Office supposing the Grant of that by the Predecessor does not bind the Successor as it was in Dr. Barker's Case there a Prohibition shall be awarded because the profits are Temporal But we in the first Case cannot try the Sufficiency Vid. 8 E. 3. 70. 9 E. 3. 11. So it is if the Ordinary deprive the Master of a Lay-Hospital for there he is not a Visitor nor is it Visitable by him But otherwise of a Spiritual Hospital 20. The Bishop of Landaff granted the office of his Chancellorship to Dr. Trevor and one Griffin to be exercised by them either joyntly or severally Dr. Trevor for 350 l. released all his Right in the said Office to Griffin so that G. was the sole Officer and then after died After this the Bishop grants the said Chancellorship to R. being a Practicioner in the Civil Law for his life Dr. Trevor surmising that himself was the sole Officer by Survivorship made Dr. Lloyd his Substitute to execute the said office for him and for that that he was disturbed by R. the said Dr. Trevor being Substitute to the Judge of the Arches granted an Inhibition to inhibite the said R. from executing the said Office The Libel contained That one R. hindered and disturbed Dr. Lloyd so that he could not execute the said Office Against these proceedings in the Arches a Prohibition was prayed and day given to Dr. Trevor to shew cause why it should not be granted They urged that the Office was Spiritual for which reason the discussing of the Right thereof appertaineth to the Ecclesiastical Courts But all the Judges agreed That though the Office was Spiritual as to the Exercising thereof yet as to the Right thereof it was Temporal and shall be tryed at the Common Law for the party hath a Freehold therein Vid. 4 5 P. M Dyer 152. 9. Hunt's Case for the Registers Office in the Admiralty and an Assize brought for that And so the Chief Justice said was Adjudged for the Registers Office to the Bishop of Norwich in B. R. between Skinner and Mingey which ought to be tryed at the Common Law And so Blackleech's Case as Warburton said in this Court for the office of Chancellor to the Bishop of Gloucester which was all one with the principal Case And they said That the office of Chancellor is within the Statute of Ed. 6. for buying of Offices c. And so in the manner of Tithing the Prescription is Temporal for which cause it shall be tryed at Common Law And Prohibition was granted according to the first Rule So that if a Bishop grant the office of Chancellorship to A. and B. and after A. release to B. and after B. die and after the Bishop grant it to R. against whom A. sues in the Ecclesiastical Court supposing his Release to be void a Prohibition will lie for that the office is Temporal as to the Right of it though the office be Exercised about Spiritual matters But if a Chancellor be sued in the Ecclesiastical Court to be deprived for Insufficiency as not having knowledge of the Canon Law no Prohibition lies for that they are there the proper Judges of his ability and not the Judges of the Common Law 21. In Dr. Trevor's Case who was Chancellor of a Bishop in Wales it was Resolved That the Offices of Chancellor and Register c. in Ecclesiastical Courts are within the Statute of 5 Ed. 6. cap. 16. which Act being made for avoiding Corruption of Officers c. and advancement of Worthy persons shall be expounded most beneficially to suppress Corruption And because it allows Ecclesiastical Courts to proceed in Blasphemy Heresie Schism c. Loyalty of Matrimonies Probat of Wills c. And that from these proceedings depends not only the Salvation of Souls but also the Legitimation of Issues c. and other things of great consequence It is more reason that such Officers shall be within the Statute than Officers which concern Temporal matters The Temporal Judge committing the Convict only to the Gaoler but the Spiritual Judge by Excommunication Diabolo And there is a Proviso in the Statute for them And it was Resolved That such Offices were within the Purview of the said Statute CHAP. XI Of Courts Ecclesiastical and their Jurisdiction 1. The Antiquity of the Ecclesiastical Laws of England and what the Chief Ecclesiastical Courts are in general anciently called Halimots The Original of the Popes Vsurpation in England 2. The Court of Convocation and Constitutions of Claringdon 3. The High Court of Arches why so called the highest Consistory the Jurisdiction thereof 4. The Judge of this Court whence called Dean of the Arches 5. The great Antiquity of this Court the Number of Advocates and Proctors thereof Anciently limited their decent Order in Court 6. The Prerogative Court of Canterbury 7. The Court of Audience to whom it belonged where kept and what matters it took cognizance of 8. The Court of Faculties why so called what things properly belong to this Court As Dispensations Licenses c. with the Original thereof in England 9 What the nature of a Dispensation is and who qualified to grant it 10. A Dean made Bishop the King may dispence with him to hold the Deanary with the Bishoprick by way of Commendam 11. Whether a Prohibition lies to the Ecclesiastical Courts in case they do not allow of Proof by one Witness 12. Divers Cases at the Common Law relating to Prohibitions to the Ecclesiastical Courts 13. The Court of Delegates 14. The High Commission Court what the Power thereof was 15. The Court of Review or Ad Revidendum 16. The Court of Peculiars 17. In what Cases the Ecclesiastical Court shall have Jurisdiction of matters Subsequent having Jurisdiction of the Original Suit 18. In what Case the party having allowed of the Jurisdiction comes too late to have a Prohibition 19. The difference between a Suit Ad instantiam partis and that ex Officio Judicis in reference to a General Pardon 20. Whether a Cleâ—k may strike his Servant or another in that case the Clerk and be blameless 21. What manner of Avoidance shall be tried at the Common Law and what in the Ecclesiastical Court 22. In what Case a special Prohibition was awarded in a Suit of Tithes after a Definitive Sentence 23. A Prohibition to the Ecclesiastical Court in a Suit grounded on a Custome against Law 24. Prohibition awarded to the Ecclesiastical Court upon refusal there to give a Copy of the Libel 25. Where the Ecclesiastical Court hath cognizance of the Principal they have also of the Accessory though the Accessory of matters Temporal 26. A Prohibition denied upon a Suggestion That the Ecclesiastical Court would not admit of proof by one Witness 27. In what case the Ecclesiastical Court shall have the Cognizance albeit the bounds of a Village in a Parish come in question 28. How the Practice hath been touching Prohibitions where the Subject matter
de facto and by Usurpotion did use to Dispence and by the Stat. of 25 H. 8. cap. 21. the power is taken from the Pope and conferr'd Cumulative on the King And by the Stat. of 25 H. 8. the Archbishop of Canterbury may Dispence in divers cases but that doth not exclude the power of the King 10. In the same Case it was held per Curiam una voce That where a Dean is made a Bishop with a Dispensation from the King to hold the Deanary notwithstanding the Bishoprick such Dispensation continues him Dean as before by force and virtue of his former Title to all intents and purposes so as that he may confirm or make Leases or do any other Act as a Dean as if he had not been made a Bishop at all For before the Cano nor Constitution made at the Council of Laterall for the voidance of the first Benefice by taking another Benefice or Promotion it was lawful and not forbidden so to do and the nature of the Dispensation is to exempt him from the penalty and so it remains as if the Canon had never been made which appears by 11 H. 4. in the Case of the Bishop of St. Davids That such a person that had such a Dispensation being Defendant in a Quare Impedit counterpleaded the Title of the Plaintiff which he could not do by the Statute of 25 Ed. 3. unless he had been the Possessor thereof and he in possession by 4 H. 8. Dyer 1. is one who is and continues Incumbent by Institution and Induction Therefore in this case the first Title and Induction continues And in the same Case it was also agreed That such Dispensation is not any Provision for no new thing is done but the ancient Title continues And in Fitz. N. B. Brief Spoliation such a person may maintain a Spoliation and none can maintain that unless he continue his Institution and Induction Parkhur's Case 6 7 Eliz. Such a Commendam continues to the person be it that the Benefice be void by Resignation And 21 Jac. in a Quare Impedit in C. B. by Woodley against the Bishop of Exeter and Manwayring it was so Resolved and Adjudged and the words of that Dispensation are sufficient for it is to retain it during his life in Commendam aut modo quocunque de jure magis efficaci and all the profits thereto belonging ac caetera facere perimplâ—re quae ad Deconatum pertinent in tam amplis modo forma as if he had not been promoted to be a Bishop with a Non obstante to all Canons c. And so they all concluded That the Dispensation continues him Dean enabling him to Confirm Leases made by the Bishop 11. W. Libels for a Legacy in the Ecclesiastical Court against B. who moves for a Prohibition because he had there pleaded Plene Administravit and proved that by one Witness and they would not allow it Richardson before the Statute of Ed. 6. the proper Suit for Tithes was there and if they allow not one Witness to prove payment a Prohibition shall be granted And he put Morris and Eaton's Case in the Bishop of Winchester's Case where it was Ruled if the Ecclesiastical Court will not allow that Plea which is good in our Law a Prohibition shall be granted as in the Case of Tithes And he said the Case of a Legacy is all one Crook When one comes to discharge a thing by due matter of Law and proves it by one Witness if it be not allowed no Prohibition shall be granted there Richardson Our Case is proof of Plene Administravit pleaded which goes in discharge But if there be enough pleaded which goes in discharge and proves that by one Witness and not allowed a Prohibition shall be granted Hutton said That properly for a Legacy the Suit is in the Ecclesiastical Court although they may sue in the Chancery for it yet the proper Court is the Ecclesiastical Court And they said that they used to allow one Witness with other good Circumstantial proofs if they be not in some Criminal causes where of necessity there must be two Witnesses In one Hawkin's Case Farmor of an Appropriation Libels for Tithes of Lambs for seven years And there payment was proved by one Witness and a Prohibition was granted for Non-allowance Yelverton There may be a difference where the Suit is meerly Ecclesiastical for a Sum of Money as for a Legacy there the payment of the Legacy is of the nature of the thing and the Ecclesiastical Court shall have Jurisdiction of the proof and matter But if one gives a Legacy of twenty Oxen and the other pleads payment of as much money in satisfaction there they cannot proceed but at Common Law for that that the Legacy is altered And if a proof of one Witness is not accepted a Prohibition shall be granted for now it is a Legal Trial 35 H. 6. If the Principal be proper for their Court the Accessory is of the same nature Also the Suit is commenced for a Legacy and the other pleads Plene Administr there they proceed upon the Common Law For they sometimes take that for Assets which our Law does not take It was adjudged in the Kings-Bench That where a Proof by one Witness of a Release of a Legacy is disallowed a Prohibition shall be granted Crook In this Case a Proof of setting out of Tithes by one Witness disallowed a Prohibition shall be granted 12. One was obliged in the Ecclesiastical Court not to accompany with such a Woman unless to Church or to a Market overt And afterwards he was summoned to the Ecclesiastical Court to say whether he had broken his Obligation or not And Ayliffe moved for a Prohibition which was granted for that that the Forfeiture is a Temporal thing And it does not become them in the Ecclesiastical Court to draw a man in Examination for breaking of Obligations or for Offences against Statutes C. Administrator durante Minori aetate of his Brothers Son the Son died and made the Wife of H. his Executrix who called C. to account in the Ecclesiastical Court for the Goods And he pleads an Agreement between him and H. and that he gave 80 l. in satisfaction of all Accounts But they did not accept the Plea for that a Prohibition was prayed to be granted Richardson If the party received the money in satisfaction then there shall not be a Prohibition granted but if there were only an Agreement without payment of money then otherwise Crook It is a Spiritual matter and they have Jurisdiction to determine of all things concerning that But the Agreement prevents that it cannot come into the Ecclesiastical Court G. Libels against B. before the High Commissioners for an Assault made upon him being a Spiritual person And Attbowe prayed a Prohibition for that although their Commission by express words gives them power in that case yet that Commission is granted upon the Statute of
1 Eliz. And it is not within the Statute and although it be within the Commission yet they have not Jurisdiction The words of the Statute are That such Jurisdictions and Priviledges c. as by any Ecclesiastical power have heretofore been or lawfully may be exercised for the Visitation of Ecclesiastical State and Persons and for reformation of the same and for all manner of Errors Heresies Schisms Abuses Offences Contempts and Enormities c. These words extend only to men who stir up Dissentions in the Church as Schisimaticks and new-sangled Men who offend in that kind Henden Serjeant The Suit is there for reformation of Manners and before the new amendment of the Commissions Prohibitions were granted if they meddled with Adultery or in Case of Defamations but now by express words they have power of these matters And that matter is punishable by the Commissioners for two Causes 1 There is within the Act of Parliament by the words annexed all Jurisdictions Ecclesiastical c. 2 It gives power to the Commissioners to exercise that And that is meerly Ecclesiastical being only pro reformatione morum c. The King by his Prerogative having Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction may grant Commissions to determine such things 5 Rep. Ecclesiastical Cases fol. 8. And Richardson said The Statute de Articulis Cleri gave cognizance to the Ordinary for laying violent hands on a Clerk But you affirm That all is given to the Commissioners and thereby they should take all power from the Ordinary But by the Court the Commissioners cannot meddle for a stroke in Church-Land nor pro subtractione Decimarum And yet they have express Authority by their Commission for by that course all the Ordinaries in England should be to no purpose And so upon much debate a Prohibition was granted On an Arrest on Christmas-day it was said by Richardson Chief Justice That upon Arresting a man upon Christmas-day going to Church in the Church-yard He who made the Arrest may be censured in the Star-Chamber for such an Offence Quod Nota. It was also said by Richardson that if a man submit himself out of the Diocess to any Suit he can never have a Prohibition because the Suit was not according to the Statute 23 H. 8. commenced within the proper Diocâ—ss as it was Adjudged Quod Nota It the Ecclesiastical Court proceed in a matter that is meer Spiritual and pertinent to their Court according to the Civil Law although their proceedings are against the Rules of the Common Law yet a Prohibition does not lie As if they refuse a single Witness to prove a Will for the cognizance of that belongs to them And Agreed also That if a man makes a Will but appoints no Executor that that is no Will but void But if the Ordinary commits the Administration with that annexed the Legatary to whom any Legacy is devised by such Will may sue the Administrator for their Legacies in the Ecclesiastical Court Note P. 4. Jac. B. R. Peep's Case a Prohibition was denied where they in the Ecclesiastical Court refused a single Witness in proof of payment of a Legacy After Prohibition if the Temporal Judge shall upon sight of the Libel conceive that the Spiritual Court ought to determine the cause he is to award a Consultation And by the Staâ— of 50 E. 3. c. 4. the Ecclesiastical Judge may proceed by vertue of the Consultation once granted notwithstanding any other Prohibition afterwards if the matter in the Libel be not enlarged or changed B. Administrator of A. makes C. his Executor and dies C. is sued in the Ecclesiastical Court to make an Account of the goods of A. the first Intestate And C. now moves for a Prohibition and had it for an Executor shall not be compel'd to an Account But an Administrator shall be compel'd to Account before the Ordinary Resolved by the Court That a Prohibition shall not be awarded to the Admiral or Ecclesiastical Courts after Sentence Also that a Plea was there pleaded and refused which was Triable at Common Law Note A Prohibition was awarded upon the Statute of 23 H. 8. because the party was sued out of the Diocâ—ss And now a Consultation was prayed because the Interiour Court had remitted that Cause to the Arches and their Jurisdiction also yet a Consultation was denied A Suit was in the Ecclesiastical Court and Sentence passed for one with Costs and nine months after the Costs are Assest and Taxed and then comes a Pardon of 21 Jac. which relates before the taxing of the Costs But afterwards the Sentence and that Pardon was pleaded and allowed in discharge of the Costs Then W. who had recovered sues an Appeal and P. brought a Prohibition and well and no Consultation shall be awarded because by the Court that Pardon relating before the Taxation of Cost had discharged them As 5. Rep. 51. Hall's Case B. and Two others sue upon three several Libels in the Ecclesiastical Court and they joyn in a Prohibition And by the Court that is not good But they ought to have had three several Prohibitions and therefore a Consultation was granted Mich. 26 27 Eliz. C. B. If A. Libels against B. for Three things by one Libel B. may have One or Three Prohibitions Note Dyor 171. 13. By the Statute of 25 H. 8. cap. 19. Appeals to Rome being prohibited it is Ordained That for default of Justice in any of the Courts of the Archbishops of this Realm c. it shall be lawful to Appeal to the King in his High Court of Chancery and thereupon a Commission shall be granted c. And by a Proviso towards the end of that Statute an Appeal is granted to the King in Chancery on Sentences in places exempt in such manner as was used before to the See of Rome So that this Court grounded on the said Commission is properly as well as vulgarly called The Court of Delegates for that the Judges thereof are Delegated to fit by virtue of the Kings said Commission under his Great Seal upon an Appeal to him in Chancery and that specially in Three Causes 1 When a Sentence is given in any Ecclesiastical Cause by the Archbishop or his Official 2 When any Sentence is given in any Ecclesiastical Cause in places exempt 3 When a Sentence is given in the high Court of Admiralty in Suits or Actions Civil and Maritime according to the Civil Law That this Court of Delegates may Excommunicate was Resolved by all the Judges in the Archbishop of Canterbury's Case They may also commit or grant Letters of Administration This Court of Delegates is the highest Court for Civil Affairs that concern the Church for the Jurisdiction whereof it was provided 25 H. 8. That it shall be lawful for any Subject of England in case of defect of Justice in the Courts of the Archbishop of Canterbury to Appeal to the King's Majesty in his Court of Chancery and
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
Faggots be mistaken yet if it appears that he made his Suggestion according to the Copy of the Libel given him by his Proctor no Consultation shall be brought for by the Statute of 2 H. 5. he ought to have a true Copy of the Libel 30. The Case was where A. sued B. for Tithes within the Parish of C. B. said they were within the Parish of D. and the Parson of D. came pro interesse suo and they proceed there to Sentence Question if in such a Parish or such a Parish shall be tried by the Law of the Land or of the Church Wray said It was Triable by the Common Law Fenner said the Pope hath not distinguished of Parishes but Ordained that Tithes shall be paid within the Parish 31. K. â—arson of S. sued C. in the Spiritual Court for Tithes of certain Lands in the Parish of S. D. Plaintiff in the Prohibition came pro interesse suo and said there was a Custome within the Parish of S. that the Parson of H. shall have Tithes 13 Cheeses of the Lands in S. and in recompence thereof the Parson of S. had 13 Cheeses for the Tithes of H. It was said the Right of Tithes were in question and not the Bounds of the Parish and therefore no Prohibition and of that Opinion was the Court and a Consultation awarded 32. If an Administration be granted to A. where it ought not to be granted to him and after the Administration be Repealed and granted to B. for that he is the next of Kin In this case B. may sue A. in the Ecclesiastical Court to Account for the profits of the Goods and Chattels of the Deceased during his time and no Prohibition to be granted for B. cannot have an Action of Trespass against A. nor hath he any remedy for them at the Common Law 33. A Parson may sue in the Ecclesiastical Court for a Modus Decimandi and no Prohibition shall be granted for it is in the nature of Tithes But a Prescription cannot be tried in the Ecclesiastical Court for that it ought to be tried by a Jury which cannot be there Yet if a Parson Prescribe to have Tithes of things not Tithable as of Rents of Houses he may sue for that in the Ecclesiastical Court and no Prohibition lies yet no Tithes de jure ought to be paid of them So he may sue in the Ecclesiastical Court for the Tithes of great Trees which he claims by Prescription and no Prohibition lies yet de jure they are not Tithable Quaere 9 H. 6. 46. 34. If there be a Custome that after the Grass is cut and set into Grass-cocks the Tenth Cock be assigned to the Parson and that by the Custome it shall be lawful for him to make the same into Hay upon the Land and the Owner of the Land disturb him from making the same he may sue for that in the Ecclesiastical Court and no Prohibition shall be granted for that is incident to the Custome to come there to make the same into Hay Also the proper place to sue for a Legacy is the Ecclesiastical Court for that it is not any Debt but only due by the Will If A. do owe to B. five Marks and he Devise by his Will that whereas he doth owe five Marks to B. his Executor shall make it 10 l. The Suit for that 10 l. may be in the Ecclesiastical Court for that is not any Addition to the five Marks but a new Sum given in satisfaction of the five Marks and so no part of the 10 l. any Debt but only a Legacy Also if a man devise a Rent out of his Stock and House which he hath for years the Devisee may sue for that Rent in the Ecclesiastical Court for that it issues out of a Chattel and no remedy for it at the Common Law If a man possessed of a Lease for years Devise that his Executor shall out of the profits thereof pay 20 l. to each of his Daughters at their full Age the Executor may be sued in the Ecclesiastical Court to put in Sureties to pay the Legacies and no Prohibition shall be granted for that is to issue out of a Chattel 35. If there be a Question between two persons touching several Grants which of them shall be Register of the Bishop's Court that shall not be tried in the Bishop's Court but at Common Law for although the Subjectum circa quod be Spiritual yet the Office it self is Temporal Also if a man set forth his Tithes by severance of Nine parts from the Tenth and after carry away the Tenth part the Parson cannot sue for that in the Ecclesiastical Court for that by the severance of the Nine parts it did become a Chattel for which he might have his Action of Trespass 36. It is Reported That if a Suit be in the Ecclesiastical Court against a Woman for exercising the Trade of a Midwife without License of the Ordinary contrary to the Canons a Prohibition lies for that is not any Spiritual Function whereof they have cognizance And in this case Prohibition was granted to the Court of Audience 37. The Ecclesiastical Court may not try the Bounds of a Parish and therefore if Suit be there on that matter a Prohibition lies So if the Question there be whether such a Church be a Parochial Church or but a Chappel of Ease a Prohibition also lies In the Case between Elie vicar of Alderburne in the Country of Wilts and Cooke Prohibition was granted and thereupon Issue joyned whether several Parishes and tried by Verdict to be one Parish 38. Where a man sued for a Legacy in the Ecclesiastical Court against an Executor and he there pleaded that he had not Assets save only to pay the Debts and the said Court disallow'd of that plea a Prohibition was granted 39. If a man sues in the Ecclesiastical Court to have an Account for the profits of a Benefice a Prohibition lies for that it belongs to the Common Law But if the Suit be for the profits taken during the time of Sequestration no Prohibition lies 40. In Worts and Clyston's Case where the Plaintiff sued for Tithes in the Ecclesiastical Court by virtue of a Lease made by the Vicar of T. for three years The Defendant prayed to be discharged of Tithes by a former Lease The Plaintiff in the Ecclesiastical Court prayed a Prohibition to stay his own Suit there It was granted by the Court because they are not to meddle with the trial of Leases or real Contracts there although they have Jurisdiction of the Original cause viz. the Tithes 41. In Collier's Case upon the endowment of a Vicarage upon an Appropriation it was Ordained by the Bishop That the Vicar should pay yearly 20 l. to the Precentor in the Cathedral Church of S. to the use of the Vicars Chorals of the said Church It was held
