father purchase the next avoidance and after the Incumbents death presents his Son this is not Simony Yet by Hob. Chief Justice it was held that if in the grant of the next avoidance it appears that it was to the intent to present his Son or his Kinsman and it was done accordingly it is Simony Likewise if a Mans Friend promises the Grantee of the next avoidance a certain Sum of Money and so much certain per Annum if he will present B. to the Church Quando c. and B. not knowing any thing of the Contract be presented accordingly this is Simony For if a Stranger contract with the Patron Simonaically it makes the presentation void 9. A Patron took an Obligation of the Clerk whom he presented that he should pay Ten pounds yearly to the Son of the last Incumbent so long as he should be a Student in Cambridge unpreferr'd this is not Simony otherwise if it had been to have paid it to the Patrons Son per Cur. An Obligation was made by a Presentee to a Patron to pay Five pounds per An. to the late Incumbents Wife and Children the Parson kept and enjoyed the Parsonage notwithstanding great opposition to the contrary 10. A Parson preferr'd his Bill for Tithes the Parishioner pleaded that he was presented by corruption c. and by Simony and a Prohibition was granted notwithstanding the Parson pleaded pardon of the Simony by the King and it seem'd that it was now triable by the Common Law The Church may be full or void in effect when there is a Simoniacal Incumbent yet to say the Church was full for Six Months is no plea when he was in by Simony For a Quare Impedit may be had by the rightful Patron after the Six Months against the Incumbent of an usurper that is in by Simony And the death of a Simoniacal Incumbent doth not hinder but that the King may present for the Church was never full as to the King and that turn is presented to the King by force of the Statute 11. In the Stat. of 31 Eliiz there is no word of Simony for by that means then the Common Law would have been Judge what should have been Simony and what not by which Law the Simoniack is perpetually disabled And a Covenant to present such a one made under any consideration whatever be it of Marriage or the like may be Simoniacal But if a Father in Law upon the Marriage of his Daughter do only voluntarily and without any consideration Covenant with his Son in Law that when such a Church which is in his Gift falls void he will present him to it It hath been held that this is no Simony within the said Statute 12. A Simoniacal Usurper presenting shall not prejudice the rightful Patron by giving the King the presentation The proof of Simony will avoid an Action of Tithes commenced by a Simoniack Parson who dying in possession of the Church the King loses not his presentation because the Church was not full of an Incumbent but remains void though the Simony or Penalty thereof were pardoned y Lastly all corrupt resignations and exchanges of Ecclesiastical Livings are punishable with the forfeiture of double the Sum given and received both in Giver and Taker by the said Statute but it seems this works no avoidance or disability in the publick person 13. The Patron of an Advowson before the Statute of 31. Eliz. for Simony doth sell proximam Advocationem for a sum of money to one Smith and he sells this to Smith the Incumbent After which comes the general Pardon of the Queen wherby the punishment of Smith the Incumbent is pardoned and of Smith the Patron also If the Incumbent may be removed was the Question Williams said that the Doctors of the Civil Law informed him That the Law Spiritual was that for Simony the Patron lost his Presentation and the Ordinary shall present and if he present not within six montehs then the Metropolitan and then the King Spurling Serjeant This punishment cannot discharge the Forfeiture although it dischargeth the punishment Glanvil contra and said that this point was in question when the Lord Keeper was Atturney and then both of them consulted thereupon and they made this diversity viz. Between a thing void and voidable and for Simony the Church is not void until Sentence Declaratory and therefore they held that by the Pardon before the Sentence all is pardoned as where a man committs Felony and before Conviction the King pardons him by this Pardon the Lord shall lose his Escheat for the Lord can have no Escheat
Fees wherewith Churches have been endowed otherwise in possessions of the Church newly purchased by Ecclesiastical persons 10 That such as Abjure the Realm shall be in peace so long as they be in the Church or in the Kings High-way 11 That Religious Houses shall not by compulsion be charged with Pensions resort or Purveyors 12 That a Clerk Excommunicate may be taken by the Kings Writ out of the Parish where he dwells 13 That the examination of the Ability of a Parson presented unto a Benefice of the the Church shall belong unto a Spiritual Judge 14 That the Elections to the Dignities of the Church shall be free without fear of any Temporal power 15 That a Clerk flying into the Church for Felony shall not be compelled to abjure the Realm 16 And lastly That the Priviledge of the Church being demanded in due form by the Ordinary shall not be denied unto the Appealor as to a Clerk confessing Felony before a Temporal Judge 2. In conformity to the premisses there were other Statutes after made in the time of King Ed. 3. whereby it was Enacted 1 That the goods of Spiritual