by the Court that this is a Pension for which Suit shall be in the Ecclesiastical Court 42. In the Case between Draiton and Cotterill against Smith for a Prohibition it was said by Coke Chief Justice That if the Parson sues in the Ecclesiastical Court for Tithes and the other pleads a Modus to the Vicar this Modus now can never come in question by this Suit between the Parson and him for Tithes due unto the Parson but this is to be questioned and determined there in the Ecclesiastical Court to whom the Tithes do belong whether to the Parson or to the Vicar And this hath been divers times Adjudged in this Court and in the Court of C. B. in Bushe's Case for Pankeridge-Church and it hath always been clearly held That if the Right of Tithes come into question between the Parson and the Vicar to which of them the same doth belong This is a Suit properly belonging to the Ecclesiastical Court to hear and determine the same and in such case they are not there to be ousted of their Jurisdiction And this being now a Question between the Parson and the Vicar to which of them Tithes did belong for which the Modus is alledged to be paid therefore no Prohibition is to be granted in this case though there be a Modus suggested to be paid unto the Vicar for all Tithes here due to the Vicar and Parson the Parson suing for the Tithes there as due unto himself and not unto the Vicar And so the Question is as touching the Right of Tithes between the Parson and the Vicar which is a Suit proper for the Ecclesiastical Court And this is to be observed for a sure Rule in such a Case never to have a Prohibition granted The Reason of this is because that the Modus suggested to be paid cannot come in question upon this Suggestion of this payment unto the Vicar but only the Right of Tithes to whom they belong whether to the Parson or to the Vicar and divers Judgments have been accordingly given in the like Case And so by the Rule of the whole Court a Prohibition was denied 43. Whether and how far and in what manner the Ecclesiastical Court may exercise its Jurisdiction in cognizance of a Modus Decimandi is at large argued and debated at the Bench in Harding's Case against Goseling where in a Prohibition to stay Proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Court upon a Suit there for Tithes where G. Libelled against H. for a Modus Decimandi being not paid and there H. alledged another Modus Decimandi which Allegation the Ecclesiastical Court refusing to admit a Prohibition was thereupon prayed in B. R. In this case Doderidge Justice said That the Modus Decimandi is as well due to the Parson as Tithe is at the Common Law and if the Parson do Libel in the Ecclesiastical Court for a Modus Decimandi as he may do and another Modus is there alledged and this refused the Ecclesiastical Court may try and determine this matter touching this Modus and no cause to grant a Prohibition for this Refusal But if the Ecclesiastical Court doth deny to admit the Allegation for the Modus upon this ground only because the practice of the Ecclesiastical Law and our Law do differ in the manner of Proof as for default of two Witnesses one being allowed at Common Law but not at the Ecclesiastical Law In this Case a Prohibition is grantable but otherwise the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction may as well try the Modus Decimandi as the Right of Tithes But if a Parson doth Libel there for Tithes in kind and a Modus is alledged and there pleaded but refused to be admitted or allowed in that Case a Prohibition is grantable upon such Refusal Haughton Justice In this Case a Prohibition ought to be granted otherwise in such cases upon every small difference alledged in the Modus that Court may try and determine the validity of every Modus Decimandi which the Ecclesiastical Court cannot do by the Law for that Court is not permitted by our Law to try a Modus Decimandi and therefore that Court proceeding to try this Modus which is determinable by Common Law and not in the Ecclesiastical Court a Prohibition ought to be granted But Doderidge Contra No Prohibition is in this case to be granted for the Ecclesiastical Court may well try and determine this Modus by that Law The Libel being there originally for the Modus But if touching the Proof of this Modus as aforesaid the difference of proceedings between the two Laws one Witness being sufficient at the Common Law not so at the Ecclesiastical be the ground of the Refusal of the Allegation then a Prohibition is to be awarded so is 1 R. 3. and 10 H. 7. but if the Ecclesiastical Court only proceed to try the Modus for which the Libel was there this by Proof may well be there examined Croke Justice at this time delivered no opinion at all in this Case Afterwards this Case being moved again Doderidge If a Parson do Libel in the Ecclesiastical Court for a Modus whereas in truth there was no Modus but only a composition of late time between the Parson and the Parishioners to pay so much yearly for Tithes and not otherwise In this Case because that the Common Law and the Ecclesiastical do differ in the point of Prescription Ten years continuance being a good Prescription by that Law but not so by Ours in this case a Prohibition is grantable Houghton A Modus Decimandi is properly to be tried and determined by the Common Law and not in the Ecclesiastical Court for that these two Laws differ in many things as in point of proof of a Modus and in the point of Prescription Croke A Special Modus being Libelled for in the Ecclesiastical Court is there to be tried Doderidge If the Ecclesiastical Court doth refuse to allow of the Proof allowable at the Common Law a Prohibition lies to stay proceedings for Tithes there And where there is a Modus if they refuse to pay this the Parson may sue for this Modus in the Ecclesiastical Court and this is to be tried there But if in such case where there is a Modus if the Parson will Libel to have his Tithe in kind and the other shews there this Modus which they will not allow of a Prohibition lies and this shall be tried by the Common Law The Court declares That they would see the Suggestion and therefore by the Rule of the Court they were to make their Suggestion and to shew the same to the Court as they would stand unto it and in the mean time the Suit in the Ecclesiastical Court to be stayed 44. To conclude this Chapter it may not be impertinent to enquire when and how the Canon Law was introduced into this Realm of England In the Case of a Commendam that was Adjudged in Ireland it was observed That after the
but by death or resignation for otherwise Dilapidations should be in the time of the Successor and he cannot maintain Hospitality 8. The wasting of the Woods belonging to a Bishoprick is in the Law understood as a Dilapidation as was formerly hinted Note By Coke Chief Justice a Bishop is only to fell Timber for Building for Fuel and for his other necessary occasions and there is no Bishoprick but the same is on the Foundation of the King the Woods of the Bishoprick are called the Dower of the Church and these are alwaies carefully to be preserved and if he fell and destroy this upon a motion thereof made to us says the Lord Coke we will grant a Prohibition And to this purpose there was a great Cause which concerned the Bishop of Duresm who had divers Cole-Mines and would have cut down his Timber-Trees for the maintenance and upholding of his Works and upon motion in Parliament concerning this for the King Order was there made that the Judges should grant a Prohibition for the King and we will here says he revive this again for there a Prohibition was so granted And so upon the like motion made unto us in the like case we will also for the King grant a Prohibition by the Statute of 35 E. 1. If a Bishop cut down Timber-Tres for any cause unless it be for necessary Reparations as if he sell the same unto a Stranger we will grant a Prohibition And to this purpose I have seen said he a good Record in 25 E. 1. where complaint was made in Parliament of the Bishop of Duresm as before for cutting of Timber-Trees for his Cole-Mines and there agreed that in such a case a Prohibition did lie and upon motion made a Prohibition was then granted and the Reason then given because that this Timber was the Dower of the Church and so it shall be also in the case of a Dean and Chapter in which cases upon this ground we will grant as he said Prohibitions and the whole Court agreed with him herein Also in Sakar's case against whom Judgment being given for Simony yet he being by assent of parties to continue in the Vicarage for a certain time this time being now past and he still continuing in possession and committing of great Waste by pulling down the Glass-windows and pulling up of Planks the Court granted a Prohibition and said That this is the Dower of the Church and we will here prohibit them if they fell and waste the Timber of the Church or if they pull down the houses And Prohibition to prevent Dilapidations and to stay the doing of any Waste was in that case awarded accordingly 9. In a Prohibition the Case was this A Vicar lops and cuts down Trees growing in the Church-yard the Churchwardens hinder him in the carriage of the same away and they being in Trial of this Suit The Churchwardens by their Counsel moved the Court for a Prohibition to the Vicar to stay him from felling any more Coke Chief Justice This is a good cause of Deprivation if he fell down Timber-Trees and Wood this is a Dilapidation and by the Resolution in Parliament a Prohibition by the Law shall be granted if a Bishop fells down Wood and Timber-Trees The whole Court agreed clearly in this to grant here a Prohibition to the Vicar to inhibit him not to make spoil of the Timber this being as it is called in Parliament the Endowment of the Church Coke we will also grant a Prohibition to restrain Bishops from felling the Wood and Timber-Trees of their Churches And so in this principal Case by the Rule of the Court a Prohibition was granted CHAP. XVI Of Patrons de jure Patronatus 1. What Patron properly signifies in the Law the Original thereof and how subject to corruption 2. In what case the Bishop may proceed de jure Patronatus and how the Process thereof is to be executed 3. How the Admittance ought to be in case the same Clerk be presented by two Patrons to the same Benefice 4. In what cases of Avoydance Notice thereof ought to be given to the Patron and what course in that case the Bishop is to take in case he knews not the true Patron 5. Several Appellations in Law importing Patron 6. How many waies a Church may become Litigious 7. Whether an Advowson may be extended 8. In what case the Patron may Present where the King took not his turn upon the first Lapse 9. A Patron may not take any benefit of the Glâ—be during a Vacancy 10. In what case the Patron shall not by bringing the Writ of Qua. Imp. against the Bishop prevent the incurring of the Lapse to the Ordinary 11. The King is Patron Paramount and Patron of all the Bishopricks in England The Charter of King John whereby Bishopricks from being Donative became Elective 1. PATRON by the Canon Law as also in the Feuds wherewith our Common Law doth herein accord doth signifie a person who hath of right in him the free Donation or Gift of a Benefice grounded originally upon the bounty and beneficence of such as Founded Erected or Endowed Churches with a considerable part of their Revenue De Jur. Patronat Decretal Such were called Patroni à patrocinando and properly considering the Primitive state of the Church but now according to the Mode of this degenerating Age as improperly as Mons à movendo for by the Merchandize of their Presentations they now seem as if they were rather the Hucksters than Patrons of the Church But from the beginning it was not so when for the encouragement of Lay-persons to works of so much Piety it was permitted them to present their Clerks where themselves or their Ancestors had expressed their Bounty in that kind whence they worthily acquir'd this Right of Jus Patronatus which the very Canon Law for that reason will not understand as a thing meerly Spiritual but rather as a Temporal annexed to what is Spiritual Quod à Supremis Pontificibus proditum est Laicos habere Jus Praesentandi Clericos Ordinariis hoc singulari favore sustinetur ut allectentur Laici invitentur inducantur ad constructionem Ecclesiarum Nec omni ex parte Jus Patronatus Spirituale censeri debet sed Temporale potius Spirituali annexum Gloss in c. piae mentis 16. q. 7. Coras ad Sacerdot mater par 1. cap. 2. Yet not Temporal in a Merchandable sense unless the Presentor and Presentee will run the hazard of perishing together for prevention whereof provision is made by that Solemn Oath enjoyn'd by the Fortieth Canon of the Ecclesiastical Constitutions whereof there was no need in former Ages less corrupt when instead of selling Presentations they purchased Foundations and instead of erecting Idol-Temples for Covetousness is Idolatry they Founded Built and Endowed Churches for the Worship of the True God Patroni in jure Pontificio dicuntur qui alicujus Ecclesiae extruendae c. Authores
the Common Law makes Avoidance Actual if the Patron will 12. Proceedings being in the Ecclesiastical Court to remove an Incumbent after Induction a Prohibition was granted to stay the same One Oliver sued a Quare Impedit against Hussey and while that depended Hussey was Instituted and Inducted and Oliver sued Hussey in the Spiritual Court to remove him Noy pray'd a Prohibition First because he may not sue in Two Courts for the same cause Secondly because it is a Suit after Induction and upon that last point the Court granted a Prohibition 13. In the Case of Dennys against Drake it was said That if a man be Instituted to a Benefice he ought to pay the First-Fruits before Induction by the Statute But by the Common Law it was otherwise for he is not to have the Temporalties until Induction and therefore he could not pay the First-Fruits but another person cannot be Presented to his Benefice during the continuance of the First Institution And an Institution to a Second Benefice is a present Avoidance of the First 14. G. Parson of the Church of E. did by Instrument in Writing Resign his Benefice before a Notary Publick and others into the hands of the Bishop and the Resignation was absolute and voluntary and to the use of M. and B. or either of them And it was further inâ—erted in the said Instrument of Resignation Protestatione sub Conditione quod si aliqui eorum non Admissi fuerant per assentum Episcop infra Sex menses quod tunc haec praesens Resignatio mea vacua pro nulla habeatur nunc prout tunc tunc prout nunc and Cestuy que use came within the time limited to the Bishop and did offer to Resign to him which the Bishop refused to accept c. Crooke for the Plaintiff Forasmuch as the Plaintiff may Resign on Condition as well as a particular Tenant may Surrender upon Condition And Two Parsons may Exchange and if the Estate be Executed on the one part and not on the other that Parson whose part was not Executed may have his Benefice again as it is Adjudged in the 46 E. 3. But Coke Sollic and Godfrey were on the contrary Opinion For that the Incumbent may not Transfer his Benefice to another without Presentation as appears in the recited Case of 46 E. 3. Also the Resignation is not good and the Condition void because it is against the nature of a Resignation which must be Absolute Sponte pure Simpliciter and is not like to a Condition in Law as in the said Case of Exchange of 46 E. 3. for the Law doth annex a Condition to it but a collateral Condition cannot be annext by the parties themselves Also this is an act Judicial to which a Condition cannot be annex'd no more than an Ordinary may Admit upon Condition or a Judgment be confessed on Condition which are Judicial Acts. But admitting the Condition to be good yet a new Induction ought to be made by the Ordinary for the Church became one time void and is not like to the Case in 2 R. 2. Quare Impedit 143. Where Sentence of Deprivation was given and the Sentence presently reversed by Appeal there needs no new Institution for that the Church was never void And upon Arguments given in Writing by the Civilians to the Judges the Judgment was entered Quod querens nihil capiat per Billam 15. In Rud's Case against the Bishop of Lincoln it was inter alia Resolved by the Court That when one having a good Title to Present and an Incumbent by Usurpation is Admitted Instituted and Inducted and after that the Patron Presents and the Bishop refuse and after the Patron recover and then he which had this Presentation exhibits it to the Bishop this is now a good Presentation and the Patron cannot revoke or give him a new Presentation But if the Patron before the death of the Incumbent make Letters of Presentation that is void because he had no Title to Present 16. Induction is nothing else but the putting of the Parson into Actual possession of the Church and Glebe which are the Temporalties of the Church or the making of a Clerk compleat Incumbent of a Church This is Induction and it is by Letters from the Bishop of the Diocess directed to all and singular the Clerks Rectors Vicars c. within the said Diocess to put the Clerk or his lawful Attorney for him and in his name into the Actual possession of the Church to which he had been Presented and Instituted together with all the profits dues members and appurtenances whatsoever thereunto belongings or appertaining of the due execution whereof a Certificate endorsed on the Instrument of Induction and Subscrib'd by a competent number of Witnesses ought to be returned to the said Bishop or Ordinary who may appoint the Archdeacon to give Induction yet by Prescription it seems the Dean and Chapter of Pauls as also the Dean and Chapter of Lichfield may give Induction It is also said That an Induction made by a Bishop is void where it belongs to a Dean and Chapter by Prescription But an Induction by the Patron is void yet the King 's Grantee of a Free-Chappel shall be put into possession by the Sheriff of the County and not by the Ordinary of the place 17. This Induction is not a Spiritual but a Temporal Act and therefore 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 And after the Incumbent is thus Inducted he may then plead any Plea in Bar of a Quare Impedit brought against him which concerneth his Possession and so may plead a Release in Bar because he hath the Freehold in him which shall not be lost without his Answer For by this Induction or being led into the Church he hath as it were Livery and Seisin thereof given him as the lawful Incumbent by delivery of the Keys of the Church to him and that by order of the Bishop whereof Publication is then made to the Parishioners by ringing one or more the Bells And albeit a Parson hath his Presentation Admission and Institution and that upon a lawful Title yet he is not a possessor of the Parsonage according to the Letter of the Law till his Induction Which Induction is as aforesaid a Temporal Act and as the Opinion of the Court was in Hutton's Case Triable by Temporal Law and since by Induction the Church is Full it is not to be avoided but by a Suit of Quare Impedit or the like at the Common Law and not to be undermined by alledging Insufficiency in the Institution in the Court Ecclesiastical for that may come in question upon the Trial of the Induction at the Common
in such Vacancy for the succeeding Parson shall have the Tithes happening during the Vacancy deducting the charges of collecting the same and serving the Cure during such Vacancy Also if an Incumbent be removed in a Quare Impedit the Plaintiff shall not have the main profits And an Incumbent being in by Usurpation he cannot be removed but by a Quare Impedit 4. An Incumbent Resident that keeps a Curate is obliged to read the Common Prayers in his Parish-Church once a month in his own person on pain of forfeiting Five pounds for every omission 5. In Thomson's Case where T. Libelled for Dilapidations against the Executors of his Predecessors and Henden moved for a Prohibition for that that T. is not Incumbent for his Presentation was by the King ratione Minoritatis of one C. and the King had not any such Title to Present for where the King mistakes his Title the Presentation is void and he is no Incumbent 6. Rep. 26. Green's Case And Sir Tho. Gawdy's Case where the King Presented jure Prerogat when he had another Title and the present Action was adjudged void and whether he is Incumbent or not that shall be tried But by the Court a Prohibition was denied because that he was now Incumbent And the Judges would not take notice of the ill Presentation of the King But in case of Simony the Statute makes the Church void and then the Judges may take notice of that and grant a Prohibition if the Parson sues for Tithes But if a Quare Impedit be brought and appears that the King had not cause of Presentation then a Prohibition may be granted which was also granted by all the other Justices Mich. 3 Car. C. B. Thomson 's Case Hetley's Rep. 6. In Dame Chichleys Case against the Bishop of Ely it was said by Henden That an Incumbent by the Statute of 25 Ed. 3. c. 7. cannot plead quatenus such unless he be Incumbent ante diem impetrationis Brevis unless he be Incumbent pendente lite he cannot plead c. Hutton If one be Presented Instituted and Admitted before the Writ and Inducted after and before his Pleader he may plead well 7. A Libel was against H. Vicar of S. in the High Commission-Court at York because that he was not Resident but lived at Doncaster and neglected to serve his Cure and that divers times he when the High Court visited spoke so loud that he was offensive to many and being reproved for that he gave a Scornful Answer And that there was one Wright in the Parish who had a Seat in the Church and that the Vicar would Spit in abundance into the said Seat and that when Wright and his Wife were there And that in his Sermon he made Jests and said That Christ was laid in a Manger because he had no mony to take up a Chamber but that was the knavery of the Inn-keeper he being then in contention with an Inn-keeper in the Parish And that in time of Divine Service he thrust open the door of Wright's Seat and said That he and his Wife would sit there in disturbance of Divine Service And for that a Prohibition was prayed and granted for the High Commission cannot punish Non Residency nor breaking the Seat in Divine Service And the other were things for which he shall be bound to the good behaviour and the Complaint ought to be to the Ordinary 8. Note by Tanfield that by the Statute of 13 Eliz. cap. 20. of Non-Residency That if the Parson be Absent 80 daies in a year although it be at several times viz. ten daies at one time and twenty daies at another time until eighty daies c. That is within the Statute by which it hath been Adjudged 9. The personal Residence of all Ecclesiastical persons on their Cures respectively is a duty so incumbent on them for the better discharge of their Sacred Function the prevention of Dilapidations and the maintenance of Hospitality that it is enacted That every Spiritual person promoted to any Archdeaconry Deanary or Dignity in any Church Cathedral or Collegiate or Beneficed with any Parsonage or Vicarage shall be personally Resident and abiding in at or upon such Dignity Prebend or Benefice or one of them at the least and that if any such person wilfully Absent himself from his said Benefice c. by the space of a Month at one time or two Months at several times in any one year to be accounted at several times that such person so absenting shall forfeit ten pounds for every such default It is also further provided That the Parson or Vicar shall be Resident in and upon his Parsonage or Vicarage-House if he have any and not at any other House in the Parish but if he hath no House on his Glebe or be removed without fraud for his Health or without fraud Imprisoned or be beyond Sea in his Majesties Service or without fraud abide in any University within this Realm to study or be a Chaplain qualified for Plurality by the Statute of 21 H. 8. either of these may excuse his Residence for the time Also the King may give a License to any of his own Chaplains to be Non-Resident And any Ecclesiastical person may be Non-Resident for such time as without fraud he is attending a Suit in Chancery There are also other Chaplains of other persons that are qualified for Non-Residence which for brevities sake are here omitted And where a Chaplain is qualified in respect of his Service for Plurality if his Lord die or be Attainted or be removed from his place it will not it seems suffice that he be Resident only upon one of his Livings without the King 's Special License with a Non obstante 10. The Canon made by Cardinal Otho and afterwards Confirmed and de novo Established by Othobon seems very severe as to Vicars in case of Non-Residence for in their Constitutions it is Ordained That if any Non-Resident shall receive the profits or Fruits of a Vicarage he shall restore the one Moity thereof to the Church one half of the other Moity to the Poor of that Parish and the rest to the Archdeacon of the place if he discharge his duty in making a diligent Enquiry yearly herein and shall forthwith make it known to the Bishop and whoever shall disobey the Premisses by one Month shall also be deprived of his other Benefices if he have any and be rendered incapable of ever having that Vicarage again or any other Benefice for Three years And in case the Archdeacon shall neglect what herein is enjoyned him he shall be deprived of that part allotted him as aforesaid and suspended ab ingressu Ecclesiae Constit Othobon de Residentia Vicariorum 11. The Oath of Residence on a Vicarage is as followeth viz. Ego A. B. juro Quod ero Residens in Vicaria mea nisi aliter dispensatum fuerit à Dioecesano meo What
alter not the Prescription And he cited a Cause which was in this Court argued at Barr and afterwards at Bench between Cooper and Andrews Mich. 10 Jac. Rot. 1023. for the Park of Cowhurst Vid. 32 E. 1. Fitz. Avowry 240. 5 E. 2. Fitz. Annuity 44. 20 E. 4. 14. 14 E. 4. 4. But this Case was adjudged for the Plaintiff Quod stet Prohibitio and that which is by the name of Park is for the Land and is annexed to the Land by the name of Park if the Prescription had been to pay a Buck or a Doe out of the Park then it would alter the Case But it is general and had been paid also after the Park disparked And the Case of Cooper and Andrews was a shoulder of every third Deer that was killed in the Park and two shillings in money and that Case was never Adjudged 32. V. brought Trespass against T. Clerk Vicar of A. for taking Bona Catalla and count for the taking of two Carectac glaci Anglicè Wood And upon Not guilty pleaded the Jury gave this Special Verdict viz. for the Moity of a Load of Wood Si videbitur Curiae quod Decimae glaci ne sunt Minutae Decimae then the Defendant Not guilty but Si sunt Minutae Decimae then he is Guilty This Case was argued at Barr by Bridgman and Henden Serjeants And the Court Vnement agreed That for ought that here appears this Verdict being found without any Circumstance that this Wood shall be taken to be Minutae Decimae It was agreed by Henden That if it had been found Wood growing in a Garden then Minutae Decimae And it was agreed by the Court That it might have been so found that it should be Majores Decimae and Praedial as if all the profits of the Parsonage consist of such Tithes And so of other things which in their own nature are Minutae may become Majores if all the profit of the Parish consist therein As in some Countries a great part of the Land within the Parish is Hemp or Lime or Hâ—ps there they are Great Tithes and so it may be of Wool and Lambs Pasch 3 Jac. B. R. in Beddingfield's Case Farmer to the Dean and Chapter of Norwich who had the Parsonage Impropriate and had used to have Tithes of Grain and Hay and the Vicar had the Small Tithes And a Field of 40 Acres was planted with Saffron and it was Adjudged That the Tithes thereof belong to the Vicar There was a Case in this Court as it was vouched by Henden 3 Jac. between Potman a Knight and another And the Question was for Hops in Kent and Adjudged that they were great Tithes but as for Hops in Orchards or Gardens these were Resolved to belong to the Vicar â—s small Tithes There was a Case in this Court for Tithe of Weild which is used for Dying and that was in Kent and it was sown with the Corn and after the Corn is reaped the next year without any other manurance the said Land brings forth and produces Weild And that was a Special Verdict whether the Vicar shall have the Tithe of it or the Parson but one of the parties died before any Judgment And if Tobacco be planted here yet the Tithes thereof are Minutae Decimae And all these new things viz. Saffron Hops Weild c. if it doth not appear by material Circumstances to the contrary shall be taken as Minutae Decimae And so this Case was Adjudged for the Defendant 33. In the Case of a Prohibition in case of a Libel in the Ecclesiastical Court for the Tithes of Cattels the Plaintiff alledged that those Cattel of which Tithes were demanded are for his Dairy and for the Plough and Winch being only present said That the Parson shall not have Tithes of such Cattel but if he breed up Cattel to sell it is otherwise Secondly the Plaintiff in the Prohibition alledged That time beyond memory the Parishioners had paid a halâ—â—â—â—or the Tithe of a Calf and a peny for a Cow and that upon a day limited they use to bring this to the Church and to pay this to the Vicar and now the Vicar had Libelled in the Ecclesiastical Court against them to compel them to bring it home to his housâ— And Winch said That this is no occasion of a Prohibition for they agree in the Mâ—dus but vary in the place of payment and this is not matter of substance and for that reason no Prohibition will lie 34. B. brought a Prohibition against C. and alledged that the Dean and Chapter of D. was seized of the Mannor and the Defendant being Vicâ—r sued in the Ecclesiastical Court to have Tithes and shewed that time beyond Memory c. they had held that Discharged of Tithes for them and their Tenants and that they lett that to the Plaintiff And it was moved by Henden Serjeant That the Dean and Chapter are a Body Politick and Temporal which are not capable of this Prescription in non Decimando Coke 2. the Bishop of Winchester's Case Hobart said That the Dean and Chapter are a Body Spiritual and are annexed to the Bishop throughout all England and if the Bishop is capable of that as it is plain he is then the Dean and Chapter is also capable of that which was granted by Hutton but Winch doubted for he said That he-may be a Lay-man and for that the Plaintiff ought to averr That he is a Spiritual person Hutton confessed That the Dean may be a Lay-man as was the Dean of Durham by special License and Dispensation of the King but that is rare and a Special Case and is not common and general and therefore not to be brought as an Example which was also granted by Hobart Chief Justice and upon that day was given over to the Defendant to shew cause wherefore the Prohibition shall not be granted 35. A. Libelled against W. in the Ecclesiastical Court for the Herbâ—ge-Tithe of young Cattel sâ—il for a peny for every one And Hitcham moved for a Prohibition and said that he ought not to have Tithes if they are young Beasts brought up for the Cart or Plough And so it hath been Adjudged As it a Parson prescribe to have Tithes for Hedgingstuff he cannot because that preserves the Land out of which he had Tithes and then a Parson Libels for Tithes of an Orchard for that it was a young Orchard and the Custome of the place was to pay 4 d. for an Orchard Hitcham said There is not any such difference between old and new Orchards for iâ— the Custome be that he shall pay 4 d. for every Orchard it will reach to the new Orchard And then he Libels for a Hearth-peny for the Wood burnt in his house Hutten said The Hearth-peny is more doubtful for it is a Custome in the North parts to give an Hearth-peny for Estovers burnt for
not averr that that Hay was growing upon Greenskips c. And an Exception was taken by Henden 1. That the Exception is double the Custome and the Common Law And by Yelverton That is not material for you may have twenty Suggestions to maintain the Suggestion of the Court but Richardson was against that that a Suggestion might be double here for the Suggestion of the Common Law is a Surplusage As in Farmer and Norwich's Case here lately One Prescribes to be discharged of Tithes where the Law discharged him and so was discharged by the Common Law Second Exception is That he doth not apply the Custome to himself in the Suggestion for he that lays the Custome does not shew that the Hay grew upon the Skips upon which a Plough might turn it self and for this cause by the whole Court the Suggestion is naught And here Richardson moved how that Two should joyn in a Prohibition Yelverton If they are joyned in the Libel they may joyn in the Prohibition and that is the common practice of the Kings Bench. Richardson The wrong to one in the Ecclesiastical Court by the Suit cannot be a wrong to the other Hutton They may joyn in the Writ but they ought to sever in the Declaration to which Harvey agreed Yelverton The Prohibition is the Suit of the King and he joyns tant as in a Writ Richardson But it is as the Suit of the party is and if any joyn here I think good cause of a Consultation It is against the profit of the Court to suffer many to joyn And it is usual in the Case of Customes of a Parish in debate to order Proceedings in the two Prohibitions and that to bind all the Parish and Parson And it was said by them all That the Consideration of making Hay is a good Discharge because it is more than they are bound to do 53. F. sued V. for Tithes of Hay which was upon Land that was Heath-ground and for Tithes of Pidgeons And by Richardson If it was meer Waste-ground and yield nothing it is excused by the Statute of payment of Tithes for seven years But if Sheep were kept upon it or if it yield any Profit which yield Tithes then Tithe ought to be paid As the Case in Dyer And for the Pidgeons which were consumed in the House of the Owner he said and for Fish in a Pond Conies Deer it is clear that no Tithes of them ought to be paid of Right wherefore then of Pidgeons quod nemo dedixit And a day was given to shew cause wherefore a Prohibition should not be granted And the Court agreed That it was Felony to take Pidgeons out of a Dove-house And afterwards a Prohibition was granted but principally That the Pidgeons were spent by the Owner But by Henden They shall be Tithable if they be sold 54. P. the Vicar of Eaton in the County of Oxon Sues C. the Parson Impropriate in the Ecclesiastical Court in Oxford pro Minutis Decimis C. sues a Prohibition against the Vicar upon a Surmize of a Prescription P. comes and pleads the first Endowment made An. Dom. 1310. by which the Minute Tithes were allotted to the Vicar C. demurrs and Adjudged for the Plaintiff for the Parson cannot Prescribe against the first Endowment 55. In Debt upon the Stat. of 2 E. 6. for not setting out of Tithes the Plaintiff declares That the Defendant was seized of the Lands in question within that Parish and that the Tithes did belong to the Parson and Vicar viz. Two parts to the Parson and the Third part to the Vicar or their Farmers payable in specie for 40 years last past that the Plaintiff was Farmer proprietary of the Tithes to the Parson and Vicar spectant and shews the value of the Tithes due and demands the treble value the â—â—â—ndant pleads Niâ—il debet per patr and it was found for the 〈◊〉 It was now moved in Arrest of Judgment because the Plaintiff ought to have brought two Actions as the Parson and the Vicar ought for their several parts But Resolved that the Action is well brought for it is a Personal and one entire Debt for one wrong 56. Bott sues a Prohibition against Sir Edward B. and suggests That the Defendant is Parson Impropriate of W. and that time out of mind there hath been a Curate of an Incumbent by the appointment of the said Rector who administred the Sacraments c. And that the Custome of that Parish time out of c. was that the Curate should have 〈◊〉 Tenths renewing within that Parish except Decimas graâ—â—â—â—m which were paid to the Parson and that every Parishioner who had so paid the Tenths to the Curate was discharged against the Parson And that notwithstanding that c. Sir Edward B. had sued him c. And now he prays a Prohibition and had it but after that Surmize was adjudged insufficient without Argument by the Court and a Consultation granted for such Curate cannot Prescribe against his Master that may remove him at his pleasure And for that reason it was not a good Prescription for the Parishioners 57. Goodwin being Vicar sues in the Ecclesiastical Court the Dean and Chapter of Wells bâ—ing Parson of a Church for a Pension and they pray a Prohibitionâ— and it was denied For that Pension is a Spiritual thing for which the Vicar may Sue in the Spiritual Court Note that they entitle themselves to that Parsonage by a Grant of H. 8. who had it by 31 H. 8. of Dissolutions 58. It was said by Hutton in Spencer's Case That by the Civil Law the Parishioner ought to give notice to the Parson when the Tithes are set forth But it was adjudged That the Common Law doth not so oblige a man 59. B. by his Deed Compounds for Tithes and after Sues for them in the Ecclesiastical Court by Popham and Gawdy That an Action upon the Case lies Vid. E. 4. 13 Mich. 4 Jac. The Lady Waterhouse was sued for the Tithes of Trees whereof none were due c. there an Action upon the Case does not lie for the Parson or person may well be ignorant of what things are due otherwise he Sues against his own knowledge 60. To have a Prohibition the Surmize was That the Inhabitants of D. of which he is an Inhabitant have paid un mod decimand c. And they were at Issue and he proved only that he himself had paid it and yet well And no Consultation for every particular is included in the general and proved by it And it appears sufficient matter for a Prohibition and to oust a Spiritual Court of their Cognizance 2 Agreed that where the Statute appoints Proof of the Surmize to be by Two it is sufficient if Two affirm that they have known it to be so or that the Common Fame is so 61. Upon a Surmize by a Parishioner That he had Compounded
whole Court of Kings Bench Mich. 5 Jac. and hath many times been Ruled That if a man sell his Tithes for years by word it is good but if the Parson agree that one shall have his Tithes for seven years by Word it is not good by the opinion of Flemming Chief Justice because iâ— amounts to a Lease and he held strongly That Tithes cannot be Leased for years without a Deed. 82. Upon the Statute of 2 Ed. 6. cap. 13. â—or Setting out of Tithes in a Prohibition to stay proceedings by a Parson in a Suit in the Ecclesiastical Court against one of his Parish for hindering of him in his way in the Carriage of his Tithes The whole Court agreed in this That if a Parson hath his usual way stop'd that so he cannot come to take away his Tithes being set out for him he may well sue for this in the Ecclesiastical Court and there have his remedy But if the Question be whether the Parson be of right to have a way viz. one way or another this is Triable by the Common Law and not in the Ecclesiastical Court but if the Parson have a certain Way granted to him and set out by the Common Law if he be at any time disturbed or hindered by any of his Parishioners or by any other in the use of this his Way he may then in such case well sue in the Ecclesiastical Court for his remedy And the words of the Statute of 2 Ed. 6. cap. 13. are That if any Parson be disturbed stopped or hindered in the carrying away of his Tithes so that the Tithe comes to be lost hurt or impaired in this case he may sue in the Ecclesiastical Court for his Remedy and upon due proof there made thereof he shall recover double value of the Tithe so taken or lost besides his cost and charges of Suit But because in this principal Case the Parson sued in the Ecclesiastical Court for the Right of his Way whether he was to have that Way or not which belonged properly to the Common Law and not Triable there in the Ecclesiastical Court for this cause the Court granted a Prohibition to stay their proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Court A ABby-Lands were five waies priviledged or discharged of Tithes viz. by Composition Bull or Canon Order Prescription and Unity of possession of Parsonage and Land time out of mind together without payment of Tithes It is supposed that no Land which belonged to Abbots Priors c. is at this day discharged of Tithes but such as came to the Crown by the Statute of 31 H. 8. c. 13. All Monasteries under Two hundred pounds per Aâ— were to be dissolved by the Statute of 27 H. 8. But those of 200 l. per Ann. or upwards not till the 31 of H. 8. The Unity aforesaid or perpetual Unity is where the Abbot Prior c. time out of mind have been seized of the Lands out of which the Tithes arise and also of the Rectory of the Parish in which the Lands lie Which Unity as to a discharge of Tithes must have these four properties 1 It must be Justa as to the Title 2 Perpetua or time out of mind 3 Aequalis that is a Fee-simple both of the Lands and Rectory 4 Libera or Free from the payment of all manner of Tithes whatsoever In a Case where an Abbot held a Pâ—rsonage Impropriate which was discharged of Tithes and had purchased Lands so that the Tithes were suspended in the hands of the Abbot and afterwards the Possessions of the Abbot coming to the King by the Statute of 31 H. 8. The Question was Whether the Lands so purchased by the Abbot before his Surrender to the King were discharged of the Tithes It was the Opinion of Mr. Plowden in that case that they were not discharged for that no Lands were discharged but such as were lawfully discharged by right Composition or other lawful thing and in the said Case the Lands were not discharged in Right but suspended only during the time that they were in the Abbots hands Acorns or Mast of Oak shall pay Tithe for they are of Annual increase as in Lifoâ—d's Case These Acorns or Mast are known in the Law by the word Pannagium so Lindwood Pannagium est pastur Porcorum in Nemoribus Sylvis ut puta de glandibus aliis fructâ—bus arbâ—rum Sylvestrium quarum fructus aliter non solent colligi Lindw de Decim c. Sancta Ecclesia verb. Pannagiis And Mr. Skene de verb Sign defines this to be a Duty given to the King for the pasturage of Swine in his Forrests Also Pannagium is taken for the money which is paid for the Pannage it self as appears by the Statute of Charta de Foresta cap. 90. Vnusque liber homo c. Aftermoath or Second Moath Of this Tithes shall be paid de jure unless there be a Special Prescription of Discharge by paying the Tithes out of the first Moath and then it shall be discharged But if a man pay Tithe-Hay no Tithes ought to be paid dâ— jure afterwards for the pasture of the same Land for the same year for he shall not pay Tithes twice in one year for the same thing for that the After-pasture is but the Reliques of Hay whereof he had paid Tithes before Nor shall Tithes be paid for Agistments in such After-grass In Johnson and Awberie's Case it was Resolved that Tithes are not to be paid for the After-pasture of Land nor for Rakings of Corn And where in Awberies Case Suit was in the Ecclesiastical Court for the Tithe of the After-mowings of Grass anâ— upon a Surmize That the Occupiers of the Land had used to make the first Cutting of the Grass into Cocks for Hay and to pay the Tenth Cock thereof in satisfaction of the First and After-mowings a Prohibition was awarded So that After-grass or After-pasture or Aftermoath do not pay Tithes where they have paid before of the Grass of the same ground the same year save where by Covin to defraud the Parson more Grass is left standing than was wont to be or is there usual Nor is the Herbage of Cattel which eat up that Grass Tithable unless there be some Fraud in the case Notwithstanding the Premisses although the Aftermoath be not Tithable where the Owner at his own costs charges and labour made the first Grass into Hay yet Q. whether it may not be otherwise where the Owner doth no more than cut down the Grass of the first Moath Agistment that is a taking into Grass the Cattel of Strangers within the Parish where the Grass grows this is Tithable and regularly by the Owner or Tenants of the Land not of the Cattel unless the Custome makes it Tithable by the Stranger Heretofore there was not any Tithe paid for this Agistment but now the Law is taken to be otherwise And is
Decimandi but the same shall continue when the same is made again into Hay And when it is sowed with Corn the Parson shall have Tithen in kind and when the same is Hay the Vicar shall have the Tithes-Hay if he be endowed of Hay And where a Suit was in the Spiritual Court by a Defendant Vicar of A. for Tithes a Prohibition was prayed upon the Plaintiffs Plea there of a Modus Decimandi to pay so much yearly to the Parson of A. in discharge of his Tithes It was the Opinion of the Court That this Modus between him and the Parson will not discharge him from payment of Tithes to the Vicar and therefore the Court granted a Consultation Also if a Prescription be laid to pay a Modus Decimandi to 100 Acres or to several things if there be a failure of one Acre or of one thing it is a failure of the whole Prescription Monasteries under 200 l. per Ann. commonly called the Lesser Monasteries of the Order of Gistertians and Praemonstratenses that were Dissolved and came to the Crown by the Statute of 27 H. 8. were not discharged of the payment of Tithes by the Statute of 31 H. 8. c. 8. by which Statute those of 200 l. per Ann. and upwards commonly called the Greater Abbies were Dissolved and whereby it is Enacted That the King and his Patentees having any Monasteries c. or any Mannors Lands c. belonging to them should enjoy the same discharged of the payment of Tithes in as ample manner as the said Abbots c. who were discharged of Tithes either by Bulls Compositions Prescription Order or Unity of Possession And albeit the Lands of the said Lesser Monasteries are not within the benefit of the said Statute of 31 H. 8. to be quit of Tithes yet they ought to enjoy all such Priviledges as are annex'd to the Lands for which reason they shall in whose possession soever they are be exempted from the payment of Tithes by real Compositions and Prescriptions de Modo Decimandi though not by Prescriptions de non Decimando Unity of Possession Order or Popish Bulls in all which Cases the Parsons and Vicars have the advantage by the Dissoltion of all those Monasteries and Abbies which were Dissolved by the Statute of 27 H. 8. For these Lesser Monasteries under 200 l. per An. which were as aforesaid Dissolved by the Statute of 27 H. 8. lost their Priviledge of being discharged of the payment of Tithes Nor did the Priviledge extend to any Lands other than such as they had at the time of the Council of Lateran and only for such time as the same remained in their own possessions and only for such Lands as were in their own manurance It is said in Dickenson's Case against Greenhowe That Monks are not of Evangelical Priesthood viz. capable of Tithes in pernancy but meer Lay-men and cannot prescribe in non Decimando And that Bede saith of them That they are meer Laici and the Monks of the Order of Praemonstratenses were such and therefore they could not Prescribe to be Discharged of Tithes Mortuaries in some place called Coarse-Presents though they are not Tithes yet they were given Pro Recompensatione subtractionis Decimarum Personalium nec non Oblationum Lindw c. Statutum infra c. for which reason they are not here omitted out of this Catalogue of Tithes Mortuaries as Sir Edw. Coke conceives were not anciently due otherwise than by Custome only until they were settled by the Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 6. whereby it is Enacted That no man dying possessed of Goods under the value of 6 l. 13 s. 4 d. should pay any Mortuary nor any to be paid but in such places where they used so to be and that but one Mortuary nor that but in one place and that where the party deceased had his most constant abode and usual dwelling and habitation after the rate following viz. 3 s. 4 d. where the Deceased had in Moveables his Debts first paid to the value of 6 l. 13 s. 4 d. and under 30 l. at his death 6 s. 8 d. if he died possessed of Moveables to the value of 30 l. and under 40 l. 10 s. if to the value of 40 l. or upwards And none to be paid by any married Woman Child Non-Housekeeper Wayfaring-man or Non-Resident in the place where he died Which Statute provides That accustomed Mortuaries should be paid as formerly whether more or less than is before limited There were also it seems certain Mortuaries which the Prelates anciently paid to the Kings of this Realm A Mortuary is not properly and originally said to be due to an Ecclesiastical Incumbent Parson or Vicar from any but those only of his own Parish to whom he ministreth Spiritual Instruction and hath right to the Tithes Lindwood in his Gloss on c. Statutum ver ut infra de Consuetud discovers the ground or reason of that payment to be this viz. That when through ignorance and sometimes through negligence and unjust detention of Tithes and Oblations the Parishioner was found tardy and faulty c. Ideo statuit Archiepiscopus quod Compensatione sic subtractorum secundum melius Animal defuncti Ecclesiae damno debuit applicari But all this notwithstanding we know the prevalency of Custome to be such that in some places of this Kingdom they are paid to the Incumbents of other Parishes that perform no Ministerial duties at all to the deceased party nor living nor dying And the Statute of 21 H. 8. c. 6. doth nothing at all controll the course but makes the Usage of payment only to be the Law thereof In the Case of a Prohibition because the Defendant sued in the Consistory Court of Chester before the Commissary for a Mortuary after the death of every Priest withi nt the Archdeaconry of Chester the best Horse or Mare his Saddle Bridle Spurs his best Gown his best Signet or Ring his best Hat his best upper Garments under his Gown as to the Bishop de debito consuetudine fore supponitur and recites the Statute of 21 H. 8. concerning Mortuaries The Plaintiff averred that there was no such Custome there and that she had paid a Mortuary to the Parson of B. and that after a Prohibition the Defendant had prosecuted his Suit in the Ecclesiastical Court The Questions were 1 Whether there was a Custome in that place to give such things for Mortuary and this to be a just cause to have Prohibition Mortuaries being only Triable in the Ecclesiastical Court. 2 Whether Consultation shall be granted without answering the Prohibition The Court was divided in Opinions wherefore ordered the Defendant should Plead or Demurr and then the Court would give Judgment upon the Return before them N NAg or Riding Nag if a man keep a Nag or Horse within the Parish only for his Saddle to ride on no Tithes shall be paid of
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
the question of Bastardy or Legitimacy ought to be first moved in the Kings Temporal Court and thereon Issue ought to be joyned there and then it ought to be transmitted by the Kings Writ to the Ecclesiastical Court to be examined and tried there and thereupon the Bishop shall make his Certificate to the King's Court to which Certificate being made in due form of Law such credit is given that the whole World shall be bound and stopt thereby But on the other side if any Suit to prove Bastardy or Legitimacy be first commenced in the Ecclesiastical Court before any Question of that matter hath been moved in he Kings Temporal Court in that Case Prohibition lies to restrain such Suit To this purpose was Corbet's Case cited 22 Ed. 4. Fitz. Consultation 6. Sir Robert Corbet had Issue two Sons Robert and Roger Robert the eldest Son being within the age of fourteen years took to Wife Matild with whom he cohabited till he came of full Age and they publickly known and reputed for Husband and Wife yet afterwards Robert the eldest Son doth dismiss the said Matild and she living doth Marry one Lettice and having Issue a Son by the said Lettice dies after his death Lettice doth publish and declare openly that she is the lawful Wife of Robert and that his Son was a Mulier and legitimate Whereupon Roger the younger Son of Sir Robert Corbet doth commence a Suit in the Ecclesiastical Court to reverse the Marriage between Lettice and Robert and to put Lettice to silence c. wherefore Lettice doth purchase a prohibition Whereupon Roger sets forth the whole matter and prays a consultation which was denied him and for this reason chiefly viz. for that the Suit in the Ecclesiastical Court was to Bastardize the Issue between Lettice and Robert and to prove Roger to be Heir to Robert and the Original Action of Bastardy shall not be first moved in the Ecclesiastical Court but in the Temporal Court c. And to make this point yet the more clear two Cases put by Bracton lib. 5. tit de exceptionib c. 6. were remembred 1 B. having Issue of the Body of a Feme-Inheretrix born before Marriage under colour whereof he claimed to be Tenant by the Courtesie but being for that cause barr'd in an Assize brought by him against A. he obtain'd the Popes Bull and by authority thereof commenced his Suit in the Ecclesiastical Court to prove his Issue legitimate quod facere non debuit as Bracton there saith and therefore prohibition was granted to stay the Suit shewing the whole matter Et quod praedictus B. ad deceptionem Curiae nostrae ad infirmandum judicium in curia nostra factum trahit-ipsum A. in placitum coram vobis in Curia Christianitatis authoritate Literarum domini Papae ad praedictum puerum legitimandum c. Et cum non possint Judices aliqui de legitimatione cognoscere nisi fuerit loquela prius in curia nostra incepta per breve ibi Bastardia objecta postea ad Curiam Christianitatis transmissa vobis prohibemus quod in placito illo ulterius non procedatis c. And in the same Chapter Bracton hath the form of another Prohibition which makes the difference before put more evident Rex talibus judicibus c. Ostensum est nobis ex parte A. c. quod in causa successionis haereditatis petitione debet prius moveri placitum in curia nostra cum ibi objecta fuit Bastardia tunc deinde transmitti debet recordum loquelae cognitio Bastardia ad curiam Christianitatis ut ibi ad mandatum nostrum de legitimitate inquiratur quod quidem in hac parte non est observatum Et cum hoc sit manifeste contra Consuetudinem Regni nostri c. vobis prohibemus c. whereby it is very evident that if the Ecclesiastical Court proceed to the examination of Bastardy or Legitimation without direction of the Temporal Court it is to be restrained by a Prohibition 3. As the Ecclesiastical Judge may not enquire of Bastardy or Legitimation without special direction or command of the King so when he hath received the Kings Writ to make such Inquisition he ought not to surcease for any Appeal or Inhibition but ought to proceed until he hath certified it into the Kings Court and this also appears by Bracton in the forecited place c. 14. Cum autem Judex Ecclesiasticus Inquisitionem fecerit non erit ab eo appellandum nec à petente nec à tenente à petente non quia talem Jurisdictionem talem judicem elegit à tenente non qui sic posset causam in infinitum protrahere de judice in judicem usque ad Papam sic posset Papa de Laico feodo indirecte cognoscere See also to this purpose 39 E. 3. 20. a. in a Writ of Dower where Ne unques occouple en loyal Matrimony was pleaded and Issue thereupon joyn'd the Writ issued to the Bishop to certifie who certified that he could do nothing by reason of an Inhibition which came to him out of the Arches This return was held insufficient for it was there said that he ought not to surcease from doing the Kings command by reason of any Inhibition 4. Lastly it was said that the very cause and reason why the Ecclesiastical Judge may not enquire of Legitimation or Bastardy before that he hath received direction or a mandate out of the Kings Temporal Court doth consist in this that the Ecclesiastical Court never hath Jurisdiction or power to intermeddle with Temporal Inheritance directly or indirectly It being observed that Christ himself refused to meddle with a Cause of that nature when upon request made to him Luke 12. Magister dic fratri meo ut dividat mecum haereditatem he answer'd Quis me constituit judicem aut divisorem super vos And therefore in the time of King H. 3. when the usurped Jurisdiction of the Pope was elevated much higher than ever before or since in the Dominions of the King of England Pope Alex. the third having granted a Commission to the Bishops of Winchester and Exon to enquire de Legitima nativitate of one Agatha the Mother of one Robert de Ardenna and if she were found legitimate then to restore to the said Robert the possession of certain Lands whereof he was dispossess'd being informed that the King of England was greatly offended at the said commission he revoked and countermanded it in the point of the restitution of possession knowing and confessing that the establishment of Possessions belonged to the King and not to the Church Which Case is reported in the Canon Law Decretal Antiq. Collect. 1. lib. 4. tit Qui filii sunt legitimi cap. 4. and cap. 7. where in the 4 th Chapt. the Commission and in the seventh Chapt. the revocation or countermand appears in express terms CHAP. XXXVI Of Divorce as also of Alimony 1. What Divorce
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
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—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
was a common Pimp and notorious which he would justifie After Verdict for the Plaintiff Littleton the King's Sollicitor moved in Arrest of Judgment that these words are not Actionable for it is a meer Spiritual Slander as Whore or Heretick and punishable in the Spiritual Court and not at the Common Law and he said that divers times Suits have been in the Spiritual Court for such words and Prohibitions prayed and never granted vid. 27. H. 8. 14. But to say that he keeps a Bawdy house is presentable in the Leet and punishable at the Common Law Ward è Contra because it is spoken of one of an honourable profession viz. a Souldier and trenches on his reputation to be taxed with such a base Offence and he said that such offences have been divers times punished in London by corporal punishment but it was answered that was by Custom and there the calling one Where is Actionable Jones Justice held that the Action lay not and all the Justices agreed that the exposition and averment that Pimp is known to be a Name for a common Bawd is good Croke and Berkley agreed that the words are very slanderous and more than if he had call'd him Adulterer or Whoremonger c. aud may be indicted and punished for it corporally as tending to the breach of the Peace and rule was given that Judgement should be entred c. But was afterwards stayed 17. Suit being in the Ecclesiastical Court for calling a mans Wife Welch Jade and Welch Rogue Sentence being there in the Arches the Defendant appealed to the Court of Audience and in the Appeal mentioned the former words and in the libel was interlined and a Welch Thief and hereupon a Prohibition was prayed and granted unless cause were shewn by such a day to the contrary For it was held clearly that for the word Welch Thief Action lies at the Common Law and they ought not to sue in the Spiritual Court And for the other words it was conceived upon the first Motion they ought not to sue in the Spiritual Court for they be words only of Heat and no Slander But it was afterwards moved and shewn that the said words A Welch Thief were not in the first Libel nor in the Appeal at the time of the Appeal but were interlined by a false Hand without the privity of the Plaintiff in the Ecclesiastical Court and that upon Examination in that Court it was found to be falsly inserted and ordered to be expunged And that the words Welch Jade were shewn in the Libel to be expounded and so known to be a Welch Whore which being a Spiritual Cause and examinable there it was therefore prayed that no Prohibition should be granted and if it were granted that a Consultation should be awarded And of this Opinion was all the Court that the words and a Welch Thief being unduly interlined and by Authority of the Ecclesiastical Court expunged and in that Court Jade is known and so expounded for a Whore our Law gives Credence to them therein and especially being after two Sentences in the Spiritual Court This Court will not meddle therewith Wherefore Consultation was granted if any Prohibition was issued forth quia improvide And Rule given that if a Prohibition was not passed that none should be granted 18. It was moved for a Prohibition by Harris Serjeant to the Court of Audience because that the Plaintiff was sued there for saying to one Thou art a common Whore and a base Quean and Harris said that a Prohibition had been granted in this Court for saying to one that she was a pimperly Quean And it was the Case of Man against Hucksler And Finch said though the words are not Actionable in our Law yet they are punishable in the Spiritual Court For the word Quean in their Law implies as much as Whore But Hobart said that this word Quean is not a word of any certain Sense and is to all intents and purposes an Individuum Vagum and so incertain 19. In an Action upon the Case that whereas he is Parson of D. and a Preacher the Defendant Slandered him in haec verba Parrett is a lewd Adulterer and hath had two Children by the Wife of I. S. I will cause him to be deprived for it By the Court the Action doth not lie For the Slander is to be punished in the Ecclesiastical Court And so awarded Quod Quer. nil cap. per. bill 20. D. had sued T. in the Ecclesiastical Court for this viz. That whereas she was of good fame and kept a Victualling House in good Order that the said T. had published that D. kept an house of Bawdry T. now brought a Prohibition and by the Court well for D. might have an Action for that at the Common Law especially where she kept a Victualling house as her Trade Note 27. H. 8. 14. And by the Justices that the keeping of a Brothel-house is enquirable at the Leet and so a temporal Offence And so was the opinion of the Court Tr. 7. Car. B. R. Mrs. Holland's Case 21. W. sued L in the Ecclesiastical Court for a Defamation and had Sentence L. appeals and depending the Appeal comes a Pardon which relates to the Offence and pardons it then L. deferrs his Appeal and for that W. had costs taxed him And now L. prayed a Prohibition because he deferr'd his Appeal because of the Pardon which had taken away the Offence And by the Court in that Case after the pardon the inferiour Court cannot tax Costs but it was urged that the superiour Courts might tax Costs upon the desertion of the Appeal which is an Offence after the Pardon But it was answered on the other side that it was in vain to prosecute the Appeal when the Offence it self is pardoned The words were Thou art a Pander to Sr. Hen. Vaughan And there was much debate if they were actionable at Common Law yet it was agreed that a Suit may be brought for them in the Spiritual Court as for calling one Whore Bawd or Drunkard But otherwise by Jones if he had said That he was Drunk for then a Prohibition lies And it was ruled in 6. Jac. B. R. in the Case of Cradock against Thomas a Prohibition was granted in a Suit for calling one Whoreson And in Weeks Case a Prohibition in a Suit for calling one Knave 22. E. and M. being reputed Church-wardens but they never took any Oath as the Office requires present a Feme Covert upon a common report for Adultery c. And the Husband and Wife libel against them in the Ecclesiastical Court for that Defamation And when Sentence was ready to be given for them the Church-wardens appeal to the Arches where the presentment was proved but by one Witness they sentenced the Baron and Feme But now Ward Serjeant moved for a Prohibition but it was denied by the Court for they were Plaintiffs first And also it is a Cause which this