persons should not without their own consents be taken by Purveyors for the King 2 That the King shall not collate or present to any vacant Church Prebend Chappel or other Benefice in anothers Right but within Three years next after the Avoidance 3 That the Temporalties of Archbishops Bishops c. shall not be seized into the Kings hands without a just cause and according to Law 4 That no waste shall be committed on the Temporalties of Bishops during Vacancies and that the Dean and Chapter may if they please take them to Farm 5 And lastly That the Lord Chancellor or Lord Treasurer may during such vacancies demise the Temporalties of Bishopricks to the Dean and Chapter for the Kings use 3. And as there are Articuli Cleri so there are also Articuli Religionis being in all thirty nine Agreed upon at a Convocation of the Church of England Ann. 1562. Ratified by Q. Elizabeth under the Great Seal of England Confirmed and Established by an Act of Parliament with his Majesties Royal Declaration prefixed thereunto Which Act of Parliament requires a Subscription by the Clergy to the said thirty nine Articles the same also being required by the Canons made by the Clergy of England at a Convocation held in London Ann. 1603. and ratified by King James The said Subscription referrs to three Articles 1. That the Kings Majestie under God is the only Supream Governour of the Realm and of all other his Highness Dominions and Countreys c. 2. That the Book of Common Prayer and of Ordaining of Bishops Preists and Deacons containeth nothing in it contrary to the Word of God c. 3. That he alloweth of the said thirty nine Articles of Religion and acknowledgeth them to be agreeable to the Word of God By the Statute of 13. Eliz. 12. the Delinquent is disabled and deprived ipso facto but the Delinquent against the Canon of King James is to be prosecuted and proceeded against by the Censures of the Church And it is not sufficient that one subscribe to the Thirty Nine Articles of Religion with this Addition so far forth as the same are agreeable to the Word of God For it hath been resolved by Wray Cheif Justice and by all the Judges of England That such subscription is not according to the Statute of 13. Eliz. because the Subscription which the Statute requires must be absolute But this is no other then Conditional 4. The Circumspecte agatis is the Title of a Statute made in the 13 th year of Ed. 1. Ann. D. 1285. prescribing certain Cases to the Judges wherein the Kings Prohibition doth not lie As in Case the Church-yard be left unclosed or the Church it self uncovered the Ordinary may take Cognizance thereof and by that Statute no Prohibition lies in the Case Nor in case a Parson demands his Oblations or the due and accustomed Tythes of his Parishioners nor if one Parson sue another for Tythes great or small so as the fourth part of the Benefice be not demanded nor in case a Parson demand Mortuaries in places where they have been used and accustomed to be paid nor if the Prelate of a Church or a Patron demand of a Parson a Pension due to him nor in the Case of laying violent hands on a Clerk nor in Cases of Defamation where Money is not demanded nor in Case of Perjury In all which Cases the Ecclesiastical Judge hath Cognizance by the said Statute notwithstanding the Kings Prohibition So that the end of that Statute is to acquaint us with certain Cases wherein a Prohibition doth not lie And the Statute of 24 Ed. 1. shews in what Case a Consultation is to be granted And by the Statute of 50. Ed. 3. cap. 4. no Prohibition shall be allowed after a Consultation duely granted provided that the matter of the Libel be not enlarged or otherwise changed CHAP. XLIV Of several Writs at the Common Law pertinent to this Subject 1. What the Writ of Darrein Presentment imports in what case it lies and how it differs from a Quare Impedit 2. Assise de utrum what and why so called 3. Quare Impedit what for and against whom it lies 4. What a Ne admittas imports the use and end thereof 5. In what case the Writ Vi Laica removenda lies 6. What the Writ Indicavit imports and the use thereof 7. What the Writ Advocatione Decimarum signifies 8. Admittendo Clerico what and in what Case issuable 9. The Writ Beneficio primo Ecclesiastico habendo what 10. That Writ Cautione Admittenda and the effect thereof 11. The writ of Clerico infra Sacros ordines constituto non eligendo in Officium What the use or end thereof 12. The Writ Clerico capto per Statutum Mercatorum what 13. What the Writ of Clerico convicto commisso Goalae in defectu Ordinarii deliberando was 14. What the Writ of Annua Pensione was anciently 15. The Writ of Vicario deliberando occasione cujusdam Recognitionis what 16. Three Writs relating to Persons excommunicated 17. Assise of Darrein Presentment brought after a Quare Impedit in the same cause abates 18. Difference of Pleas by an Incumbent in respect of his being in by the Presentment of a stranger and in respect of his being in by the Presentment of the Plaintiff himself 19. Notwithstanding a recovery upon a Quare Impedit the Incumbent continues Incumbent de facto until Presentation by the Recoverer 20. Of what thing a Q. Imp. lies and who shall have it 21. Who may have a Quare Impedit and of what things 22. How and for whom the Writ of Right of Advowson lies 23. What the Writ de jure patronatus and how the Law proceeds thereon 24. The Writ of Spoliation what and where it lies 25. The Writ