Court had not any Cognizance of 23. Note upon evidence to the Jury Resolved by the Court that an Action upon the Case for words lies against an Infant of Seventeen years of age For malitia supplet aetatem And it is said at the Common Law that if a Man Libel in the Ecclesiastical Court against one for saying certain words of him which he will maintain in an Action upon the Case at Common Law a Prohibition lies 24. If a Man Libels in the Ecclesiastical Court against one for saying that he is a Witch or the Son of a Witch although no Action lies for that at the Common Law yet no Prohibition shall be granted for peradventure he may have some Spiritual prejudice thereby if he should be the Son of a Witch as that he cannot be a Priest or the like for it seems all the force of the words consists in the last words they being spoken in the disjunctive If a Parson of a Church call A. B. Drunkard upon which A. B. answers thou lyest if the Parson sue A. B. in the Ecclesiastical Court for giving him the lye a Prohibition lies for that the Cause for which he gave him the lye is not Spiritual but depending on a Temporal thing precedent But if a Man call a Minister Knave he may be sued for that in the Ecclesiastical Court and no Prohibition lies If one Man says of another that he will not hear Sermons made by those who have been made Ministers by Bishops he may be sued for that in the Ecclesiastical Court and no Prohibition shall be granted If a Man says of another that he keeps a Bawdy house and is sued for it in the Ecclesiastical Court although he might have an Action at Common Law yet the Ecclesiastical Law hath a concurrent Jurisdiction in this and the words are mixt for which reason no Prohibition lies And if one says of another that he is a Pander he may be sued in the Ecclesiastical Court for that the signification of that word is well known and sounds to a Spiritual Defamation Or if a Man says to another Thou art a Cuckoldly Knave and for that he and his Wife sue him in the Ecclesiastical Court for a Defamation no Prohibition lies for that these words amount to a Spiritual Defamation viz. that his Wife was incontinent in this Case a Prohibition was denied Husband and Wife were Divorced for Adultery à mensa thoro mutua cohabitatione and as one of the Counsel said de omnibus Matrimonialibus obsequiis but the Counsel of the other party denied that and after the Wife sued in the Ecclesiastical Court a Stranger for Defamation and Sentence there given for her and penance enjoyn'd to the party Defendant and costs of Suit assessed for the Plaintiff and afterwards the Defendant appeals and after the Husband of the Wife releases all Actions and that Suit and all appertaining thereunto and the Defendant pleaded that Release and they remitted back the Suit to the inferiour Court again and now Coventry Recorder of London prayed a Prohibition for that notwithstanding the Divorce they continued Husband and Wife and therefore the Release of the Husband should barr the Wife from having Execution of the Sentence and of the Costs 44 El. In this Court between Steevens Administrator of one Steevens and Totte the Case was That after a Divorce for Adultery of the Husband à Mensa Thoro the Woman sued in the Ecclesiastical Court for a Legacy devised to her by the Testator and the Defendant pleaded a Release thereof from the Husband and thereupon a Prohibition was granted and he shew'd that president in Court but the President did not comprehend the Divorce But Doderidge said he well remembred when that Case was argued and the parlance then was about the Divorce Wentworth it seems that no Prohibition shall be granted Hill 7. Jac. in this Court A Suit was commenced in the Ecclesiastical Court by two Church-wardens and the Defendant there pleaded the Release of one of them and thereupon a Prohibition was here granted and after a consultation was granted for that they shall try that having cognizance of the Principal and in this Case the Release is after the appeal and therefore it may not be pleaded upon the appeal for the Judges in the appeal have no power but to examine the former Sentence and not any collateral matter Coventrie I agree the Case of the Church-wardens for that the Release of one is not any Barr in Law for 38. Elâ—z it was here resolved between Methon and Winns that a gift by the Church-wardens without the Assent of the Sidemen or Vestry is void but it is otherwise here for here the Release of the Husband is sufficient to discharge the Execution of that Sentence the which is all that we demand 10. lâ— 3. such Divorce is not any Barr of Dower The Court seemed to incline that no Prohibition should be granted for that the Wife in such Case may be sued alone without the Husband by the Ecclesiastical Law and this is matter meerly Spiritual viz. Defamation and therefore we have nothing to do therewith and the Release of the Husband shall not discharge the Suit of the Wife which is only to restore her to her Credit and Reputation which was impeached by the other and the Costs of Suit is not for any Dammage but meerly for the Charge of the Suit and therefore the Suit being not discharged the Costs shall remain also and this Case is not like the fore-cited Case of Stephens for the thing for which that Suit was was originally a Legacy due to Husband and Wife and therefore there the Release of the Husband was a good discharge but here was no duty in the Husband originally Ergo c. Curia advisare vult In Palmer and Thorps Case it was resolved that Defamation in the Ecclesiastical Court ought to have three Incidents 1 That the matter be meerly Spiritual and determinable in the Ecclesiastical Court as for calling one Heretick Schismatick Advowterer Fornicator 2 It ought to concern matter meerly Spiritual only for if it concern any thing determinable at common Law the Ecclesiastical Judge shall not have Cognizance of it See for this 22. E. 4. 20 the Abbot of St. Albons Case 3 Though the thing be meerly Spiritual yet he which is defamed cannot sue there for amends or dammages but the Suit there ought to be for punishment of the offender Pro salute animae For this see Articulis cleri Circumspecte agatis and Fitz. 51 52 53. but yet the Plainshall recover Costs there and there if the Defendant to redeem his Penance agree to pay a certain sum the Party may sue for this there and no Prohibition lies in that Case In a Case of Prohibition between M. and M. in the Ecclesiastical Court the Case was a Suit was there for Defamation by the Wife of the
being made Ministers and do not reform after a months suspension Also by all such persons as refuse the Sacraments at the hands of Unpreaching Ministers after a months obstinacy being first suspended Also by all such Ministers as without their Ordinaries License under his Hand and Seal appoint or keep any Solemn Fasts either publickly or in private Houses having been formerly suspended for the same fault and finally by all Ministers who hold any private Conventicles to Consult on any thing tending to the impeaching or depraving of the Doctrine of the Church of England or of the Book of Common Prayer or of any part of the Government and Discipline now established in the Church of England which by the Seventy third Canon is Excommunication ipso facto 10. Touching persons thus Excommunicated persisting Forty daies in their obstinacy there are Three several Writs at the Law issuing from the Secular power viz. Excommunicato Capiendo Excommunicato Deliberando Excommunicato Recipiendo The Excommunicato Capiendo is a Writ issuing out of Chancery directed to the Sheriff for the apprehending and imprisoning of him who hath obstinately stood Excommunicated Forty daies for the Contempt to the Ecclesiastical Laws of such not in the interim obtaining their Absolution being by the Ordinary certified or signified into Chancery the said Writ thence issues for the apprehending and imprisoning them without Bail or Mainprize until they Conform Which Writ as by the Statute of 5 Eliz c. 23. is to be awarded out of the high Court of Chancery so it is to issue thence only in Term time and Returnable in the Kings Bench the Term next after the Teste thereof and to contain at least Twenty daies between the Teste and the Return thereof And in case the Offender against whom such Writ shall be awarded shall not therein have a sufficient and lawful Addition according to the form of the Statute of 1 H. 5. Or if in the Significavit it be not contained That the Excommunication doth proceed upon some cause of Contempt or some Original matter of Heresie or refusing to have their Children Baptized or to receive the Holy Communion as it is now used in the Church of England or to come to divine Service now commonly used in the said Church or Error in matters of Religion or Doctrine now received and allowed in the said Church Incontinency Usury Simony Perjury in the Ecclesiastical Court or Idolatry That then all pains and Forfeitures limited against such persons Excommunicate by the said Statute of 5 Eliz. 23. by reason of such Writ of Excom Capiend wanting sufficient Addition or of such Significavit wanting all the Causes aforesaid are void in Law 11. The Excommunicato Deliberando is a Writ to the Under-Sheriff for the releasing and delivery of the Excommunicate person out of Prison upon Certificate from the Ordinary into the Chancery of his Submission Satisfaction or conformity to the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction And the Excommunicato Recipiendo is a Writ whereby Excommunicated persons who by reason of their Obstinacy having been committed to Prison and thence unduly delivered before they had given sufficient Caution or Security to obey the Authority of the Church are to be sought for and committed again to Prison This Sentence of Excommunication by the 65 th Canon pronounced against any and not absolved within Three months next after is every Sixth month ensuing as well in the Parish Church as in the Cathedral of the Diocess wherein they remain by the Minister openly in time of Divine Service upon some Sunday to be denounced and declared Excommunicate and where by the 68 th Canon Ministers are enjoyned not to Refuse to Bury it is with an exception to such persons Deceased as were denounced Excommunicated Majori Excommunicatione for some grievous and notorious Crime and of whose repentance no man is able to testifie 12. A Sentence was given in the Chancellors Court at Oxford at the Suit of B. against H. and thereupon H. was Excommunicated and taken in London upon the Writ of Excom Capiendo And it came into the Kings Bench where he pleaded That there was no Addition in the Significavit according to the Statute of 5 Eliz. and thereupon prayed to be discharged And the Opinion of the Court was That by the Statute of 5 Eliz. the Penalties mentioned in the said Statute are discharged but not the Imprisonment nor the Excommunication 13. By the Statute of 9 Ed. 2. 12. the Writ de Excom Capiendo may be awarded to take a Clerk Excommunicate for Contumacy after Forty daies And by the Statute of 9 Ed. 2. 7. the Kings Letters may not be sent to an Ordinary to Absolve an Excommunicate but where the Kings Liberty is prejudiced By the Statute of 5 6 Ed. 6. cap. 4. striking or laying of violent hands upon any person in a Church or Church-yard is Excommunication And by the Statute of 2 Ed. 6. 13. it is Excommunication to disobey the Sentence of an Ecclesiastical Judge in Causes of Tithes By the Statute of 3 Jac. 4. the Sheriff may apprehend a Popish Recusant standing Excommunicate and by the Statute of 3 Jac. 5. a Popish Recusant convicted shall stand as a person Excommunicate And by the Statute of 3 Ed. 1. 15. he that is Excommunicated shall be debarred of Mainprize 14. V. against E. in the Ecclesiastical Court where the Suit was for Striking in the Church which by the Second Branch of the Statute of 5 Ed. 6. cap. 4. is Excommunication ipso facto By which he surmized him incidisse in poenam Excommunicationis And being granted if c. And Ashley shewed cause why it should not issue viz. There ought to be a Declaration in the Ecclesiastical Court of the Excommunication before any may prohibit him the Church Richardson said That the Proceedings are not contrary to the Statute but stood with the Statute And it was said by Yelverton It seems there ought to be a Declaration in the Ecclesiastical Court But the difference is where it is Officium Judicis or Ad instantiam paris they will give Costs which ought not to be Hutton and Richardson If the party will not prosecute it none will take notice of it and they proceed to give Costs then a Prohibition may be granted And if he be a Minister he ought to be suspended for an offence against the Statute And it ought to be first declared and so to Excommunication and that cannot be pleaded if it be not under Seal Dyer 275. And after all these were agreed by the Court and no Prohibition was granted 15. B. was sued in the Ecclesiastical Court in a cause of Defamation in another Diocess than that wherein he lived and being Cited was for Non-appearance Excommunicated and upon Significavit the Writ de Excommunicato Capiendo was awarded Serjeant Finch Recorder prayed a Supersedeas for two Reasons 1. Upon the Statute of 23 H. 8. because he was Sued out of the
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
West-Saxons in the borders of Worcester and Herefordshire under an Oak thereby tacitly reproving the Idolatry of the Pagan Britains who acted their Superstitions under an Oak as the Learned Sr. H. Spelman observes In the Tenth Century King Edward the Elder Son of King Alfred called a Synod at Intingford where he confirmed the same Ecclesiastical Constitutions which King Alured had made before Many Councils were Conven'd during the Reign of King Athelstan as at Exiter Feversham Thunderfield London and at Great Lea which last is of most account in regard of the Laws therein made specially that concerning the payment of Tithes the which you may peruse in the Learned Sr. H. Spelm. Concil p. 405. During the Reign of King Edgar Hoel Dha held a National Council for all Wales at Tyquin which was wholly in favour of the Clergy this Council was held when Dunst in was Archbishop of Canterbury in whose time there were Two other Councils conven'd the one at Cartlage in Cambridgshire the other at Caln in Wiltshire After this William the Conqueror conven'd a Council of his Bishops at Winchester wherein himself was personally present with two Cardinals sent from Rome in this Council Stigand Archbishop of Canterbury was deposed and Lâ—â—frank a Lombard substituted in his room During the Reign of King Henry the First Anselm Archbishop of Canterbury summoned a Council at Westminster which Excommunicated all Married Priests half the Clergy at that time being Married or the Sons of Married Priests During the Reign of King Stephen Albericus Bishop of Hostia sent by Pope Innocent into England conven'd a Synod at Westminster wherein it was concluded That no Priest c. should have a Wife or a Woman in his house on pain of being sent to Hell Also that their Transubstantiated God should dwell but Eight days in the Box for fear of being Worm-eaten or moulded Under the Reign of King Henry the Second who disclaimed the Popes authority refused to pay Peter-pence and interdicted all Appeals to Rome a Synod was called at Westminster wherein was a great Contest between the two Archbishops of Canterbury and York for Precedency York appeals to Rome the Pope interposes and to end old Divisions makes a new distinction entituling York Primate of England and Canterbury Primate of all England Under the Reign of King Henry the Third a Council was held at Oxford under Stephen Langton Archbishop of Canterbury wherein many Constitutions were made as against Excess of demands for Procurations in Visitations against Pluralities Non-Residence and other abuses of the Clergy In the Ninth year of King Edward the First John Peckham Archbishop of Canterbury held a Council at Lambeth with his Suffragans some account whereof Walsingham gives us in these words viz. Frater Johannes Peckham Cantuariensis Archiepiscopus ne nihil fecisse videretur convocat Concilium apud Lambeth in quo non Evangelii Regni Dei praedicationem imposuit sed Constitutiones Othonis Ottobonis quondam Legatorum in Anglia innovans jussit eas ab omnibus servari c. Walsing in Ed. 1. He then made Sixteen Ecclesiastical Laws which are inserted among the Provincial Constitutions After this he summoned another Council of his Clergy at Reading wherein he propounded the drawing of all Causes concerning Advowsons to the Ecclesiastical Courts and to cut off all Prohibitions from the Temporal Courts in Personal Causes but upon the Kings express Command to desist from it this Council was dissolved Parker de Antiq. Eccles Anglic. fo 205. An 1290. During the Reign of King Henry the Fourth Thomas Arundel Archbishop of Canterbury conven'd a Synod at St. Pauls Church Lond. wherein the King joyned with them in punishing all Opposers of the Religion received Trussel de vita H. 4. Under King Henry the Fifth an Universal Synod of all the Bishops and Clergy was called at London where it was determined That the day of St. George and also of St. Dunstan should be a double Feast in holy Church In the same Kings Reign was a Convocation held at London conven'd by Henry Chichley Archbishop of Canterbury wherein were severe Constitutions made against the Lollards In the Reign of King Henry the Seventh a Synod was held at London by John Morton Archbishop of Canterbury to redress the Excess of the London Clergy in Apparel and frequenting of Taverns We had almost omitted the Synod in England An. 1391. under the Reign of King Richard the Second Simon Sudbury then Archbishop of Canterbury in which Synod it was Ordain'd That whosoever Appealed to Rome besides Excommunication should lose all his Goods and be Imprisoned during his Life vid. Hist of the Church of Great Britain p. 117. A Modern and Ingenious yet unfortunate Author well observes a Fourfold difference or distinction of Synods or Convocations in this Realm in reference to the several manners of their Meeting and degrees of their Power The First he states in point of Time before the Conquest The Second since the Conquest and before the Statute of Praemunire The Third after that Statute but before another made in the Reign of King H. 8. The Fourth after the 25th of the said King 1 Before the Conquest the Popes power prevailed not over the Kings of England who were then ever present Personally or Virtually at all Councils wherein matters both of Church and State were debated and concluded Communi consensu tam Cleri quam Populi Episcoporum Procerum Comitum nec non omnium Sapientum Seniorum populorumque totius Regni 2 After the Conquest but before the Statute of Praemunire the Archbishops used upon all emergent Cases toties quoties at their own discretions to assemble the Clergy of their respective Provinces where they pleased continuing and dissolving them at their pleasure which they then did without any leave from the King whose Canons and Constitutions without any further Ratifification were in that Age obligatory to all subjected to their Jurisdiction Such it seems were all the Synods from Lanfranck to Thomas Arundel Archbishop of Canterbury in which Arundels time the Statute of Praemunire was Enacted 3 After which Statute which much restrained the Papal power and subjected it to the Laws of the Land the Archbishops called no more Convocations by their sole and absolute Command but at the pleasure of the King by whose Writ and Precept only they were now and henceforth Summoned Of this Third sort of Convocations were all those kept by and from Thomas Arundel unto Thomas Cranmer or from the 16th of R. 2. unto the 25th of King H. 8. These Convocations also did make Canons as in Lindwoods Constitutions which were Obligatory although confirmed by no other Authority than what was meerly Synodical 4 The last sort of Convocations since the said Statute called the 25th of King H. 8. That none of the Clergy should presume to attempt alledge claim or put in ure any Constitutions or Ordinances Provincial or Synodals or any â—â—her Canons Constitutions or Ordinances Provincial by
vacancy of a Bishoprick the Dean and Chapter by virtue of his Majesties License under the Great Seal of England hath proceeded to the Election of a new Bishop in pursuance of and according to his Majesties Letters Missive on that behalf and Certificate thereof made unto the Kings Majesty under their Common Seal then follows the Confirmation Consecration and Investiture by the Archbishop or Metropolitan of that Province wherein such Bishoprick was void the said Election having upon such elected Bishops Oath of Fealty to the Kings Majesty been first signified to the Archbishop by the King under his Great Seal whereby the said Archbishop is required to Confirm the said Election and to Consecrate and Invest the person Elected And now he is compleat Bishop as well unto Temporalties as Spiritualties yet after his Confirmation and before his Consecration the King may if he please ex gratia grant him the Temporalties But after his Consecration Investiture and Instalment he is qualified to sue for his Temporalties out of the Kings hands by the Writ de Restitutione Temporalium And yet it seems the Temporalties are not de jure to be delivered to him until the Metropolitan hath certified the time of his Consecration although the Freehold thereof be in him by his very Consecration But if during the Vacation of Archbishopricks or Bishopricks and while their Temporalties are in the Kings hands the Freehold-Tenants of Archbishops or Bishops happen to be attainted of Felony the King by his Prerogative hath the Escheats of such Freeholders-Lands to dispose thereof at his pleasure saving to such Prelates the Service that is thereto due and accustomed Before the Conquest the Principality of Wales was held of the King of England and by the Rebellion and forfeiture of the Prince the Principality came to the King of England whereby the Bishopricks were annexed to the Crown and the King grants them their Temporalties 10 H. 4. 6. 7. The manner of making a Bishop is fully described in Evans and Kiffin's Case against Askwith wherein it was agreed That when a Bishop dies or is Translated the Dean and Chapter certifie the King thereof in Chancery and pray leave of the King to make Election Then the King gives his Congé d'Esâ—ire whereupon they make their Election and first certifie the same to the party Elect and have his consent Then they certifie it to the King in Chanceâ—y also they certifie it to the Archbishop and then the King by his Letters Patents gives his Royal Assent and commands the Archbishop to Confirm and Consecrate him and to do all other things necessary thereunto whereupon the Archbishop examines the Election and the Ability of the party and thereupon confirms the Election and after Consecrates him according to the usage upon a New Creation And upon a Translation all the said Ceremonies are observed saving the Consecration which is not in that case requisite for that he was Consecrated before 8. Bishopricks were Donatives by the King till the time of W. Rufus and so until the time of King John Read for that the History of Eadmerus Vid. Case Evans vers Ascouth in â—in Caâ— Noy 's Rep. It hath been generally held That before the Conquest and after till the time of King John Bishops were Invested by the King per Baculum Annulum but King John by his Charter granted That there should be a Canonical Election with Three Restrictions 1. That leave be first asked of the King 2. His Assent afterwards 3. That he shall have the Temporalties during the Vacation of the Bishoprick whereof mention is made in the Stat. of 25 Ed. 3. de Provisoribus and which is confirmed by the Stat. of 13 R. 2. c. 2. Also the Law in general is positive therein That in the making of all Bishops it shall be by Election and the Kings Assent and by the 25 H. 8. the Statute for Consecration of Bishops makes it more certain And if the Pope after the said Charter did use to make any Translation upon a Postulation without Election and Assent of the King it was but an Usurpation and contrary to the Law and restrained by 16 R. 2. and 9 H. 4. 8. And after the 25 H. 8. it was never used to have a Bishop by Postulation or any Translation of him but by Election as the said Statute prescribes And the form of making a Bishop at this day is after the same manner as aforesaid and according to the said Statute 9. The Interest and Authority which a Bishop Elect hath is That he is Episcopus Nominis non Ordinis neque Jurisdictionis But by his Confirmation he hath Potestatem Jurisdictionis as to Excommunicate and Certifie the same 8 Rep. 89. And then the power of the Guardian of the Spiritualties doth cease But after Election and Confirmation he hath Potestatem Ordinationis for then he may Consecrate confer Orders c. For a Bishop hath Three Powers 1. Ordinis which he hath by Consecration whereby he may take the Resignation of a Church confer Orders consecrate Churches And this doth not appertain to him quatenus Bishop of this or that place but is universal over the whole World So the Archbishop of Spalato when he was here conferr'd Orders 2. Jurisdictionis which is not Universal but limited to a place and confin'd to his See This power he hath upon his Confirmation 3. Administratio rei familiaris as the Government of his Revenue and this also he hath upon his Confirmation The Bishop acts either by his Episcopal Order or by his Episcopal Jurisdiction By the former he Ordains Deacons and Priests Dedicates or Consecrates Churches Chappels and Churchyards administers Confirmation c. By the latter he acts as an Ecclesiastical Judge in matters Spiritual by his Power either Ordinary or Delegated 10. An. 1430. Temp. Reg. H. 6. Hen. Chicheley Archiepisc Cant. in Synodo Constitutum est Ne quis Jurisdictionem Ecclesiasticam exerceret nisi Juris Civilis aut Canonici gradum aliquem ab Oxoniâ—nsi vel Cantabrigiensi Academia accepisset Ant. Brit. fo 284. nu 40. The power of the Bishop and Archbishop is derived from the Crown as was held in Walkers Case against Lamb where it was also held That the Grant of a Commissary or Official to one was good notwithstanding he were a Lay man and not a Doctor of Law but only a Batchelour of Law for the Court then said That the Jurisdiction of the Bishop and Archdeacon is derived from the Crown by usage and prescription and that in it self as it is coercive to punish Crimes or to determine Matrimonial Causes and Probate of Testaments and granting of Administrations being Civil Causes are derived from the Crown and not incident de mero jure to the Bishop which appears by Henslows Case par 9. Cawdry's Case par 5. 1 Ed. 6. c. 2. the Stat. of 37 H. 8. and divers other Authorities and the Statute of 37 H. 8. c.
Bishops Visitation mutually to certifie each other under their Hands and Seals the Names and Crimes of all such as were Presented in the said Visitation Nor shall any Chancellor or other Ecclesiastical Judge suffer any Judicial Act to be sped otherwise than in open Court or in presence of the Register or his Deputy or other person by Law allowed to speed the same nor shall have without the Bishops consent any more Seals of Office than one Nor shall any man be admitted a Chancellor or to exercise any Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction under the age of 26 years and learned in the Civil and Ecclesiastical Laws and is at least a Master of Arts or Bachelor of Law and shall first have taken the Oath of Supremacy in the Bishops presence or in open Court and have subscribed the Articles of Religion and swear that to the utmost of his understanding he will deal uprightly and justly in his Office without respect favour or reward 4. Sutton Chancellor of the Bishop of Gloucester moved for a Prohibition to stay a Suit before the Commissioners Ecclesiastical for that Articles were there exhibited against him because he being a Divine and having a Rectory with Cure of Souls and never brought up in the Science of the Civil or Canon Laws or having any Intelligence in them took upon him the Office of the Chancellor of the Bishop of Gloucester whereas there were divers Canons and Ecclesiastical Constitutions and also directions from the late King James and from the King that now is That none should be admitted to have those Offices of Chancellorship to a Bishop unless he were instructed and learned in the Canon and Civil Laws because divers Cases triable in the said Court are of weight and the Judges there ought to have knowledge of the Laws otherwise they cannot administer Right to the Kings Subjects Upon these Articles Mr. Sutton being examined confessed that he was a Divine and had a Spiritual Living and that the Office of the Chancellorship of the Bishop is grantable for life and that such a Bishop of Gloucester had granted to him the Office for his life which the Dean and Chapter had Confirmed whereby he had a Freehold therein and ought to enjoy it during his life And that notwithstanding this Answer they intended to proceed against him wherefore he prayed to have a Prohibition but the Court denied it for if he be a person unskilful in these Laws and by Law ought not to enjoy it they may peradventure examine that for although a Lay-person by his Admission and Institution to a Benefice hath a Freehold yet he may be sued in the Spiritual Court and deprived for that Cause but if he hath wrong he may peradventure by Assize try it therefore a Prohibition was denied 5. The Consistory Court of each Archbishop and every Bishop of every Diocess within this Realm is holden before the Bishops Chancellor in the Cathedral Church or before his Commissary in places of his Diocess far remote and distant from the Bishops Consistory so as the Chancellor cannot call them to the Consistory with any conveniency or without great travel and vexation for which reason such Commissary is called Commissarius Foraneus From these Consistories the Appeal is to the Archbishop of either Province respectively 6. By this word Consistory is commonly understood that place or Ecclesiastical Court of Justice held by the Bishops Chancellor or Commissary in his Cathedral Church or other convenient place of his Diocess for the hearing and determining of matters and Causes of Ecclesiastical cognizance happening within that Diocess But when this word refers to the Province of Canterbury then the chief and most ancient Consistory is the Arch-bishops high Court of Arches as the Court of Appeal from all other Inferiour Consistories within the said Province The same word sometimes refers to a Synod or Council of Ecclesiastical persons conven'd together or to a Cession or Assembly of Prelates but most usually to the Spiritual Court for the deciding of matters of Ecclesiastical cognizance The word Consistory Consistorium is supposed to be borrowed of the Italians or rather Lombards signifying as much as Praetorium or Tribunal being a word utriusque juris and frequently used for a Council-house of Ecclesiastical persons or the place of Justice in the Court Christian 7. The Consistories of Archbishops and Bishops are supposed to begin within this Realm in the time of William the Conquerour which seems very conjecturable from that Charter of his which Sir Ed. Coke in the fourth part of his Institutes mentions to have found Enrolled 2 R. 2. nu 5. Which Charter and Record of great Antiquity asserting not only the Episcopal Consistories but also the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction it cannot be supposed but that it ought to be recited here in terminis per extensum viz. Willielmus gratia Dei Rex Anglorum Comitibus Vicecomitibus omnibus Francigenis quibus in Episcopatu Remigii terras habentibus salutem Sciatis vos omnes caeteri mei Fideles qui in Anglia manent quod Episcopales Leges quae non bene nec secundum Sanctorum Canonum Praecepta usque ad mea tempora in Regno Anglorum fuerunt Communi Concilio Concilio Archiepiscoporum meorum caeterorum Episcoporum Abbatum omnium Principum Regni mei Emendandas judicavi Propterea Mando Regia authoritate Praecipio ut nullus Episcopus vel Archidiaconus de Legibus Episcopalibus amplius in Hundretto Placita teneant nec causam quae ad Regimen animarum pertinet ad Judicium Secularium hominum adducant sed quicunque secundum Episcopales Leges de quacunque causa vel culpa interpellatus fuerit ad locum quem ad hoc Episcopus elegerit nominaverit veniat ibique de causa sua respondeat non secundum Hundrettum sed secundum Canones Episcopales Leges Rectum Deo Episcopo suo faciat Si vero aliquis per superbiam elatus ad Justitiam Episcopalem venire non voluerit vocetur semel secundo tertio quod si nec sic ad emendationem venerit Excommunicetur si opus fuerit ad hoc vindicand ' fortitudo Justitia Regis vel Vicecomitis adhibeatur Ille autem qui vocatus ad Justitiam Episcopi venire noluit pro unaquaque vocatione legem Episcopalem emendabit hoc etiam Defendo mea authoritate interdico ne ullus Vicecom aut praepositus aut minister Regis nec aliquis Laicus homo de Legibus quae ad Episcopum pertinent se intromittat nec aliquis Laicus homo alium hominem sine Justitia Episcopi ad Judicium adducat Judicium vero in nullo loco portetur nisi in Episcopali Sede aut in illo loco quem ad hoc Episcopus constituerit 8. For the Confirmation of this Charter Sir Ed. Coke in the foresaid part of his Institutes refers us to the Register of
that upon such Appeal a Commission under the Great Seal shall be directed to certain persons particularly designed for that business so that from the highest Court of the Archbishop of Canterbury there lies an Appeal to this Court of Delegates Of this Subject of Appeals the Lord Coke says That an Appeal is a Natural defence which cannot be taken away by any Prince or power and in every Case generally when Sentence is given and Appeal made to the Superiour the Judge that did give the Sentence is obliged to obey the Appeal and proceed no further until the Superiour hath examined and determined the cause of Appeal Nevertheless where this Clause Appellatione remota is in the Commission the Judge that gave Sentence is not bound to obey the Appeal but may execute his Sentence and proceed further until the Appeal be received by the Superiour and an Inhibition be sent unto him For that Clause Appellatione remota hath Three notable effects 1 That the Jurisdiction of the Judge à quo is not by the Appeal suspended or stopped for he may proceed the same notwithstanding 2 That for proceeding to Execution or further process he is not punishable 3 That these things that are done by the said Judge after such Appeal cannot be said void for they cannot be reversed per viam Nullitatis But if the Appeal be just and lawful the Superiour Judge ought of right and equity to receive and admit the same and in that case he ought to reverse and revoke all mean Acts done after the said Appeal in prejudice of the Appellant At the Parliament held at Clarendon An. 10 H. 2. cap. 8. the Forms of Appeals in Causes Ecclesiastical are set down within the Realm and none to be made out of the Realm Ne quis appellat ad dominum Papam c. so that the first Article of the Statute of 25 H. 8. concerning the prohibiting of Appeals to Rome is declaratory of the ancient Law of the Realm And it is to be observed says the Lord Coke that the first attempt of any Appeal to the See of Rome out of England was by Anselme Archbishop of Canterbury in the Reign of William Rufus and yet it took no effect Touching the power and Jurisdiction of the Court of Delegates Vid. le Case Stevenson versus Wood. Trin. 10 Jac. B. R. Rot. 1491. in Bulstr Rep. par 2. wherein these Three points are specially argued 1 Whether the Judges Delegates may grant Letters of Administration 2 Whether in their person the King be represented 3 Whether the Court of Delegates may pronounce Sentence of Excommunication or not 14. The High commission-Commission-Court in Causes Ecclesiastical was by Letters Patents and that by force and virtue of the Statute of 1 Eliz. cap. 1. the Title whereof is An Act restoring to the Crown the Ancient Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical c. the High Commissioners might if they were competent that is if they were Spiritual persons proceed to Sentence of Excommunication What the power of this Court was and whether they might in Causes Ecclesiastical proceed to Fine and Imprisonment is at large examined by the Lord Coke in the Fourth part of his Institutes where he reports the Judgment and Resolutions of the whole Court of Common Pleas thereon Pasch 9 Jac. Reg. upon frequent Conferences and mature deliberation set down in writing by the order and command of King James Likewise whom and in what Cases the Ecclesiastical Courts may examine one upon Oath or not there being a penal Law in the Case and whether the saying Quod nemo tenetur seipsum prodere be applicable thereunto Vid. Trin. 13 Jac. B. R. Burroughs Cox c. against the High Commissioners Bulstr par 3. 15. The Statutes of 24 H. 8. and 25 H. 8. do Ordain That upon certain Appeals the Sentence given shall be definitive as to any further Appeal notwithstanding which the King as Supream Governour may after such definitive Sentence grant a Commission of Review or Ad Revidendum c. Sir Ed. Coke gives two Reasons thereof 1 Because it is not restrained by the Statute 2 For that after a definitive Sentence the Pope as Supream Head by the Canon Law used to grant a Commision Ad Revidendum and what Authority the Pope here exercised claiming as Supream Head doth of right belong to the Crown and by the Statutes of 26 H. 8. cap. 1. and 1 Eliz. cap. 1. is annexed to the same Which accordingly was Resolved Trin. 39 Eliz. B. R. Hollingworth's Case In which Case Presidents to this purpose were cited in Michelot's Case 29 Eliz. in Goodman's Case and in Huet's Case 29 Eliz. Also vid. Stat. 8 Eliz. cap. 5. In the Case between Halliwell and Jervoice where a Parson sued before the Ordinary for Tithes and thence he appeals to the Audience where the Sentence is affirmed then the party appeals to the Delegates and there both Sentences are Repealed It was agreed That in such case a Commission Ad Revidendum the Sentences may issue forth but then such a Reviewing shall be final without further Appeal But if the Commissioners do not proceed to the Examination according to the Common Law they shall be restrained by a Prohibition 16. The Court of Peculiars is that which dealeth in certain Parishes lying in several Diocesses which Parishes are exempt from the Jurisdiction of the Bishops of those Diocesses and are peculiarly belonging to the Archbishop of Canterbury Within whose Province there are fifty seven such Peculiars for there are certain peculiar Jurisdictions belonging to some certain Parishes the Inhabitants whereof are exempt sometimes from the Archdeacons and sometimes from the Bishops Jurisdiction 17. If a Suit be in the Ecclesiastical Court for a Modus Decimandi if the Desendant plead payment it shall be tryed there and no Prohibition may be granted for that the Original Suit was there well commenced So if payment be pleaded in a Suit depending in the Ecclesiastical Court for any thing whereof they have the original cognizance But if a man sue for Tithes in the Ecclesiastical Court against J. S. and makes Title to them by a Lease made to him by the Parson and J. S. there also makes Title to them by a former Lease made to him by the same Parson so that the Question there is which of the said Leases shall be preferred In this case a Prohibition shall be granted for they shall not try which of the said Leases shall be preferr'd although they have cognizance of the Original for the Leases are Temporal If a man having a Parsonage Impropriate make a Lease for years of part of the Tithes by Deed and the Deed be denied in the Ecclesiastical Court and Issue taken thereon a Prohibition shall be granted If a Parson compound with his Parishioner for his Tithes and by his Deed grant them to him for a certain Sum for one year according to Agreement and after he
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
surmized they had a Custome to place a Clerk there by the Election of the Vestry the Parson sued them in the Ecclesiastical Court to have his Clerk placed there according to a late Canon made It was the Opinion of the Court that it was a good Custome and that the Canon could not take it away wherefore a Prohibition was granted 16. A Bishop Archdeacon Parson are Spiritual Corporations at the Common Law for the Parson and this is meant also of the others hath two Capacities The one to take to him and his Heirs the other to him and his Successors and in that respect he is seized jure Ecclesiae If J. S. be Parson of D. and Land be granted to J. S. Parson and his Successors and to J. S. Clerk and his Heirs in this case he is Tenant in Common with himself 17. Note That it was agreed in Bushie's Case That if a Parsonage be Impropriate and the Vicarage be endowed and difference be between the Parson and the Vicar concerning the Endowment that shall be tried by the Ordinary for the Persons and the Cause are both Spiritual And there the Vicar sues the Parson for Tithes and suggests the manner of Tithing and prays a Prohibition and it was granted and after upon solemn Argument Consultation was granted insomuch that the manner of Tithing did not come in question but the Endowment of the Vicarage only for that is the elder Brother as the Lord Coke said This was cited to be Adjudged by Coke Also there is much difference between Prebends and Parsons for it was Adjudged in Watkinson and Man's Case That a Lease made by a Prebend is good by the Statute of 32 H. 8. for he is not excepted but only Parsons and Vicars and so it was said it had been Adjudged in Doctor Dale's Case 18. It will not be denied but that the Clergy of England have had in all Ages certain Priviledges which the Laity never pretended to To which purpose there have been Laws Enacted and Cases Ruled by persons learned in the Laws In An. 22 H. 8. cap. 5. it is Enacted That the decayed Bridges in every County where it cannot be known who in right ought to repair the same shall be repaired by the Inhabitants of the said County Town Corporate or Riding where the Bridge is by the Assessment of the Justices of Peace who may appoint Collectors to levy the same by Distress Now the Question is Whether the Parsons and the Vicars may be charged by the general word of the Inhabitants and Distress taken on their Spiritual Livings In order to a Resolution of this Question it must be premised That it is most evident that the Clergy are by the Common Law of this Kingdom a divided Estate both for their Persons and Spiritual promotions from the Laity of this Land 1 For their Persons Fitz. N. B. fo 175. That Clerks shall not be chosen Bayliffs or Beadles for the Lands in their possessions although the Land before it came to the hands of the Clerk was charged therewith by tenure 2 A Clerk arraigned before a Temporal Judge for Felony may plead the Jurisdiction of the Court The Clergy-men by reason of their Resiance are not bound to the Leet nor to follow Hugh and Cry 3 That their Spiritual Livings are also discharged from the general charge of this Realms Laity appears by the Register fo 260. F. N. B. fo 227. That Spiritual persons shall not be charged to pay Toll Pontage or Murage but may discharge themselves by Writ Also the Sheriff who by the Law is the King 's general Officer to serve Processes in every County may not intermeddle with the Clergy in respect of their Spiritual promotions but return Quod Clericus est Beneficiatus in Episcoparu non habet Laicum foedum in baliva mea and then the Process must be to the Bishop as appears 34 H. 6. 21 H. 6. This Priviledge is confirmed to them by Magna Charta and divers Grants and Statutes viz. Articulis Cleri 9 Ed. 2. cap. 9. Likewise no Distress shall be taken in the Ancient Donations of the Church The like Grant is made unto them by King Ed. 1. 24. Protestation 2. That the Sheriff or Minister of the King shall not meddle with the Goods Chattels or Carriages of the Clergy and in Purveyors 12. An. 14 Ed. 3. there is a Statute that Purveyors shall not meddle with the Clergy c. Ed. 1. cap. 1. 1 R. 2. cap. 2. 1 H. 4. cap. 3. Statute Spiritualties 2. Priviledges Grants Immunities of the Clergy are confirmed So that it appears both by the Common Law and the Statutes that the Clergy are not to be burthened in the general charges with the Laity of this Realm neither to be troubled or incumbred unless they be especially named and expresly charged by some Statute And divers Statutes heretofore expressing themselves with the like general words have never been expounded to extend to the Clergy as by the usage of them appears by the Statute of Winton An. 13 Eliz. 1. Again the people dwelling in a Hundred where any Robbery is committed shall either bring forth the Felon or agree with him that is robbed yet hath it never been taken that Parsons and Vicars should be Contributors thereunto yet the words Gentes demorantes viz. the People dwelling are as general words as Inhabitants In the same Statute there are the like general words Watching c. yet the Clergy thereby are never charged Also the Statute made for the High-ways An. 2 3. P. M. chargeth every Housholder yet this general Housholder hath never been taken by usage to charge the Clergy viz. the Parson or Vicar Fitz. in his Nat. Bre. fol. 131. saith that a Clerk being bound in a Statute-Merchant shall not be taken by his Body And the Writ founded upon the Statute-Staple 27 Ed. 3. cap. 9. hath this special Proviso Si Laicus Sit capias Also the Statute whereupon this Writ is founded is general and no Exception made at the Clergy And 33 H. 8. cap. 2. there is a Statute that chargeth all Resiants within any Countyâ— where there is no Goal to be Taxed by the Justices for the Building of one yet have the Clergy never been charged by reason of these general words Resiants c. 1 Ed. 1. 18 Ed. 3. 4. 1 R. 2. 1. For these Reasons it is supposed that the general words in the aforesaid Question will receive in Law the like Exposition as the other said recited Statutes have done And the Parsons and Vicars shall not thereby be charged the rather for that the Statute sets down the Inhabitants of the County where the certain persons that should do it cannot be known which is to be intended such Inhabitants as are chargeable to Pontage which Spiritual persons are not but excepted as aforesaid CHAP. XVIII Of Vicars Vicarages and Benefices 1. The Vicar and Vicarage described according to Law 2. What
the King Confirms and afterwards he is Inducted to the Church of D. In this Case it was Adjudged That the Dispensation came too late because it came after the Institution for by the Institution the Church is full against all persons except the King and as to the Spititualties he is full Parson by the Institution 2. Resolved That admit the Church was not full by the Institution until Induction yet the Dispensation came too late for that the words of the Statute of 21 H. 8 of Pluralities are may purchase Licence to receive and keep two Benefices with Cure of Souls and the words of Dispensation in this case were recipere retinere and because by the Institution the Church was full he could not purchase Licence to receive that which he had before and he cannot retain that which he cannot receive 26. In the case of a Prohibition it was Resolved That by the Common Law before the Statute of 21 H. 8. the first Benefice was void without a Sentence Declarative so as the Patron might present without notice 2. That the Statute of 21 H. 8. of Pluralities is a general Law of which the Judges are to take notice without pleading of it 3. That the Queen might grant Dispensations as the Pope might in case where the Archbishop had not Authority by the Statute of 25 H. 8. to grant Dispensations because all the Authority of the Pope was given to the Crown by the Statute But yet the Statute as to those Dispensations which the Archbishop is to grant hath Negative words and the Bishop shall make the Instrument under his Seal CHAP. XXVII Of Deprivation 1. What Deprivation is and in what Court to be pronounced 2. The Causes in Law of Deprivation 3. In what Cases Deprivation ipso facto without any Declaratory Sentence thereof may be 4. A Cardinal 's Case of Deprivation by reason of Miscreancy 5. The Papal Deprivation by reason of Marriage 6. What the Law is in point of Notice to the Patron in case of Deprivation by reason of meer Laity or Nonage 7. The difference of operation in Law between Malum prohibitum and Malum in se and in what Cases of Deprivation Notice ought to be given to the Patron 8. Deprivation by reason of Degradation which Degradation at the Canon Law may be two ways 9. Cawdry's Case of Deprivation for Scandalous words against the Book of Common Prayer sentenced by the High Commissioners 10. Deprivation for Non-conformity to the Ecclesiastical Canons by the High Commissioners agreed to be good 11. Deprivation for not Reading the Articles of Religion according to the Statute of 13 Eliz. 12. Deprivation by the High Commissioners for Drunkenness 13. The Church is not void by the Incumbents being Deprivable without Deprivation 14. For an Incumbent to declare his Assent to the Articles of Religion so far as they agree with the Word of God is not that unfeigned Assent which the Statute requires 15. A Church becomes void presently upon not Reading the Articles and there needs not any Deprivation in that Case 16. A Case wherein a Sentence declaratorie for Restitution makes a Nullity in the Deprivation 17. An Appeal from a Sentence of Deprivation prevents the Church's being void pro tempore 18. Vpon Deprivation for meer Laity or Incapacity the Lay-Patron must have Notice ere the Lapse incurrs against him 19. An Incumbent Excommunicated and so obstinately persisting 40 daies is Deprivable 1. DEprivation is a discharge of the Incumbent of his Dignity or Ministery upon sufficient cause against him conceived and proved for by this he loseth the Name of his First Dignity and that either by a particular Sentence in the Ecclesiastical Court or by a general Sentence by some positive or Statute-Law of this Realm So that Deprivation is an Ecclesiastical Sentence Declaratory pronounced upon due proof in the Spiritual Court whereby an Incumbent being legally discharged from Officiating in his Benefice with Cure the Church pro tempore becomes void So that it is in effect the Judicial incapacitating an Ecclesiastical person of holding or enjoying his Parsonage Vicarage or other Spiritual promotion or dignity by an Act of the Ecclesiastical Law only in the Spiritual Court grounded upon sufficient proof there of some Act or Defect of the Ecclesiastical person Deprived This is one of the means whereby there comes an Avoidance of the Church if such Sentence be not upon an Appeal repealed The causes of this Deprivation by the Canon Law are many whereof some only are practicable with us in the Ecclesiastical Laws of this Realm and they only such as are consonant to the Statutes and Common Law of this Kingdom 2. All the Causes of Deprivation may be reduced to these Three Heads 1 Want of Capacity 2 Contempt 3 Crime But more particularly It is evident that the more usual and more practicable Causes of this Deprivation are such as these viz. a meer Laity or want of Holy Orders according to the Church of England Illiterature or inability for discharge of that Sacred Function Irreligion gross Scandal some heinous Crime as Murther Manslaughter Perjury Forgery c. Villany Bastardy Schism Heresie Miscreancy Misbelief Atheism Simony Illegal Plurality Incorrigibleness and obstinate Disobedience to the approved Canons of the Church as also to the Ordinary Non-conformity Refusal to use the Book of Common Prayer or Administer the Sacraments in the order there prescribed the use of other Rites or Ceremonies order form oâ— celebrating the same or of other open and publick Prayers the preaching or publishing any thing in derogation thereof or depraving the same having formerly been convicted for the like offence the not Reading the Articles of Religion within Two months next after Induction according to the Statute of 13 Eliz cap. 12. The not Reading publickly and solemnly the Morning and Evening Prayers appointed for the same day according to the Book of Common Prayer within Two month next after Induction on the Lord's Day the not openly and publickly declaring before the Congregation there Assembled his unfeigned assent and consent after such Reading to the use of all things therein contained or in case of a lawful Impediment then the not doing thereof within one month next after the removal of such Impediment a Conviction before the Ordinary of a wilful maintaining or affirming any Doctrine contrary to the 39 Articles of Religion a persistance therein without revocation of his Error or re-affirmance thereof after such Revocation likewise Incontinency Drunkenness and 40 daies Excommunication To all which might also be added Dilapidation for it seems anciently to have been a Dilapidator was a just cause of Deprivation whether it were by destroying the Timber-trees or committing waste on the Woods of the Church-Lands or by putting down or suffering to go to decay the Houses or Edifices belonging to the same as appears by Lyford's Case as also in the Bishop of Salisbury's Case
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
that Nag or Horse for that it is a Barren Beast not renewing but kept only for Labour and so Adjudged in the Parson of Thimblethorpe's Case where the Case was That a man Leased out certain Lands to another reserving to himself the running of a Nag for his own Riding and after the Lessor was sued in the Ecclesiastical Court for the Tithes of that Nag and a Prohibition was granted by Mountague Crook and Doderidge for that it is a Barren Creature and used only for Riding and although it was urged at the Bar that the Lessee paid him Tithes for all the Herbage but the Court took no advantage of that But Houghton seemed è contra for it seem'd to him That no Barren Cattel should be discharged of Tithes other than such as are used for Husbandry But that was not used for Husbandry Ergo c. And in the Case of a Prohibition between Hampton and Wilde It was Resolved That Tithes shall be paid for Pasturage of a Gelding for his Saddle or if it be sold but not for Horses used only for Labour In a Prohibition the Case was M. the Defendant being Parson of D. did Libel in the Ecclesiastical Court for the Tithes of Sylva Caedua and of the Herbage for depasturing of his Geldings The Plaintiff there shewed that they were his Hackney Geldings which he kept for his pleasure and for himself and his Servants to ride upon being his Saddle Horses and this Plea being there refused for this cause he prayed a Prohibition The whole Court was clear of Opinion That here was good cause for a Prohibition for that these Horses are not Tithable nor any Tithe-Herbage is to be paid for them otherwise it were if they had been Cart-Horses which he had to Till his Ground or for Cattel bought and Fatted to sell again for gain for these he ought to be answerable to the Parson for the Herbage of them but not for the Herbage of his Geldings by him kept and used only for his Pleasure but it was for working Horses for the Cart or Plough or for Fat Cattel bought and and Fatted to sell again of such Cattel allowance is to be made for their Herbage because that a Profit doth come in by them but otherwise it is of Saddle-Horses the whole Court agreed in this and therefore in this Case by the Rule of the Court a Prohibition was granted Nurseries of young Trees and Plants pay Tithes If a man be seised of Land within a Parish which used to pay Tithes and a Nursery be made thereof for young Trees and Plants of divers kinds of Fruit as Apples Pears Plums c. Also of Ash c. and after sell divers of them to Strangers out of the Parish to be transplanted he shall pay Tithes of that Nursery to the Parson for although the young Trees are parcel of the Freehold so long as they continue there yet when they are transplanted they are severed and taken from the Freehold and if that should be permitted without payment of Tithes the Parson might be defeated of the Tithes of all the Land in the Parish by converting them into Nurseries Hill 14 Car. B. R. Gibbs Wiburne Adjudg per Cur. upon a Demurrer and a Consultation granted accordingly Intrat Mich. 14 Car. Rot. 75. Cro. par 3. O OAks beyond 20 years growth that are become dry and rotten and thereby not fit for Timber shall pay no Tithe because they were once priviledged And if Oaks beyond 20 years growth have been used to be Topt and Lopt within every 20 years yet no Tithes shall be paid of these Tops and Branches cut within 20 years growth because their stock is discharged of Tithes Trin. 38 Eliz. B. R. Ram Patteson Mich. 3 Jac. B. Brook Rogers Co. 11. Sampson Worthington 48. B. Adjudg It was also Resolved in Wray and Clenche's Case That small Oaks under twenty years growth apt for Timber in time to come shall not pay Tithes Mores Rep. Likewise Oaks Top'd within the age of 20 years and after the Lop left to grow beyond 20 years no Tithes shall be paid for it is now become Timber Mich. 10 Jac. B. per Coke And Oaks decayed that are not Timber but converted to Firewood shall notwithstanding not pay Tithes More Case 716. Oblations Obventions and Offerings seem to be but one and the same thing and are in a sense something of the nature of Tithes being offered to God and his Church of things Real or Personal Offerings are reckoned amongst Personal Tithes and such as come by labour and industry paid by Servants and others once a year to the Parson or Vicar according to the Custome of the Place or they are to be paid in the place where the party dwells at such four Offering-days as before the Statute of 2 3 Ed. 6. c. 13. within the space of four years then last past had been used for the payment thereof and in default thereof Cro. 3. Abridg. Case 3159. In London Offerings are a Groat a House They are by the Law now in force to be paid as formerly they have been Vid. Stat. 32 H. 8. 7. 27 H. 8. 20. 2 3. Ed. 6. 13. Co. 11. 16. They properly belong to the Parson or Vicar of that Church where they are made Of these some were free and voluntary others by Custome certain and obligatory They were anciently due to the Parson of the Parish that officiated at the Mother-Church or Chappels that had Parochial Rights but if they were paid to other Chappels that had not any Parochial Rights the Chaplains thereof were accountable for the same to the Parson of the Mother-Church Lindw c. de Oblation cap. quia quidam Such Offerings as at this day are due to the Parson or Vicar at Sacraments Marriages Burials or Churching of Women are only such as were confirmed by the Statute of 2 Ed. 6. 13. and payable by the Laws and Customes of this Realm before the making of the said Statute and are Recoverable only in the Ecclesiastical Court Orchard the Soil whereof is sowed with any Grain the Parson may claim the Tithe thereof as well as of the Fruit of the Trees because they are of several kinds and of distinct natures Coke Magn. Chart. 652. P PArk if converted into Tillage shall pay Tithe in kind for a Park is but a Liberty a discharge therefore of the Tithes of a Park is not a discharge of the Tithes of the very Soil which may be converted into Tillage Or if there be a Modus Decimandi of the Park and the Park be disparked and the Land converted into Tillage or Hop-ground or the like in this case though Tithes in kind are not payable yet the Modus shall remain The Case is the same if the Park be disparked by having all the Pales fallen down which in Law is a disparking of the Park Sed Q. For to pay a Buck or a Doe or the
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
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
of Alimony was commanded to be put out of their Commission And upon that Richardson said to Hitcham move this again when the Court is full for we may advise of this Et adjournat c. One Broke was committed by the High Commissioners to the Fleet because he refused Alimony to his Wife and that being returned upon an Habeas Corpus he was delivered Broke's Case More 's Rep. 18. The Wife complains against her Husband in the Ecclesisiastical Court Causa saevitiae for that he gave her a Box on the Ear and spit on her Face and whirl'd her about and called her damned Whore Which was not by Libel but by Verbal accusation after reduced to writing The Husband denies it and the Court ordered the Husband to give to his Wife 4 l. every Week pro expensis litis and Alimony Barkley and Henden moved for a prohibition The Suit is originally Causa saevitiae and as a Case wherein they Assess Alimony And now for a ground of a prohibition it was said that the Husband chastised his Wife for a reasonable cause as by the Law of the Land he might which they denied and said that they had Jurisdiction in these matters de saevitia c. And afterwards that the Wife departed and that they were reconciled again And then that reconciliation took away that Saevitiâ— before as reconciliation after Elopement Richardson it was said here that the Suit was without Libel but that is no ground of a prohibition for she proceeded upon that matter reduced in Articles and we cannot grant a Prohibition if they proceed in their Form For we are not Judges of their Form But if they will deny a Copy of the Libel a Prohibition lies by the Statute You say that an Husband may give reasonable chastisement to his Wife and we have nothing to do with it But only that the Husband may be bound to his good behaviour by the Common Law And the Sentence in Causa saevitiae is a mensa thoro and we cannot examine what is Cruelty and what not And certainly the matter alledged is Cruelty for spitting in the Face is punishable in the Star-Chamber But if the Husband had pleaded a Justification and set forth a Provocation to him by his Wife to give her reasonable castigation then there would be some colour of a Prohibition Henden we have made such an Allegation and it is absolutely refused Hutton perhaps he is in Contempt and then they will not admit any Plea as if one be Out-lawed at Common Law he cannot bring an Action But they advised the Plaintiff to tender a Justification and if they refused it then to move for a Prohibition 19. B. was ordered by the High Commission-Court to give Alimony to his Wife and was bound in an obligation of 300 l. to one of the Doctors there to give her Alimony and to use her as his Wife And now he is sued there again and it is alledged against him that he had committed Adultery with divers Women and that he had not given Alimony to his Wife and thereupon B. was put to his Oath who answered that as to the point of Alimony he was not bound to answer for that he was bound in an obligation to perform it and also that he was sued to discover upon his Oath the forfeiture of the Obligation and for that the Defendant would make no other answer he was committed to Prison and being brought hither by Habeas Corpus the Court was prayed that he might be released for the reason aforesaid Coke Gawens Case which was ruled here in Wrays time was the same Case in effect and it was ruled that the Ecclesiastical Court may not examine him upon his Oath in such Case and per Curiam B. was Bailed till the next Term for that that was the last day of the Term. Coke for that there is an obligation taken in this Case I will grant a Prohibition for taking an Obligation for that if it be moved and it was not well done to take the obligation to one of the Doctors but we use to take the obligation in the Kings Name Mich. 5. E. 4. B. R. Rot. 143. The Statute of 2 H. 4 gives authority to Bishops to Fine and Imprison for Heresie And where one Reser had given a Legacy to Bishop Stephens for which he sued the Executor who being for not payment thereof Excommunicated said that he was not Excommunicated before God although he were before Men for his Corn grew very well for which words he was after Imprisoned but he was bailed here per Curiam upon an Habeas corpus for that it was not Heresie because that Court hath Authority to examine such things which are given by the Statute of 10. H. 7. One said that the Tenth part of Tythes was not due Jure Divino for which words he was Imprisoned whereupon the Habeas Corpus was brought and that depended till 14. H. 7. at which time it was adjudged that it was not Heresie and that the Court had Jurisdiction to examine that it being given by Statute And it seems to me that the High Commission Court had not power to Fine or Imprison for Alimony Hill 12. Jac. upon an Habeas Corpus by one Codd the return was that he was Imprisoned by the High Commission by that Warrant viz. We command you to take him and Imprison him for manifest Contempt to the Court for that he being ordered to receive his Wife and to enter into an obligation to use her as his Wife he refuses so to do Coke he shall be Bail'd for that he could not be imprisoned by them for Alimony nor take obligation to perform their order Sentence was given in the Ecclesiastical Court that the Wife should be separated from her Husband propter saevitiam of the Husband and Alimony allowed her there the Husband prayed a Prohibition setting forth he desired a Cohabitation and proffered Caution thereby to use her fitly The Court denied it because the Court of the Ordinary is the proper Court for allowance of Alimony A Libel was before the High Commissioners which supposed divers cruelties used by the Husband against the Wife for which she was enforced to depart from him who would not allow her maintenance and therefore she sued before them for Alimony But because it is a Suit properly suable before the Ordinary wherein if there be wrong the party may have an appeal and although it be one of the Articles within their Commission to determine of yet because it is not any of the clauses within the Stat. of 1 E. 6. for which causes the Commission is ordained the Court awarded a Prohibition CHAP. XXXVII Of Defamation 1. What Defamation is how many ways it may be and where Cognizable 2. Two ways of prosecution at the Civil Law in Causes of Defamation 3. Prohibition for suing in the Ecclesiastical Court upon the words Drunkard and Drunken Fellow 4. Several differences in
Consistory Among the many Learned Ecclesiedicts who have supplied that Ecclesiastical place William Lindwood who finished his industrious and useful work of the Provincial Constitutions about the year 1433. in the time of K. Henry the Sixth seems to be of the highest Renown his Education was in the University of Cambridge first Scholar of Gonvil then Fellow of Pembrook-hall his younger years he employed in the study of the Imperial and Canon Laws afterwards became Keeper of the Privy Seal unto King Henry the Fifth by whom he was honoured with an Embassie to the Crowns of Spain and Portugal After the Kings death he reassum'd his Officials place of Canterbury and then collected the Constitutions of the Fourteen later Archbishops of Canterbury from Stephen Langton unto Henry Chichley unto whom he dedicated that highly to be esteemed Work his Gloss thereon being in it self as a Canonical Magazine or the Key which opens the Magazine of the whole Canon Law It was printed at Paris An. 1505. at the cost and charges of William Bretton Merchant of London revised by the care of Wolfangus Hippolitus and Prefaced unto by Jodocus Badius This Famous Lindwood was afterwards made Bishop of St. Davids By the Grant of William the Conqueror the Bishops originally had an entire Jurisdiction to judge all Causes relating to Religion for before that time the Sheriff and Bishop kept their Court together He granted also to the Clergy Tithes of Calves Colts Lambs Woods Mills c. So that before the Conquest there were no such Courts in England as we now call Courts Ecclesiastical or Spiritual for Anciently the Bishops sate in Judgment together with the Secular Judges and Sheriffs on the same Tribunal specially about Easter and Michalmass which appears by Mr. Selden in his Notes on Eadmerus pag. 167. as also by the Laws of King Aethelstane Debent Episcopi cum Seculi Judicibus interesse Judiciis ne permittant si possint ut illinc aliqua pravitatum germina pullulaverint Sacerdotibus pertinet in sua Diocoesi ut ad rectum sedulo quemcunque juvent nec patiantur si possint ut Christianus aliquis alii noceat c. Chron. Jo. Bromton de Leg. Aethelst Reg. And in the Preamble to the Laws of that King you will find these words viz. Debet etiam Episcopus sedulo pacem concordiam operari cum Seculi Judicibus Yea long after the Conquest in the Reign of H. 2. An. 1164. by his Laws made at Clarendon the Bishops might interest themselves with the Kings Secular Judges where the matter in Judgment extended not to diminution of Members or were Capital An. 1164. Congregati sunt Praesules Proceres Anglicani regni apud Clarendoniam Rex igitur Henricus c. Then it follows in Lege undecima viz. Archiepiscopi Episcopi c. sicut Barones caeteri debent interesse Judiciis Curiae Regis cum Baronibus usque perveniatur in Judicio ad diminutionem Membrorum vel ad mortem Notwithstanding at the same time the Bishops Ecclesiastical Courts as also the Archdeacons Courts were established in this Kingdom and further ratified and confirmed by these very Laws of King H. 2. made at Clarendon as appears by the Tenth Law and that immediately foregoing the Premisses in haec verba viz. Qui de Civitate vel Castello vel Burgo vel dominico manerio Domini Regis fuerit si ab Archidiacono vel Episcopo de aliquo delicto Citatus fuerit unde debeat eis Respondere ad Citationes eorum noluerit satisfacere bene licet eum sub Interdicto ponere sed non debet c. exinde poterit Episcopus ipsum Accusatum Ecclesiastica Justitia coercere Chron. Gervas de Temp. H. 2. In those daies there was no occasion for that just Complaint which a Learned Pen as a Modern Author observes makes viz. That Courts which should distribute Peace do themselves practice Duells whilst it is counted the part of a Resolute Judge to enlarge the Priviledge of his Court Lord Bacon in his Advanc of Learn p. 463. Aphor. 96. It was with more moderation expressed by him who said It was sad when Courts that are Judges become Plaintiffs and Defendants touching the Bounds of their Jurisdiction In the first Parliament of King Edward the Sixth's Reign it was Enacted That all Process out of the Ecclesiastical Courts should from thenceforth be issued in the Kings Name only and under the Kings Seal of Arms contrary to the usage of former Times But this Statute being Repealed by Queen Mary and not Revived by Queen Elizabeth the Bishops and their Chancellors Commissaries and Officials have ever since exercised all manner of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in their own Names and under the distinct Seals of their several Offices respectively Also by the Statute of 25 H. 8. c. 19. it being Enacted That all former Canons and Constitutions not contrary to the Word of God the Kings Prerogative or the Laws and Statutes of this Realm should remain in force until they were review'd by Thirty two Commissioners to be appointed by the King and that Review being never made in that Kings time nor any thing done therein by King Ed. 6. though he had also an Act of Parliament to the same effect the said Ancient Canons and Constitutions remain'd in force as before they were whereby all Causes Testamentary Matrimonial Tithes Incontinency Notorious Crimes of Publick Scandal Wilful absence from Divine Service Irreverence and other Misdemeanours in or relating to the Church c. not punishable by the Temporal Laws of this Realm were still reserved unto the Ecclesiastical Courts as a standing Rule whereby they were to proceed and regulate the Exercise of their Jurisdiction Vid. Heyl. ubi supr p. 2 3. Touching the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and what Matters and Causes should be cognizable in the Ecclesiastical Courts of Normandy in the Reign of King Richard the First upon occasion of a Contest inter Ecclesiam ROTHOMAGENSEM WILLIELMUM Filium RADULFI Steward of Normandy it was nigh Five hundred years since finally Accorded Published inter alia Declared by all the Clergy That all Perjuries and Breach of Faith except in case of National Leagues all Controversies relating to Dowries and Donations propter Nuptias quoad Mobilia should be heard and determined in the Ecclesiastical Court it was then also so many hundred years since further Resolved in haec verba viz. Quod distributio eorum quae in Testamento relinquuntur auctoritate Ecclesiae fiet nec Decima pars ut olim subtrahetur It was likewise at the same time and so long since further Resolved That Si quis subitanea morte vel quolibet alio Fortuito Casu praeoccupatus fuerit ut de rebus suis disponere non possit Distributio Bonorum ejus Ecclesiastica auctoritate fiet Radulph de Diceto Hist de Temp. Rich. 1. Regis Of all the Churches in Great Britain that of Saint Pauls London is of the largest structure
complaint thereof made to the Pope the Answer was That any man might be Cited to the Arches out of any Diocess in England Also That the Archbishop may hold his Consistory in any Diocess within his Jurisdiction and Province That the Archbishop hath concurrent Jurisdiction in the Diocess of every Bishop as well as the Archdeacon and That the Archbishop of Canterbury prescribes to hold Plea of all persons in England But as to his power of having a Consistory in the Diocess of every Bishop this was in this Case denied but only where he was the Popes Legate whereof there were Three sorts 1. Legates à Latere and these were Cardinals which were sent à Latere from the Pope 2. A Legate born and these were the Archbishops of Canterbury York and Mentz c. 3. A Legate given and these have Authority by special Commission from the Pope Likewise in the Case of Jones against Boyer C. B it was also said by Dr. Martyn That the Archbishop hath Ordinary Jurisdiction in all the Diocesses of his Province and that this is the cause that he may Visit 13. The Archbishop of Canterbury Anciently had Primacy as well over all Ireland as England from whom the Irish Bishops received their Consecration for Ireland had no other Archbishop until the year 1152. For which reason it was declared in the time of the Two first Norman Kings That Canterbury was the Metropolitan Church of England Scotland and Ireland and the Isles adjacent the Archbishop of Canterbury was therefore sometimes styled a Patriarch and Orbis Britannici Pontifex insomuch that Matters recorded in Ecclesiastical Affairs did run thus viz. Anno Pontificatus Nostri primo secundo c. He was also Legatus Natus that is he had a perpetual Legantine power annext to his Archbishoprick nigh a thousand years since And at General Councils he had the Precedency of all other Archbishops abroad and at home he had some special Marks of Royalty as to be the Patron of a Bishoprick as he was of Rochester to coyn Mony to make Knights and to have the Wardships of all those who held Lands of him Jure Hominii although they held in Capite other â—ands of the King as was formerly hinted He is said to be Inthroned when he is invested in the Archbishoprick And by the Stat. of 25 H 8. he hath power to grant Licenses and Dispensations in all Cases heretofore sued for in the Court of Rome not repugnant to the Law of God or the Kings Prerogative As also to allow a Clerk to hold a Benefice in Commendam or in Trust to allow a Clerk rightly qualified to hold Two Benefices with Cure of Souls to allow a Beneficed Clerk for some certain causes to be non-Resident for some time and to Dispense in several other Cases prohibited by the Letters of the Canon Law Likewise the Archbishop of Canterbury Consecrates other Bishops confirms the Election of Bishops within his Province calls Provincial Synods according to the Kings Writ to him ever directed is chief Moderator in the Synods and Convocations he Viâ—its the whole Province appoints a Guardian of the Spiritualties during the vacancy of any Bishoprick within his Province whereby all the Episcopal Ecclesiastical Rights of that Diocess for that time belong to him all Ecclesiastical Jurisdictions as Visitations Institutions c. He may retain and qualifie Eight Chaplains which is more by Two than any Duke is allowed by Statute to do and hath power to hold divers Courts of Judicature for the decision of Controversies pertaining to Ecclesiastical Cognizance CHAP. III. Of Bishops and Ordinaries 1. Bishop Why so called Not above One to be in one Diocess 2. Why called Ordinary and what the Pallium Episcopale is 3. Bishopricks originally Donative Kings of England the Founders thereof 4. The manner of Election of Bishops their Confirmation and Consecration 5. Their Seals of Office in what cases they may use their own Seals 6. What follows upon Election to make them Bishops compleat the grant of their Temporalties 7. The Conge d'eslire and what follows thereupon 8. Bishopricks were Donative till the time of King John 9. What the Interest and Authority is in his several capacities 10. Episcopal Authority derived from the Crown 11. The Vse and Office of Suffragan Bishops 12. Whether a Bishop may give Institution out of his own proper Diocess and under other Seal than his own Seal of Office 13. Several things incident to a Bishop qua talis 14. Ordinary what properly he is and why so called 15. In what cases the Ordinaries Jurisdiction is not meerly Local 16. The Ordinaries power de jure Patronatûs 17. Whether the Ordinary may cite a man out of his own Diocess Also his Right ad Synodalia 18. The Ordinaries power of Visitation 19. The Dignity and true Precedency of the Bishops in England 20. Temporal Jurisdiction anciently exercised by Bishops in this Realm the Statute of 17 Car. 1. against it Repealed and they Restored to it by the Stat. of 13 Car. 2. as formerly 21. The Act made in the Reign of Ed. 6. concerning the Election of Bishops the Endeavours thereby to take away Episcopal Jurisdiction the Nomination of all Bishops was Anciently Sole in the King 22. The Bishops of London are Deans of the Episcopal Colledge 23. A Case at Common Law touching a Lease made by one Bishop during the life of another of the same Diocess in Ireland 1. BISHOP Episcopus from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 supra and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 intendere an Overseer or Superintendent so called from that watchfulness care charge and faithfulness which by his Place and Dignity he hath and oweth to the Church A word which all Antiquity hath appropriated to signifie the Chief in Superintendency over the whole Church within his Diocess wherein are divers inferiour Pastors This Oversight or Care the Hebrews call Pekudah Of this Office or Ecclesiastical Dignity there can be but one at a time in one and the same Diocess whence it is that Cornelius Bishop of Rome as Eusebius relates upbraided Novatius for his ignorance in that point when he could not but know there were no less than 46 Presbyters in that Church Oecumenius and St. Chrysostome affirming also as many at Philippi For in this restrained sense as the word Bishop is now taken it cannot be imagined that there should be more than one in one City or Diocess at the same time consonant whereunto the Synod of Nice prohibited Two or more Bishops to have their Seats at once in the same City This Novatius aforesaid was a Priest of Rome 254 years after Christ he abhorred Second Marriages and was condemned as an Heretick in a Synod at Rome the same year Every Bishop many Centuries after Christ was universal Incumbent of his Diocess received all the Profits which were but Offerings of Devotion out of which he paid the Salaries of such as Officiated under himâ—
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
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 Bishoprick of Winchester contra novi Concilii statuta as the same Author reporteth And this because succeeding Popes had broken Pope Vrban's promise Touching the not sending of Legates into England unless the King should require it And in the time of the next succeeding King Stephen the Pope gained Appeals to the Court of Rome For in a Synod at London Conven'd by Hen. Bishop of Winchester the Pope's Legate it was Decreed That Appeals should be made from Provincial Councils to the Pope Before which time Appellationes in usu non erant saith a Monk of that time donec Henricus Winton Episcopus malo suo dum Legatus esset crudeliter intrusit Thus did the Pope usurp Three main points of Jurisdiction upon Three several Kings after the Conquest for of King William Rufus he could win nothing viz. upon the Conquerour the sending of Legates or Commissioners to hear and determine Ecclesiastical Causes Upon Hen. 1. the Donation and Investures of Bishopricks and other Benefices and upon King Stephen the Appeals to the Court of Rome And in the time of King H. 2. the Pope claimed exemption of Clerks from the Secular Power 2. The high Court of Convocation is called the Convocation of the Clergy and is the highest Court Ecclesiastical where the whole Clergy of both Provinces are either present in Person or by their Representatives They commonly meet and sit in Parliament-time consisting of Two parts viz. the Upper-house where the Archbishops and Bishops do sit and the Lower-house where the Inferiour Clergy do sit This Court hath the Legislative power of making Ecclesiastical Laws is commonly called a National Synod Conven'd by the King 's Writ directed to the Archbishop of each Province for summoning all Bishops Deans Archdeacons Cathedrals and Collegiate Churches assigning them the time and place in the said Writ But one Proctor sent for each Cathedral and Collegiate Church and two for the Body of the inferiour Clergy of each Diocess may suffice The higher House of Convocation or the House of Lords Spiritual for the Province of Canterbury consists of 22 Bishops whereof the Archbishop is President the Lower-house or House of Commons Spiritual consisting of all the Deans Archdeacons one Proctor for every Chapter and two for the Clergy of each Diocess in all 166 persons viz. 22 Deans 24 Prebendaries 54 Archdeacons and 44 Clerks representing the Diocesan Clergy Both Houses debate and transact only such matters as his Majesty by Commission alloweth concerning Religion and the Church All the Members of both Houses of Convocation have the same priviledges for themselves and Menial Servants as the Members of Parliament have The Archbishop of York at the same time and in the like manner holds a Convocation of all his Province at York constantly corresponding debating and concluding the same matters with the Provincial Synod of Canterbury The Antiquity of this Court of Convocation is very great for according to Beda St. Augustine An. 686. assembled in Council the Britain Bishops and held a great Synod The Clergy was never assembled or called together at a Convocation by other Authority than by the King 's Writ Vid. Parl. 18 E. 3. nu 1. Inter Leges Inae An. Dom. 727. A Convocation of the Clergy called Magna servorum Dei frequentia The Jurisdiction of the Convocation is only touching matters meerly Spiritual and Ecclesiastical wherein they proceed juxta Legem Divinam Canones Sanctae Ecclesiae The Lord Coke cites some Ancient Records to prove that the Court of Convocation did not meddle with any thing concerning the Kings Temporal Laws of the Land and thence inferrs That the Statute of 25 H. 8. cap. 19. whereby it is provided That no Canons Constitution or Ordinance should be made or put in execution within this Realm by Authority of the Convocation of the Clergy which were contrariant or repugnant to the King's Prerogative Royal or the Customes Laws and Statutes of this Realm is but declaratory of the old Common Law And by the said Act the Court of Convocation as to the making of new Canons is to have the King's License as also his Royal Assent for the putting the same in execution But towards the end of that Act there is an express Proviso that such Canons as were made before that Act which be not contrariant nor repugnant to the King's Prerogative the Laws Statutes or Customes of the Realm should be still used and executed as they were before the making of that Act. And if any Cause shall depend in contention in any Ecclesiastical Court which shall or may touch the King his Heirs or Successors the party grieved shall or may appeal to the Upper-house of Convocation within fifteen days after Sentence given Remarkable are the Constitutions of Claringdon in the time of King H. 2. occasioned by the Popes claiming Exemption of Clerks from the Secular power so contended for by Thomas Becket then Archbishop of Canterbury against the King as occasioned a convening a Common Council as well of the Bishops as of the Nobility at Claringdon in the time of H. 2. wherein they revived and re-established the Ancient Laws and Customes of the Kingdom for the Government of the Clergy and ordering of Causes Ecclesiastical The principal Heads or Articles whereof were these viz. 1 That no Bishop or Clerk should depart the Realm without the King's License and that such as obtained License should give Sureties That they should not procure any dammage to the King or Realm during their absence in Foreign parts 2 That all Bishopricks and Abbies being void should remain in the Kings hands as his own Demesns until he had chosen and appointed a Prelate thereunto and that every such Prelate should do his Homage to the King before he be admitted to the place 3 That Appeals should be made in Causes Ecclesiastical in this manner viz. From the Archdeacon to the Ordinary from the Ordinary to the Metropolitan from him to the King and no farther 4 That Peter-Pence should be paid no more to the Pope but to the King 5 That if any Clerk should commit Felony he should be hanged if Treason he should be drawn and quartered 6 That it should be adjudged High Treason to bring in Bulls of Excommunication whereby the Realm should be cursed 7 That no Decree should be brought from the Pope to be executed in England upon pain of Imprisonment and Confiscation of Goods 3. Arches or alma Curia de Arcubus so called of Bow-Church in London by reason of the Steeple or Clochier thereof raised at the top with Stone-pillars in fashion like a Bow-bent Arch-wise in which Church this Court was ever wont to be held being the chief and most Ancient Court and Consistory of the Jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Canterbury which Parish of Bow together with twelve others in London whereof Bow is the chief are within the Peculiar Jurisdiction of the said Archbishop in Spiritual Causes and
exempted out of the Bishop of London's Jurisdiction The Judge of this Court of Arches is styled the Dean of the Arches or the Official of the arches-Arches-Court unto whose Deanary or Officialty to the Archbishop of Canterbury in all matters and causes Spiritual is annexed the Peculiar Jurisdiction of the thirteen Parishes as aforesaid Having also all Ordinary Jurisdiction in Spiritual causes of the first Instance with power of Appeal as the superiour Ecclesiastical Consistory through the whole Province of Canterbury yet the Lord Coke says his power to call any person for any Cause out of any part of his Province within the Diocess of any other Bishop except it be upon Appeal is restrained by the Stat. of 23 H. 8. c. 9. Yet his Jurisdiction is Ordinary and extends it self through the whole Province of Canterbury insomuch that upon any Appeal made to him from any Diocess within the said Province he may forthwith without further examination at that time of the Cause issue forth his Citation to be served on the Appealee with his Inhibition to the Judge à quo In Mich. 6 Jac. C. B. there was a Case between Porter and Rochester The Case was this Lewis and Rochester who dwelt in Essex in the Diocess of London were sued for subtraction of Tithes growing in B. in the said County of Essex by Porter in the Court of Arches of the Archbishop of Canterbury in London where the Archbishop hath a peculiar Jurisdiction of thirteen Parishes called a Deanary exempt from the Authority of the Bishop of London whereof the Parish of S. Mary de Arcubus is the chief And a great Question was moved Whether in the said Court of Arches holden in London he might cite any dwelling in Essex for subtraction of Tithes growing in Essex or whether he be prohibited by the Statute of 23 H 8. c. 9 Which after debate at Bar by Council and also by Dr. Ferrard Dr. James and others in open Court and lastly by all the Justices of the Common Pleas A Prohibition was granted to the high Court of Arches And in this case divers points were resolved by the Court 1 That all Acts of Parliament are parcel of the Laws of England and therefore shall be expounded by the Judges of the Laws of England and not by the Civilians and Canonists although the Acts concern Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction 2 Resolved by Coke Chief Justice Warburton Daniel and Foster Justices That the Archbishop of Canterbury is restrained by the 23 H. 8. cap. 9. to cite any one out of his own Diocess For Diaecesis dicitur distinctio c. quae divisa vel diversa est ab Ecclesia alterius Episcopatus Commissa gubernatio unius c. And is derived a Di Duo Electio quia separat duas Jurisdictiones And because the Archbishop of Canterbury hath a peculiar Jurisdiction in London for this cause it is fitly said in the Title Preamble and body of the Act that when the Archbishop sitting in his Exempt peculiar in London cites one dwelling in Essex he cites him out of the Bishop of London's Diocess Therefore out of the Diocess And in the clause of the penalty of 10 l. it is said Out of the Diocess c. where the party dwelleth which agrees with the signification of Diocess before 2. The body of the Act is No person shall be henceforth cited before any Ordinary c. out of the Diocess or peculiar Jurisdiction where the person shall be dwelling and if so then à Fortiori the Court of Arches which sits in a Peculiar may not cite others out of another Diocess And the words out of the Diocess are meant of the Diocess or Jurisdiction of the Ordinary where he dwelleth And from the Preamble of the Act the Lord Coke observes and inferrs That the intention of the Act was to reduce the Archbishop to his proper Diocess unless in these five Cases viz. 1 For any Spiritual offence or cause committed or omitted contrary to Right and Duty by the Bishop c. which word omitted proves there ought to be a default in the Ordinary 2 Except it be in Case of Appeal and other lawful cause where the party shall find himself grieved by the Ordinary after the matter there first begun Therefore it ought to be first begun before the Ordinary 3 In case the Bishop or Ordinary c. dare not or will not Convent the party to be sued before him 4 In case the Bishop or Judge of the place within whose Jurisdiction or before whom the Suit by this Act should be begun and prosecuted be party directly or indirectly to the matter or cause of the same Suit 5 In case any Bishop or other inferiour Judge under him c. make Request to the Archbishop Bishop or other inferiour Ordinary or Judge and that to be done in Cases only where the Law Civil or Common doth affirm c. The Lord Coke takes notice also of Two Provisoes in that Act which do likewise explain it viz. That it shall be lawful for every Archbishop to cite any person inhabiting in any Bishops Diocess in his Province for matter of Heresie By which says he it appears That for all causes not excepted he is prohibited by the Act. 2 There is a Saving for the Archbishop calling any person out of the Diocess where he shall be dwelling to the probat of any Testament Which Proviso should be vain if notwithstanding that Act he should have concurrent Jurisdiction with every Ordinary throughout his whole Province Wherefore it was concluded That the Archbishop out of his Diocess unless in the Cases excepted is prohibited by the 23 H. 8. c 9. to cite any man out of any other Diocess which Act is but a Law declaratory of the Ancient Canons and a true Exposition thereof as appears by the Canon Cap. Romana in Sext. de Appellat c. de Competenti in Sext. And as the Lord Coke observes the Act is so expounded by all the Clergy of England at a Convocation at London An. 1 Jac. 1603. Can. 94. who gives us further to understand in this Case between Porter and Rochester That the Archbishop of this Realm before that Act had power Legantine from the Pope By which they had Authority not only over all but concurrent Authority with every Ordinary c. not as Archbishop of Canterbury c. but by his Power and Authority Legantine Et tria sunt genera Legatorum 1 Quidam de Latere Dom. Papae mittuntur c. 2 Dativi qui simpliciter in Legatione mittuntur c. 3 Nati seu Nativi qui suarum Ecclesiarum praetextu Legatione funguntur sunt Quatuor viz. Archiepiscopus Cantuariensis Eboracensis Remanensis Pisanis Which Authority Legantine is now taken away and utterly abolished 4. It is supposed that the Judge of this Court was originally styled the Dean of the Arches by reason of his substitution to the Archbishop's Official when
he was employed abroad in Foreign Embassies whereby both these Names or styles became at last in common understanding as it were Synonymâ—us For the Official of this Court and the Dean of the Arches by such Substitution had both the same Juridical Authority though with distinct styles in several persons as appears by that which comes next to the Preface to the Ancient Statutes of that Court ordained by Robert Winchelsey Archbishop of Canterbury in that Stat. touching the Form of the Judges Oath where the words are tam Officalis dictae Curiae quam Decanus de Arcubus suus Commissarius Generalis c. For he that was the Archbishops Official in this Court was heretofore obliged to Constitute the Dean of the Arches as his Commissary General in his absence as also appears by another of those Statutes or Constitutions of that Court Ordained by John Whitgift Archbishop of Canterbury the Title of which Statute is De Decano Ecclesiae Beatae Mariae de Arcubus Lond. wherein we find viz. Statuimus quod Officialis dictae Curiae teneatur Decanum Ecclesiae suum Constituere in ipsius absentia Commissarium Also by the Statutes and Constitutions of this Court made by Matthew Parker Archbishop of Canterbury it is expresly Ordained That neither the Dean or Official of the Court of Arches nor the Auditor of matters and Causes in the Court of Audience of Cant. nor the Judge of the Prerogative Court shall exercise the Function or Profession of an Advocate in any Court belonging to the Jurisdiction of the said Archbishop on pain of Excommunication and Suspension In this Court of the Arches the Proctors thereof do wear such Hoods as Bachelors of Arts use to wear in the Vniversities which Habit or Formality was first enjoyned by Henry Chichley Archbishop of Canterbury in the year 1435. The style of this Court is Alma Curia Cant. de Arcubus Lond. And the Appeal from it doth lie to the King in Chancery 5. This Court of the Arches anciently holden in Bow-Church of London is of very great Antiquity the Lord Coke in the forecited place lets us to understand that he meets with it in a very Ancient Record of a Prohibition In Curia Christianitatis cotam Decano de Arcubus London The Statutes and Ordinances of which Court are very Ancient and to which Those ordained by Robert Winchelsey Archbishop of Canterbury above 380 years since do referr Robertus Winchelse Archiepiscopus Cantuariensis descripsit Judicibus Advocatis Procuratoribus aliisque ministris Almae suae Curiae de Arcubus jura quaedam Statuta quae ipse in Templo Arcuato sedens pro Tribunali legit atque obligavit Quinto Idus Novemb. Anno 1295. William de Sardinia being then his Official and Henry de Nassington Dean of the Arches the said Officials Commissary General By which Statutes it was Ordained That the Advocates belonging to the said Consistory should not exceed the number of Sixteen nor the Proctors above the number of Ten nor should any of them without the special License of the President of that Consistory absent themselves thence by any attendance on any other Consistory at such times wherein Causes were to be heard in the Arches And for the dispatch of the Causes of poor and indigent persons the Judge may by the said Statutes assign them Advocates and Proctors to prosecute for them Gratis Charitative and that nothing be paid for the Process Acts of Court Examinations Sentence or other Court-Fees in such Cases In which Court the Senior Advocates by the same Statutes are to take their places opposite to the Judge the others on each side of him nigher to or remoter from him according to their Seniority the like Order in Court to be observed also by the Proctors And such was the devotion of those days in that Consistory That in order to an imploring of the Divine assistance on their proceedings in Judgment it was further Ordained That Divine Service should be celebrated in Bow-Church immediately before the first and after the last Cession of every Term the Judge Advocates Proctors and other Officers of the Court to be present thereat 6. The Prerogative Court of the Archbishop of Canterbury is that Court wherein all Testaments are proved and Administrations granted of the Goods and Chattels of such persons as dying within his Province had at the time of their death Bona Notabilia in some other Diocess than that wherein they dyed which Bona Notabilia regularly must amount to the value of Five pounds save in the Diocess of London where it is Ten pounds by Composition The Probat of every Bishops Testament and the granting of the Administration of his Goods and Chattels albeit he hath not Goods but within his own Jurisdiction doth belong to the Archbishop The like Court hath the Archbishop of York From this Court lies the Appeal to the King in Chancery If one make two Executors one of seventeen years of Age and the other under Administration during the Minority is void because he of seventeen years old may execute the Will if Administration during the Minority in such case be granted And if the Administrator brings his Action the Executor may well release the Debt One was cited to appear in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury which lived out of the Diocess of Canterbury and upon that he prayed Prohibition upon the Statute of 23 H. 8. c. 9. which willeth that none shall be cited to appear out of his Diocess without assent of the Bishop and Prohibition was granted And yet it was said that in the time of H. 8. and Q. Ma. that the Archbishop of Canterbury had used to cite any man dwelling out of his Diocess and within any Diocess within his Province to appear before him in the Prerogative-Court and this without the assent of the Ordinary of the Diocess But it was Resolved by the Court that this was by force of the power Legatine of the Archbishop that as Lindwood saith ought to be expressed in the Prohibition for the Archbishop of Canterbury York Pisa and Reymes were Legati nati and others but Legati à latere The Lord Coke in his Institutes par 3. cap. 69. gives us the Resolutions upon the Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 5. That if a man makes his Testament in paper and dieth possessed of Goods and Chattels above the value of 40 l. and the Executor causeth the Testament to be transcribed in parchment and bringeth both to the Ordinary c. to be proved It is at the Election of the Ordinary whether he will put the Seal and Probat to the Original in paper or the Transcript in parchment but whether he put them to the one or to the other there can be taken of the Executor c. in the whole but 5 s. and not above viz. 2 s. 6 d. to the Ordinary c. and his Ministers and 2
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
and used in part by several Nations he compiled them into Volumes and called them Jus Canonicum and Ordained that they should be read and expounded in publick Schools and Universities as the Imperial Law was read and expounded and commanded that they should be observed and obeyed by all Christians on pain of Excommunication and often endeavoured to put them in execution by Coercive power and assumed to himself the power of interpreting abrogating and dispensing with those Laws in all the Realms of Christendom at his pleasure so that the Canonists ascribe to him this prerogative Papa in omnibus jure positivis in quibusdam ad jus divinum pertinentibus dispensare potest quia dicitur omnia Jura habere in Scrinio pectoris sui quantum ad interpretationem dispensationem Lib. 6. de Const cap. licet About the time of An. 25. Ed. 1. Simon a Monk of Walden began to read the Canon Law in the University of Cambridge vid. Stow and Walsingham in that year Also the Manusc libr. 6. Decretal in New-Colledge Library at Oxford hath this Inscription in the Front Anno Domini 1298. which was in the year 26 Ed. 1. 19. Novembr in Ecclesia Fratrum Praedicator Oxon. fuit facta publicatio lib. 6. Decretal whereby it appears when it was that the Canon Law was introduced into England But the Jurisdiction which the Pope by colour thereof claimed in England was a meer Usurpation to which the Kings of England from time to time made opposition even to the time of King H. 8. And therefore the Ecclesiastical Law which Ordained That when a man is created a Bishop all his Inferiour Benefices shall be void is often said in the Bishop of St. David's Case in 11 H. 4. to be the Ancient Law of England And 29 Ed. 3. 44. a. in the Case of the Prebend of Oxgate it is said That though the Constitution which ousts Pluralities began in the Court of Rome yet a Church was adjudged void in the Kings Bench for that cause or reason whereby it appears That after the said Constitution was received and allowed in England it became the Law of England Yet all the Ecclesiastical Laws of England were not derived from the Court of Rome for long before the Canon Law was authorized and published in England which was before the Norman Conquest the Ancient Kings of England viz. Edgaâ— Aethelstan Alfred Edward the Confessor and others have with the Advice of their Clergy within the Realm made divers Ordinances for the government of the Church of England and after the Conquest divers Provincial Synods have been held and many Constitutions have been made in both Realms of England and Ireland All which are part of our Ecclesiastical Laws at this day Vid. Le Charter de William le Conqueror Dat. An. Dom. 1066. irrot 2 R. 2. among the Charters in Archiv Turris Lond. pro Decano Capitulo Lincoln Willielmus Dei gratia Rex Anglorum c. Sciatis c. Quod Episcopales Leges quae non bene nec secundum Sanctorum Canonum praecepta usque ad mea tempora in Regno Angliae fuerunt Communi Concilio Episcoporum meorum caeterorum Episcoporum omnium Principum Regni mei emendandas judicavi c. See also Girald Cambrens lib. 2. cap. 34. in the time of King H. 2. a Synod of the Clergy of Ireland was held at the Castle wherein it was Ordained Quod omnia divina juxta quod Anglicana observat Ecclesia in omnibus partibus Hyberniae amodo tractentur Dignum enim justissimum est ut sicut Dominum Regem ex Anglia divinitus sortita est Hybernia sic etiam exinde vivendi formam accipiant meliorem But the distinction of Ecclesiastical or Spiritual Causes from Civil and Temporal Causes in point of Jurisdiction was not known or heard of in the Christian World for the space of 300 years after Christ For the causes of Testaments of Matrimony of Bastardy and Adultery and the rest which are called Ecclesiastical or Spiritual Causes were meerly Civil and determined by the Rules of the Civil Law and subject only to the Jurisdiction of the Civil Magistrate But after the Emperours had received the Christian Faith out of a zeal they had to honour the learned and godly Bishops of that time they singled out certain special Causes wherein they granted Jurisdiction unto the Bishops viz. in Causes of Tithes because they were paid to men of the Church in Causes of Matrimony because Marriages were for the most part solemnized in the Church in Causes Testamentary because Testaments were many times made in extremis when Church-men were present giving Spiritual comfort to the Testator and therefore were thought the fittest persons to take the Probats of such Testaments Howbeit these Bishops did not then proceed in these Causes according to the Canons and Decrees of the Church for the Canon Law was not then known but according to the Rules of the Imperial Law as the Civil Magistrate did proceed in other Causes so that the Primitive Jurisdiction in all these Causes was in the Supream Civil Magistate and though it be now derived from him yet it still remaineth in him as in the Fountain CHAP. XII Of Churches Chappels and Church-yards 1. Ecclesia what that word imports the several kinds thereof 2. Possessions of the Church protected by the Statute-Laws from Alienation the care of the Emperour Justinian in that point 3. To whom the Soyl and Freehold of the Church and Church-yard belong to whom the use of the Body of the Church to whom the disposal of the Pewes or Seats and charges of Repairs 4. The Common Law touching the Reparation of Churches and the disposal of the Seats therein 5. The same Law touching Isles Pictures Coats of Arms and Burials in Churches also of Assaults in Churches and Church-yard 6. The penalty of quarreling chiding brawling striking or drawing a Weapon in the Church or Church-yard 7. Where Prescription to a Seat in a Church is alledged the Common Law claims the cognizance thereof 8. The Immunities anciently of Church-Sanctuary as also of Abjuration now abrogated and taken away by Statute 9. The defacing of Tombs Sepulchres or Monuments in Churches punishable at the Common Law also of Right to Pewes and Seats in the Church 10. The Cognizance of Church-Reparations belongs to the Ecclesiastical Court 11. A Prohibition upon a surmize of a custome or usage for Contribution to repair a Church 12. Church-wardens are a Corporation for the Benefit not for the Prejudice of the Church 13. Inheritance cannot be charged with a Tax for Repairs of the Church nor may a perpetual charge be imposed upon Land for the same 14. When the use of Church-Books for Christnings first began 15. Chappel the several kinds thereof The Canonists Conceits touching the derivation of that word 16. Where two Parochial Churches are united the charge of Reparations shall be several as before 17. The Emperour Justinian's
therein for the Indictment concluding contra formam Statuti It cannot be good as for an offence at the Common Law But afterwards another Exception was taken by Grimstone because the offence was alledged to be done in the Church of Shoreditch aforesaid and Shoreditch was not named before And upon view of the Indictment it appearing to be so all the Court held that the Indictment was void And for this cause the Defendant was discharged In the Ecclesiastical Laws of Ina King of the West Saxons cap. 6. Qui in Templo pugnaverit 120 Solidis noxiam Sarcito Ibid. Aliud Exemp cap. 6. Si quis in Ecclesia pugnet centum viginti Sol. emendet c. alias 60. emendet pro vita Also among the Ecclesiastical Laws of Hoel Dha King of Wales l. 10. De pugna quae in Coemiterio agitur 14 Librae sunt reddendae Likewise in l. 1. LL. Eccles Edovardi Sen. R. Angliae Guthurni R. Danorum in East-anglia Hoc primo Decreverunt ut Ecclesiae pax intra suos parietes inviolate servetur And in Cap. 2 3. LL. Eccl. Canuti Regis valde rectum est ut Ecclesiae pax intra parietes suos semper inconvulsa permaneat quicunque eam perfregerit de vita omnibus in misericordia Regis sit Et si quis pacem Ecclesiae Dei violabit ut intra parietes ejus homicidium hoc inemendabile sit c. nisi Rex ei vitam concedat 7. Where Prescription is alledg'd for Right to a Seat in a Church or for Priority in that Seat the Common Law hath took cognizance thereof as in the case of Carleton against Hutton where C. claimed the upper place in a Seat in the Church and H. disturb'd him in a violent manner and the Bishop of the Diocess sent an Inhibition to C. until the matter were determined before him And by the Court a Prohibition was awarded because it does not belong as Reported to the Spiritual Court And as well the priority in the Seat as the Seat it self may be claimed by Prescription and an Action upon the Case lies for it at Common Law Ve. Litt. 121 122. The Ordinary hath in him the right of distribution of the Seats in a Church yet so as that prescription shall take place whether it refers to the right of any particular Parishioner or to the power of the Church-wardens The Case was G. brought an Action of Trespass for the breaking of his Seat in the Church and cutting of the Timber in small pieces and carrying them away c. The Defendant pleads in Bar That they were the Church-wardens and that the Plaintiff had erected that Seat without the License of the Ordinary and it was an hindrance to the Parishioners c. and that they as Church-wardens the said Seat c. the which is the same Trespass The Plaintiff demurrs and Judgment for him For admitting that the Church-wardens may remove Seats in the Church at their pleasure yet they cannot cut the Timber of the Pew And thereupon they confessed the Trespass Ve. 6 E. 4. 7. 9 E. 4. 14. 8 E. 4. 6. 18 E. 4. 8. 21 H. 7. 21. 12 H. 7. 27. 11 H. 4. 12. Where there is a Parson Impropriate he hath the best right to the chief Seat in the Chancel as was Resolved in Sir William Hall's Case again Ellis where E. Farmor of a Rectory Impropriate Libels in the Ecclesiastical Court pro Sedile in dextra parte Cancellae and in his Additional Libel he Libels pro loco primo and principally in dextra parte Cancellae The Defendant there surmizes to have a Prohibition Quod est antiqua Parochia antiqua Cancella and that he is seized of an Ancient Messuage in that Parish and that he and all those c. have used to sit in dextra parte Cancellae praedict to hear c. And it was Resolved by the Court That of common Right the Parson Impropriate and per consequens his Farmor ought to have the chief Seat in the Chancel because he ought to repair it But by Prescription another Parishioner may have it But in this case a Consultation was awarded with a quoad c. because the Libel and the Additional that now is all one is pro primo Loco c. and the Surmize is only pro Sedile in dextra parte and not pro loco primo in it 8. The Church in construction of Law is Domus mansionalis Omnipotentis Dei and therefore it is Burglary for a man to break and enter a Church in the night of intent to steal c. And so sacred is the Church and Church-yard reputed in Law That Ecclesiastical persons whilst they are doing any Divine Service in either of them or in any other place dedicated to God may not be Arrested Yea Anciently the Church and Church-yard was a Sanctuary and the foundation of Abjuration for whoever was not capable of this Sanctuary could not have the benefit of Abjuration and therefore he that committed Sacriledge could not Abjure because he could not take the priviledge of Sanctuary This Abjuration was when one having committed Felony fled for safeguard of his life to the Sanctuary of a Church or Church-yard and there before the Coroner of that place within 40 days confessed the Felony and took an Oath for his perpetual Banishment out of the Realm into a Foreign not Infidel Countrey chusing rather Perdere patriam quam vitam But this Abjuration founded upon the priviledge of Sanctuary is wholly abrogated and taken away by an Act made 21 Jac. Reg. whereby it is Enacted That no Sanctuary or priviledge of Sanctuary should be admitted or allowed in any case And here Note That this kind of Abjuration hath no relation to that of Recusants by force of the Stat. of 35 Eliz cap. 1. because such Abjuration hath no dependency upon any Sanctuary But as to the other Abjuration in relation to Felonies Sacriledge excepted no Abjuration or Sanctuary being allowed in cases of Treason or Petit Treason the Law was so favourable for the preservation of Sanctuary in the Church or Church-yard That if a Prisoner for Felony had before his attainder or conviction escaped and taken Sanctuary and being pursued by his Keepers or others were brought back again to the Prison he might upon his Arraignment have pleaded the same and should have been restored again to the Sanctuary of the Church or Church-yard 9. The defacing of Tombs Sepulchres or Monuments erected in any Church Chancel Common Chappel or Church-yard is it seems punishable by the Common Law and for which the Erectors or Builders thereof during their lives and after their decease their Heirs shall have the Action But the Erecting thereof ought not to be to the hinderance of Divine Service And albeit the Freehold of the Church is in the Parson yet if the Lord of a Mannor or any other that hath an House
c. may have an Action of Trespass 36. In an Action upon the Case D. shewed he was seized of a Messuage and Land in P. to the same belonging and in the Parish of P. time whereof c. and yet is a Chappel in the North part of the Chancel called the Parsons Chancel and the Plaintiff and all those c. have used to sustain and repair the said Chancel and have used for him and his Family to sit in Seats of the said Chancel and to Bury there the persons dying in the said Messuage and that none other during all the said time c. without their License have used to sit there or to be buried there and that the Defendants Praemissorum non ignari malitiose impediverunt him to enter and sit in the said Seats The Defendant said That the Earl of N. was seized of the Honour of F. and the said Chappel was parcel of the said Honour and that the Defendants being Servants of the said Earl and resident within the said Honour did divers times in the time of Divine Service sit in the Seats of the said Chancel by the command of the said Earl upon which it was Demurred Exceptions were taken to the Declaration because he prescribes to have a Liberty appertaining to his House and doth not shew it is an Ancient House And 2 That the Allegation of the disturbance was ill being general without alleding a special Disturbance and how he was disturbed Resolved That when it is supposed he is seized in Fee of a Capital Messuage and time c. it is there included that it is an ancient Messuage and so might have such a priviledge And for the second it is sufficient to alledge a general Disturbance as is usual in the Case of a Fair or Market 37. D. was Indicted upon the Statute of 5 E. 6. for striking in Paul's Church-yard he pleaded that he was by the Queens Letters Patents created Garter King of Arms and demanded Judgment because he was not so named It was the opinion of the Court that because it was a parcel of his Dignity and not of his Office only and because the Patent is Creamus coronamus nomen imponimus de Garter Rex heraldorum that therefore in all Suits brought against him he ought to be named by this name and thereupon he was discharged of the Indictment And in Penhallo's Case who was Indicted upon the same Statute for drawing of Dagger in the Church of B. against J. S. and doth not say with intent to strike him for which cause the Judgment was quashed Likewise in Child's Case who was Indicted for striking in the Church-yard and it was apud generalem Sessionem Pacis tent apud Blandford and it was not said in Comitatu praedicto for which reason the party was discharged though the County was in the Margin 38. In Pym's Case before-mentioned Corven did Libel in the Ecclesiastical Court against Pym for a Seat in a Church in Devonshire And Pym by Serjeant Hutton moved for a Prohibition upon this Reason That himself is seized of a House in the said Parish and that he and all whose Estate he hath in the House have had a Seat in an Isle of the Church And it was Resolved by the Court That if a Lord of a Mannor or other person who hath his House and Land in the Parish time out of mind and had a Seat in an Isle of the same Church so that the Isle is proper to his Family and have maintained it at their charges That if the Bishop would dispossess him he shall have a Prohibition But for a Seat in the Body of a Church if a question ariseth it is to be decided by the Ordinary because the Freehold is to the Parson and is common to all the Inhabitants And it is to be presumed That the Ordinary who hath cure of Souls will take order in such cases according to right and conveniency and with this agrees 8 H. 7. 12. And the Chief Justice Damc Wick her Case 9 H. 4. 14. which was The Lady brought a Bill in B. R. against a Parson Quare tunicam unam vocatam A Coat Armor and Pennons with her Husband Sir Hugh Wick his Arms and a Sword in a Chappel where he was buried and the Parson claimed them as Oblations And it was there held That if one were to sit in the Chancel and hath there a place his Carpet Livery and Cushion the Parson cannot claim them as Oblations for that they were hanged there is honour of the decased The same reason of a Coat-Armour c. And the Cbief Justice said The Lady might have a good Action during her life in the case aforesaid because she caused the things to be set up there and after her death the Heir shall have his Action they being in the nature of Heir-Looms which belong to the Heir And with this agrees the Laws of other Nations Bartho Cassanae fo 13. Con. 29. Actio datur si aliquis Arma in aliquo loco posita deleat aut abrasit c. And in 21 Ed. 3. 48. in the Bishop of Carlisle's Case Note That in Easter-Term it was Resolved in the Star-Chamber in the case between Hussey and Katherine Leyton That if a man have a House in any Parish and that he and all those whose Estate he hath have used to have a certain Pew in the Church that if the Ordinary will displace him he shall have a Prohibition but where there is no such prescription the Ordinary will dispose of common and vulgar Seats 39. In the County of Dorset there was a Mother-Church and also a Chappel of Ease within the same Parish they of the Mother-Church did rate and tax them of the Chappel of Ease towards reparations of the Mother-Church for the which upon their refusal to pay the same being sued in the Ecclesiastical Court they prayed a Prohibition and for cause alledged That they themselves have used time out of mind c. to repair the Chappel at their own proper cost without having any Contribution at all from them of the Mother-Church and that they have been exempted from all charges and reparations of the Mother-Church and yet for their refusal to pay this Tax they were libelled against in the Ecclesiastical Court and a Sentence there passed against them they therefore prayed a Prohibition By the opinion of the whole Court a Prohibition lieth not in this case in regard that this Prescription is meerly Spiritual and therefore a Prohibition denied per Curiam 40. One was presented ex Officio in the Ecclesiastical Court for the not frequenting of his Parish-Church he there pleads That this was not his Parish-Church but that he had used to frequent another Parish Church and to resort unto that And because they in the Ecclesiastical Court would not receive his plea the Court was moved for a Prohibition for that by the Law in the
Custome or the Parson by virtue of a Canon shall chuse the Churchwarden and whether Prohibition lies in that case 22. Whether Churchwardens as a Corporation may prescribe to take Lands to them and their Successors to the use of the Church 1. CHurchwardens or Guardiani Ecclesiae are certain Officers Parochial annually elected or chosen by and with the consent of the Minister and a select number of the chief Parishioners according to the Custome of the place to look to the Church and Church-yard and to take care of the concernments thereof and of such things as appertain thereto as also to observe and have an inspection into the Behaviour Lives and Conversation of their Parishioners touching such faults and disorders as are within the cognizance and censure of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction These Officers are a kind of Corporation enabled to sue and be sued for any matters or things belonging to the Church or Poor of their Parish and have as their Assistants certain Side-men or Questmen who according to the custome of the Parish are yearly likewise chosen to assist the Churchwardens in the Enquiry and presenting such offenders to the Ordinary as are within the Ecclesiastical cognizance and censure aforesaid for which they are not to be sued or troubled at the Law by any such Offenders so presented as aforesaid nor are they obliged to Present oftner than twice a year except it be at the Bishop's Visitation yet they may present as oft as they shall think meet if good occasion shall so require but they may not on pain of being proceeded against by their Ordinaries as in cases of wilful Perjury in Courts Ecclesiastical willingly and wittingly omit to present such publick Crimes as they knew to have been committed or could not be ignorant that there was then a publick same thereof Moreover the Old Churchwardens are to make their Presentments before the New be Sworn till which time the Office of the old continues the usual time for the New Churchwardens to enter upon their Office is the first week after Easter or some week following according to the direction of the Ordinary before which the old Churchwardens shall exhibit the Presentments of such enormities as happened in their Parish since their last Presentments and shall not be suffered to transmit or pass over the same to those that are newly chosen By the Ninetieth Canon the choice of Churchwardens Questmen Sidemen or Assistants is to be yearly made in Easter-week and that by the Joynt-consent of the Minister and the Parishioners if it may be otherwise the Minister to chuse one and the Parishioners another who at their years end or within a month next after shall in the presence of the Minister and the Parishioners make a just Account of what they have received and disbursed for the use of the Church and shall deliver over what remains in their hands belonging to the Church unto the next Churchwardens by Bill Indented 2. One brought Action on the Case against Churchwardens for a false and malicious Presentment of him in the Spiritual Court and found for the Defendants They prayed double Costs on the Statute of 1 Jac. But Jones Crook and Berkley Justices denied it for that the Statute doth not extend to Churchwardens for things of their office in Ecclesiastical Causes They have their Action of Trespass at the Common Law for such things taken away out of the Church as belonged to the Parishioners in reference to the Church And the Release of one of the Churchwardens is no Bar in Law to the other If one take away the Chalice or Surplice out of the Church Action of Trespass lieth against him at Common Law and not in the Ecclesiastical Court So if one lay violent hands on an Ecclesiastical person an Action lies in the Ecclesiastical Court but he shall not there sue for dammages If the Organs or Parish-Bible or the like be taken away out of the Church the Action lies at the Common Law and not in the Spiritual Court for the same for the Churchwardens may have their Action at Common Law in that case But if the Parson take away out of the Church the Scutcheon or Banner of some person deceased his Widow if she did put it there and it be taken away in her life time may have her Action of Trespass at Common Law or after her decease the Heir may have the same Action 3. Trespass brought by the Churchwaâ—dens of F. and declared That the Defendant took a Bell out of the said Church and that the Trespass was done 20 Eliz. It was found for the Plaintiffs It was moved in Arrest of Judgment that it appears by the Declaration That the Trespass was done in the time of their Predecessors of which the Successor cannot have Action and Actio personalis moritur cum persona Vid. 19 H. 6. 66. But the old Churchwardens shall have the Action Coke contrary and that the present Church-wardens shall have the Action and that in respect of their Office which the Court granted And by Gawdy Churchwardens are a Corporation by the Common Law Vid. 12 H. 7. 28. by Frowick That the New Churchwardens shall not have an Action upon such a Trespass done to their Predecessors Contrary by Yaxley Vid. by Newton and Paston That the Executors of the Guardian in whose time the Trespass was done shall have Trespass 4. It is the duty of Churchwardens not only to take care of the Concernments of the Church and to present Disorders as aforesaid but also to provide Bread and Wine against the Communion the Bible of the largest Volume the Book of Common Prayer a decent Pulpit a Chest for Alms Materials for repairing the Church and fencing the Church-yard and the like all at the Parish-charge and shall what in them lies prevent the prophanation of Churches by any usage thereof contrary to the Canons It was agreed by the Court in Robert's case That a Tax for the Church cannot be made by the Churchwardens only Hetley's Rep. 5. In Butt's Case Moore Serjeant moved at Court for a Prohibition because where the custome of the Parish or Village was that the Parishioners have used to elect two Churchwardens and at the end of the year to discharge one and elect another in his room and so alternis vicibus c. By the New Canon now the Parson hath the Election of one and the Parish of the other and that he that was elected by the Parishioners was discharged by the Ordinary at his Visitation and for that he prayed a Prohibition Et allocat as a thing usual and of course For otherwise by Hubbard the Parson might have all the Authority of his Church and Parish The like Case to this we have elsewhere reported viz. The Parson and Church-wardens in London by the Custome are a Corporation and the Parishioners time out of mind c. have used at a
Law which will not be good if the Institution were not good All which was also the Opinion of the Court in the Case aforesaid for if the Question be whether Parson or no Parson which comprehends Induction it is Triable at the Common Law And although by the Institution the Church if Full against all persons save the King yet he is not compleat Parson till Induction for though he be admitted ad Officium by the Institution yet he is not entitled ad Beneficium till Induction 18. In an Ejectione Firmae brought by the Lessee of Rone Incumbent of the Church of D. it was found by Special Verdict that the King was the true Patron and that Wingfield entered a Coveat in vita Incumbentis he then lying in Extremis scil Caveat Episcopus nè quis admittatur c. nisi Convocatus the said Wingfield the Incumbent dies Naunton a Stranger Presents one Morgan who is Admitted and Instituted afterwards the said Wingfield Presents one Glover who is Instituted and Inducted and afterwards the said Rone procures a Presentation from the King who was Instituted and Inducted And then it came in◠question in the Ecclesiastical Court who had the best Right and there Sentence was given That the First Institution was Irrita Vacua Inanis by reason of the Caveat and then the Church being Full of the Second Incumbent the King was put out of possession and so his Presentation void But it was Adjudged and Resolved by all the Court for Rone For 1 it was Resolved That this Caveat was void because it was in the life of the Incumbent According to the Common Law if a Caveat be entered with the Bishop and he grant Institution afterwards yet it is not void After a Caveat entered Institution is not void by the Common Law Pasch 13 Jac. B. R. Hitching vers Glover Rol. Rep. Cro. par 2. 2. The Church upon the Institution of Morgan was Full against all but the King and so Agreed many times in the Books and then the Presentation of Glover was void by reason of the Super-institution and therefore no obstacle in the way to hinder the Presentation of Rone and therefore Rone had good Right And if the Second Institution be void the Sentence cannot make it good for the Ecclesiastical Court ought to take notice of the Common Law which saith That Ecclesia est plena consulta upon the Institution and the person hath thereby Curam animarum And as Doderidge Justice said He hath by it Officium but Beneficium comes by the Induction And although by the Ecclesiastical Law the Institution may be disannull'd by Sentence yet as Lindwood saith Aliter est in Angl. And Doderidge put a Case out of Dr. Student lib. 2. If a man Devise a Sum of Money to be paid to J. S. when he comes to Full age and he after sue for it in the Spiritual Court they ought to take notice of the Time of Full age as it is used by the Common Law viz. 21. and not of the time of Full age as it is in the Civil Law viz. 25. So in this case for when these Two Laws meet together the Common Law ought to be preferred And when the Parson hath Institution the Archdeacon ought to give him Induction Vid. Dyer 293. Bedingfield's Case cited by Haughton to accord with this Case 19. By the Court That if an Archdeacon make a general Mandate for the Induction of a Parson viz. Vnivers personis Vicariis Clericis Literatis infra Archidiaconat meum ubicunque Constitut That if a Minister or a Preacher who is not resident within the Archdeaconry makes the Induction yet it is good And the Opinion of four Doctors of the Civil Law was shewn in the Court accordingly upon a Special Verdict 21. In the Case of Strange against Foote the sole Point upon the Special Verdict was If one Prideoux being Admitted and Instituted to a Prebendary with the Cure 4 Eliz. be being but Nine years of age notwithstanding the Statute it is meerly void Note 4 H. 6. 3. That if a Feme who is an Infant under 14 years hath issue it is a Bastard 21. It is said at the Common Law that after Induction the Admission and Institution ought not to be drawn into question in the Ecclesiastical Court for they say That after Induction the Ecclesiastical Law may not call into question the Institution That by Institution the Church is full against Common persons but not against the King and that by Induction the King may be put out of possession And in the Case between Rowrth and the Bishop of Chester it was Resolved That after an Induction an Institution is not to be examined in the Ecclesiastical Court but by a Quare Impedit only But yet the Justices if they see cause may write to the Bishop to Certifie concerning the Institution 22. Two Patrons pretended Title to Present the one Presented and the Bishop refused his Clerk He sued in the Audience and had an Inhibition to the Bishop and after he there obtained Institution and Induction by the Archbishop Afterwards the Inferior Bishop Instituted and Inducted the Clerk of the other for which Process issued out of the Audience against him he upon that prayed a Prohibition and a Prohibition was awarded as to the Incumbency because the Ecclesiastical Courts have not to meddle with Institution and Induction as was there said for that would determine the Incumbency which is triable at Common Law 23. In a Prohibition prayed to the Ecclesiastical Court the Case appeared to be this viz. Holt was Presented Instituted and Inducted to the Parish-Church of Storinton afterwards Dr. Wickham draws him into the Ecclesiastical Court questioning of him for some matters as touching the validity of his Induction and upon this a Prohibition was by him prayed Williams Justice A Prohibition here in this Case ought to be granted this being directly within the Statute 45 Ed. 3. cap. 3. for here the very Title of the Patronage comes in question with the determination of which they ought not to intermeddle also matter of Induction and the validity thereof is determinable at the Common Law and not in the Ecclesiastical Court and therefore a Prohibition ought to be granted and the whole Court agreed with him herein and therefore by the Rule of the Court a Prohibition in this Case was granted CHAP. XXV Of Avoidance and Next Avoidance as also of Cession 1. What Avoidance is how Twofold 2. The difference in Law between Avoidance and next Avoidance 3. How many waies Avoidanee may happen what Next Avoidance is The word Avoidance falls under a double Acceptation in Law 4. The Next Avoidance may not be granted by a Letter it cannot be granted but by Deed. 5. Grant of a Next Avoidance by the Son Living the Father Tenant in Tail is void 6. How Avoidance may be according to the Canon Law which
Conviction of Perjury in the Spiritual Court according to the Ecclesiastical Laws which although as aforesaid it be a just Cause of Deprivation must yet be signified by the Ordinary to the Patron so also must that Deprivation which is caused by an Incapacity of the party Instituted and Inducted for want of Holy Orders 3. By the Statute of 21 H. 8. if an Incumbent having a Benefice with Cure of Souls value 8 l. per ann take another with Cure immediately after Induction thereunto the former is void and void without any Declaratory Sentence of Deprivation in the Ecclesiastical Court in case the Second Benefice were taken without a Dispensation and of such Avoidance the Patron is to take notice at his peril And as Avoidance may be by Plurality of Benefices incompatible without Dispensation so also by not Subscribing unto and not reading the 39 Articles as aforesaid which by the Statute of 13 Eliz. c. 12. is a Deprivation ipso facto as if the Incumbent were naturally dead insomuch that upon such Avoidance there need not any Sentence Declaratory of his Deprivation but the very pleading and proof of his not Reading the said Articles is a sufficient Barr to his claim of Tithes without any mentioning at all his being deprived in the Ecclesiastical Court Yet Sir Simon Degge in his Parsons Counsellor putting the Question What shall be intended by the words Deprived ipso facto as whether the Church shall thereby immediately become void by the Fact done or not till Conviction or Sentence Declaratory modestly waives his own Opinion and says it is a Quaere made by Dyer what shall be intended by the words ipso facto Excommunicate for striking with a Weapon in the Church-yard albeit by the Canon Law which condemns no man before he be heard requiritur sententia Declatoria 4. Touching Deprivation by reason of Miscreancy the Cardinal who by the Bishop of Durham was Collated to a Benefice with Cure is it seems the standing President in which case it was Agreed that notwithstanding the Cardinal 's being deprived for his Miscreancy in the Court of Rome yet whether he were Miscreant or not should be tried in England by the Bishop of that Diocess where the Church was 5. Among the many Causes of Deprivation forementioned you do not find that of Marriage in the Priest which was anciently practicable as appears by what the Lord Coke reports touching an Incumbent in the time of King Ed. 6. who being Deprived in Queen Maries daies partly because he was a Married person and partly because of his Religion was restored again in the time of Queen Elizabeth In whose Case it was Adjudged That his Deprivation was good until it was voided by a Sentence of Repeal whereby he became Incumbent again by virtue of his First Presentation without any new Presentation Institution or Induction In those days it was held That the Marriage of a Priest was a sufficient cause to deprive him of his Benefice Mich. 4. Ma. Dy. 133. 6. In the Case where a meer Lay-man is Presented Instituted and Inducted he is notwithstanding his Laity such an Incumbent de facto that he is not Deprivable but by a Sentence in the Ecclesiastical Court but then the Ordinary is in that case to give Notice of such Deprivation to the Patron otherwise in case the Ordinary for that cause refused him when he was Presented by the Patron But where Non-age is the cause of Deprivation as when one under the age of 23 years is Presented Notice is to be given it having been Adjudged That no Lapse shall incurr upon any Deprivation ipso facto without Notice seeing the Statute of 13 Eliz. 12. says nothing of Presentation which remaining in force the Patron ought to have Notice 7. As in the Admission of a Clerk to a Benefice whatever is a Legal impediment will also be a sufficient cause of Deprivation so in reference to both the Law takes care to distinguish between that which is only Malum prohibitum and that which is Malum in se and therefore doth not hold the former of them such as frequenting of Taverns unlawful Gaming or the like to be a sufficient cause of a Clerks Non-admission to a Benefice or of his Deprivation being Admitted Otherwise if you can affect him with that which is Malum in se in which case Notice is to be given the Patron by the Ordinary of the Cause of his Refusal or Deprivation as also it is in case of Deprivation for not Subscribing or not Reading the 39 Articles of Religion according to the foresaid Statute of 13 Eliz. 12. which Notice ought to be certain and particular a general Notice of Incapacity not sufficing in which case an Intimation of such particular Incapacity affixed on the Church-door if the Patron be in partibus longe remotis or may not easily be affected therewith will answer the Law Vid. 18 Eliz. Dyer 346. 22 Eliz. Dyer 369. 16 Eliz. Dyer 327. Co. par 6. 29. Green 's Case 8. It is evident from the Premisses That a Deprivation from an Ecclesiastical Benefice will follow upon a Disgrading or Degradation from the Ecclesiastical Function or Calling for this Degradation is the Incapacitating of a Clerk for discharge of that holy Function for it is the punishment of such a Clerk as being delivered to his Ordinary cannot purge himself of the Offence whereof he was convicted by the Jury And it is a Privation of him from those holy Orders of Clerkship which formerly he had as Priesthood Deaconship c. And by the Canon Law this may be done Two waies either Summarily as by Word only or Solemnly as by devesting the party degraded of those Ornaments and Rites which were the Ensigns of his Order or Degree But in matters Criminal Princes anciently have had such a tender respect for the Clergy and for the credit of the whole profession thereof That if any man among them committed any thing worthy of death or open shame he was not first executed or exposed to Publick disgrace until he had been degraded by the Bishop and his Clergy and so was executed and put to shame not as a Clerk but as a Lay-Malefactor which regard towards Ecclesiasticks in respect of the dignity of the Ministry is observed by a Learned Author to be much more Ancient than any Papistical Immunity and is such a Priviledge as the Church in respect of such as once waited on the Altar hath in all Ages been honoured with 9. Robert Cawdry Clerk Rector of the Church of L. was deprived of his Rectory by the Bishop of London and his Collegues by virtue of the high Commission to them and others directed because he had pronounced and uttered slanderous and contumelious words against and in depravation of the Book of Common Prayer but the Form of the Sentence was That the said Bishop by and with the assent and
That the Land was parcel of the Glebe of the Parsonage and that the said Stile did Lett the said Glebe being twenty four acres to Miles for years rendring thirteen shillings four pence Rent and in a Prohibit on the Case was if Tithes were to be paid And Wray said That although it was parcel of the Glebe yet when it was Leased out Tithes ought to be paid without question But there may be a doubt where the Rent is reserved to the true value of the Land but here the Rent is of small value wherefore Tithes shall be paid also And the Reservation of the Rent was Pro omnibus exactionibus demandis yet the Justices took no regard of these words But Godfrey said that those words would discharge him But Wray on the contrary for that this Tithe is not issuing out of the Land but is a thing collateral and if a Parson do Release to his Parishioners all demands in the Land yet Tithes are not thereby Released for such general words will not extend to such a Special matter 27. A. Parson of B. in consideration of 120 l. paid by C. one of his Parishioners did accord and agree with him That he and his Assigns should be discharged of Tithes during the time that he should be Parson C. made a Lease to D. A. did Libel against him for Tithes and D. pray'd a Prohibition upon the said Contract And if this were sufficient matter for a Prohibition was the question because it was by word only and without writing which amounts only to a Cause of Action upon a Promise for C. but no Action for his Lessees neither can this amount to a Release of Tithes for as Tithes cannot be Leased without Deed so they cannot be Released or discharged without Deed. Gawdy Justice Tithes cannot be discharged without Deed unless by way of Contract for a Sum of money and he cited the 21 H. 6. 43. Fenner for that year in which the Discharge was made it was good by way of Discharge without Deed because the Parson for that year had as it were an Interest but such Discharge can have no continuance for another year for default of a Deed and so a Promise being no Discharge it is no cause of a Prohibition But Gawdy held as afore And the Court Popham succeeding Wray Chief Justice upon his death held that the Agreement being by parol was not good and Fenner then said That without Writing the Agreement could not be good between the parties but for one year And the Court awarded a Consultation But upon search made no Judgment was entered in the Roll 28. Note That in Layton's Case it was said by the Court That a Parson may sue pro modo Decimandi in the Ecclesiastical Court. As if a Parishioner will not put his Tithes into Cocks when he ought by the Custome so to do But then the Suit ought to be Special for not putting it in Cocks and not generally for not setting forth the Tithe 29. It was likewise agreed by the Court in Clark's Case against Proâ—se that the Ecclesiastical Court may take cognizance of a Modus Decimandi The Case was this Clark a Parson sued Prowse one of his Parishioners per mod Decimandi in the Ecclesiastical Court and alledged a Custome in his Bill so called in the Report to have two shillings of the pound for every House and Shop in the Town and upon that Suit the Defendant there answered to the Custome Quod non credit esse vera And so to have here a Prohibition it was alledged That the Defendant was a Butcher that set open Stall in the Market only to fell Flesh there and that he had not any other Shop or House And it was agreed by the Court That a Parson may sue per mod Decimandi in the Ecclesiastical Court But if it be denied the Chief Justice as also Jones said That in that case they could proceed no further because they cannot try matters of Prescription there and if they proceed a Prohibition But in this Case the Prohibition was denied because Doderidge said That for the Reasons supra power is given to the Spiritual Court to examine that matter because it is not a denial of the Prescription but it ought to be by Allegation 30. It was said in Catesby's Case That if a Copyholder of the Kings Mannor pretendeth Prescription for a Modus Decimandi against the Parson the Right of Tithes shall be tried in the Exchequer and a Prohibition was granted to the Ecclesiastical Court in this Case 31. In Pool's Case against Reynold Prescription to have Deer out of a Park in discharge of all Tithes and after the Park is disparked P. brought a Prohibition against R. the Surmise was That de temps d'ont memory c. within the Parish of C. there was a Rectory appropriate and the Chappel of S. annexed therewith Et una Vicaria perpetua ejusdem Ecclesiae de C. dotat And whereas the said P. â—or six years last past had occupied one House 100 acres of Land 20 of Meadow 40 of Pasture called Shute-Park within the said Parish of C. which said Tenements were anciently a Park and now disparked c. and converted into the said House 100 acres c. And that all the Occupiers of the said Park de temps d'ont memorie until the Disparking had paid to the Vicar there one Buck of the Summer-season and one Doe of the Winter-season c. in discharge of all Tithes of the said Park until the Disparking and after the disparking in discharge of all Tithes of the said Tenements which they had accepted for all the time aforesaid until the Disparking and after or otherwise agreed with the Vicar for them and traversed this Prescription and found for the Plaintiff In Arrest of Judgment it was moved by Henden That this Prescription extends to the Land quatenus it is a Park and that being destroyed the Prescription is gone c. and if it be to be paid or delivered out of the Park then it is determined vid. Lutterel's Case Coke lib. 4. Also this Prescription is against the benefit of the Church and shall not be enlarged and the Wood which is sold out of the Park shall not be discharged 14 Jac. Conyer's Case in C. B. Prescription That the Parson had two acres of Meadow given in discharge of all Tithes of Hay-ground viz. of all the Meadow in the Parish if any Arable Land be converted into Meadow it extends not to discharge that vid. Lutterel's Case Coke lib. 4. fo 8â— That an Alteration in prejudice to the Parson determines the Prescription vid. Terringham's Case lib. 4. He which hath Common purchased part of the Land all is extinct for it is his own Act but vide the principal Case in that of Lutterel adjudged That building of new Mills in the same place and converting of Fulling-Mills into Corn-Mills
again to Fertility in that case it shall pay Tithes presently Also Marsh-Lands newly gained from the Sea and Fenn-Lands gained from the Fresh waters by Drayning c. are not within the Statute of 2 Ed. 6. c. 13. to be freed from the payment of Tithes during the first Seven years after the gaining thereof Likewise if Land be gained from the Sea and that by great cost and expence and afterwards turned to Arable-Land it was the Opinion of the Court that it shall pay Tithe notwithstanding the Costs because it is not Barren Land of it self but only by accident and so not within the scope and intention of the Statute of 2 Ed. 6. In the Case between Strowd and Hoskins upon a Prohibition Two Points were Argued by the Four Justices viz. 1 When a Prohibition is brought upon the Statute of 2 Ed. 6. to stay a Suit in the Ecclesiastical Court for Tithes of Barren-Lands the first Seven yearsâ— it behooves the party who brings the Prohibition to prove his Suggestion within Six months otherwise a Consultation by the said Statute is grantable 2 When a Consultation is granted for the Reason aforesaid yet the party may have a new Prohibition upon the same Libel for that the Statute of 50 Ed. 3. doth not extend to a Consultation granted upon non-probate of a Suggestion within Six months but where a Consultation is granted upon the matter of a Suggestion And so the Chief Justice declared the Opinion of the Four Justices and thereupon a Rule given That the Prohibition should stand and the Defendant notwithstanding such Plea aforesaid in Barr of the Prohibition may plead in chief to the matter of the said Suggestion and if he will dispute it then he shall have several Consultations on the said Libel Thus as aforesaid in a Prohibition for Tithes it was said by Papham Chief Justice That if Lands be overflown with Water and afterwards gained by Industry Tithes shall be presently paid although it had been overflown time out of mind for those Lands of their nature were not barren and the Statute of 2 Ed. 6. doth not intend that Tithes shall not be paid within seven years but of such Lands as were meerly Barren and made good by Foldage or other industrious means And so it was Adjudged Pasch 14 Jac. B. R. in the Case between Witt and Buck in a Prohibition upon the Statute of 2 Ed. 6. cap. 13. the Clause touching Barren and Heath-ground of which after improvement no Tithes to be paid the space of Seven years next after the Improvement For a Prohibition it was shewed That this Land for which the Parson Libelled for Tithes was Marsh and Sandy Land and covered with Salt water so that time out of mind no Grass had been known there to grow nor any profit at all made of this until now of late time by and with the great costs charges and industry of the Tenant this ground had been lately gained from the Sea and from its overflowing by repairing and making new Banks and Sea-walls and by continual repairing of them and so he had now converted the same into Arable Land where he had Corn and of this Land the Parson Libels for Tithes in the Ecclesiastical Court And upon this matter thus shewed a Prohibition prayed being to be discharged from payment of Tithes of this Ground for Seven years this Statute being thus made for the encouragement of Tenants to make improvement of their Lands Coke Chief Justice It was Resolved in one Farrington's Case upon this Statute of 2 Ed. 6. that Wood-ground is not Barren ground within this Statute This was there Adjudged That if one do stock and grub up Wood-ground and after convert this into Arable ground he hath by this meliorated his Land but with great cost and labour yet he shall pay Tithes for this ground presently for that Heath and barren-ground intended to be within the Statute ought to be such Land as is suapte natura sterilis and Barren Dederidge Justice A Salt Marsh if this be fenced and so made good Meadow shall pay Tithes presently yet before this was so fenced no Tithes thereof payable Coke This Land shall be out of the Statute out of the clause of Discharge for Seven years notwithstanding this charge the Tenant hath been at in gaining this Land from the Sea for to have this Land within the clause of Discharge within the Statute it ought to be Suapte natura Barren which here it is not but by accident and by the overflowing of the Sea The whole Court agreed in this That by this Statute Barren ground is such ground as will not bear Corn of it self without very great cost in the extraordinary manuring of it and therefore that this is no such Barren ground within the Statute as ought to be discharged from payment of Tithes but that Tithes ought to be paid for the fame and that the Parson had just cause to sue for his Tithes in the Ecclesiastical Court and therefore the Prohibition was denied Beech-Trees regularly are Tithable yet in a County where there is a scarcity of Timber and where Beech is used as Timber for Building or the like there possibly they may be discharged of paying Tithes and therefore in Trin. 38 Eliz. it was Resolved That Tithes shall be paid of Beeches although they are above twenty years growth for they are not Timber Yet in Holliday and Lee's Case in a Prohibition it was Resolved That Tithes should not be paid of Beeches of above twenty years growth And in Pindar's Case it was also Resolved That Beeches above twenty years growth being Timber shall not pay Tithes yet in a Countrey where there is plenty thereof they are not to be accounted Timber or Tithe-free So that Beeches in their own nature are not computed Timber-trees and therefore Tithable except where by the Custome of the Countrey where there is scarcity of Wood they are accounted Timber-trees in which case they are not Tithable The Judges of the Common Law have Resolved That all sort of Wood that is usually employed for the building of Houses Mills c. are Gross Woods and within the Statute of 45 Ed. 3. cap. 3. of which sort are Oak Ash Elme Beech Horse-Beech and Horn-bean against the opinion in Molyn's Case as also in Man and Somerton's Case where it was said by Tanfield Justice That Beech by the Common Law is not Timber and so he said it was Adjudged in Cary and Pagett's Case and in that case it was holden That Tithes shall not be paid for Beech above the growth of twenty years in a common Countrey for Wood as in Buckinghamshire for there it is reputed Timber but in a plentiful Countrey of Wood it is otherwise for there it is not Timber and Tithes shall be paid of it as Sylva caedua for which Tithes shall be paid under the growth of 20 years Bees pay not Tithes by the Tenth
Parson of one Parish having part of his Glebe in another may Prescribe in non Decimando for the same So that a Prescription even de non Decimando as for Ecclesiastical persons their Farmers and Tenants may be good In Nash and Molin's Case it was agreed by the Court That a Spiritual man may Prescribe in Non Decimando Cro. par 1. And as for any other person a Prescription de modo Decimandi that is to pay Money or other things in lieu of Tithes in kind is good and if he can prove it Time out of mind this will discharge him Thus a Prescription to pay 4 d. or any other Sum for all his Tithe whatever or for all his Tithe-Hay or for all his Tithe-Corn in such a Farm or in such a Close or for all his Fruit in such an Orchard is good But a Prescription of paying no Tithe-Corn because he pays Tithe-Hay or of paying no Tithe of his Cattel because he pays Tithe-Corn is no good Prescription Or of not paying of Tithes in one place because he pays in another or of not paying Tithe-Lamb because he pays Tithe-Wool vel è contra or of not paying Tithe for other Cattel because he pays 12 d. for a Cow these and the like are no good Prescriptions Yet a Prescription to pay a less part than a Tenth may be good and binding Also a Prescription to pay a peny called Hearth-peny in satisfaction of Tithe for all Combustible Wood may be good Likewise a Prescription by the Lord of a Mannor to pay six pound in satisfaction of all the Tithe-Corn within the Mannor and to have the Tenth Sheaf or Cock in recompence of his payment is good But if the Prescription be to be discharged of Tithe-Hay of such a ground or Tithe-Corn of such a ground and the Owner change the nature of the Ground as Pasture into Tillage or Tillage into Pasture the Prescription is gone Yet a Prescription is not destroyed by an Alteration of payment as if instead of the money to be paid another sum or Tithes in kind have been paid for 20 years past But a Prescription to have Tithes of Houses according to the Rent is not good for no Tithes are to be paid for Houses in any City save in London only Regularly Prescription referrs to one in private as Custome does to many in publick and where a Prescription de modo Decimandi is denied there a Prohibition will lie to try it at the Common Law otherwise if the Prescription or Custome be agreed If a Prescription by a Parishioner be to pay the Tenth part of Corn as a Modus Decimandi for the Hay also that grows on the Headlands it is not good but such Prescription for the Corn and After-Rakings is good with an averment That they are sparsae minus voluntarie If there be a Prescription of a Modus Decimandi for an Orchard or Garden and it afterwards ceases to be such the Modus shall cease also and Tithe shall be paid in kind but if it afterwards be restored to a Garden or Orchard by being replenished with Herbs or Fruit-Trees it shall pay the Modus as formerly If the Modus be to pay two shillings and the Shoulder of three Deer for a Park the Modus remains though the Park be disparked it is otherwise in case the Modus be only to pay Venison Or if the Prescription be to pay a certain Sum of money for all the Tithes of a Park the Modus shall continue though the Park be afterwards disparked A Prescription of a Modus Decimandi generally for a Park is not good if it be Disparked but it shall be particularly for all Acres contained in the Park Prescription being a Temporal thing is Triable only in the Temporal Courts and therefore in the Case of Two Parsons of Two several Parishes where one of them claimed Tithe within the Parish of the other and said That all his Predecessors Parsons of such a Church viz. of D. had used to have the Tithe of such Lands within the Parish of S. and pleaded the same in the Spiritual Court The Court was of Opinion That in this Case a Prohibition did lie for he claims only a portion of Tithes and that by Prescription and not meerly as Parson or by reason of the Parsonage but by a Collateral cause scil Prescription which is a Temporal cause and thing And in another Case it hath been Adjudged That if a Prescription be laid to pay a Modus Decimandi to 100 Acres or to several things if there be a failure of one Acre or of one thing it is a failure of the whole Prescription But where it hath been Prescribed to pay in one part of the Land the Third part of the Tenth and in another part the Moity of the Tenth for all manner of Tithes it hath been held a good Prescription These Prescriptions de modo Decimandi are equally incident as well to Lay-persons as to persons Spiritual or Ecclesiastical but as to Prescriptions de non Decimando none but Spiritual persons are capable of being discharged of Tithes in that kind as was Resolved in the Bishop of Winchester's Case Yet a whole Countrey or County may Prescribe de non Decimando though this or that particular meer Lay-man cannot nor indeed can the other unless there be sufficient Maintenance for the Clergy besides The Prescriptions de modo Decimandi are confirm'd by Act of Parliament and if any Lay-man will Prescribe de non Decimando to be absolutely discharged from the payment of Tithes without paying any thing else in lieu thereof he must Found it in some Religious or Ecclesiastical person and derive his Title to it by Act of Parliament and it is not sufficient to say That they who Prescribe de non Decimando are Churchwardens who have Land belonging to their Church for they are neither Religious nor Spiritual persons But they who are such indeed may so Prescribe not only for themselves but also for their Tenants and Farmers as was formerly said So also may the Kings Patentees of those Abbey-Lands that came to the Crown by the Statute of 31 H. 8. Prescribe de non Decimando by force of the said Statute if so be it may be proved That they have beyond the Memory of man so enjoyed the Lands discharged from the payment of Tithes But for a Parishioner to Prescribe to Non-payment of Tithes because he hath Time out of mind repaired the Church is no good Prescription otherwise in case he had repaired the Chancel and in consideration thereof had been quit of Tithes the Reason is because the Parson not being obliged to repair the Church hath no recompence And in Sherwood and Winchcombs Case it was Resolved That a man cannot Prescribe to have Tithes as parcel of a Mannor for that they are Spiritual but a
Prescription to have Decimam partem granorum is good Cro. par 1. In a Case for a Prohibition A. Libelled in the Ecclesiastical Court for Tithes of rough Hay growing in Marshes and Fenny-grounds in M. The Plaintiff Surmized That there was 2000 Acres of Fenny-Lands within the Parish and 600 Acres of Meadow and that the Parishioners paid Tithes of Hay and Grain growing upon the Meadow and Arable Land and had paid a certain Rate for every Cow and because they had not sufficient Grass to keep their Cattel in Winter they used to gather this Hay called Fenny-Fodder for the subsistance of their Beasts for the better increase of their Husbandry and for this cause had been alwaies freed from the payment of the Tithes thereof It was Resolved That the Surmize was not sufficient for a Prohibition for one may not Prescribe in non Decimando and their alledging That they bestowed it on their Cattel is not a cause of Discharge A Consultation was awarded Webb and Sir Hen. Warners Case Cro. par 1. Also in Munday and Levice's Case in a Prohibition it was Adjudged That it was not a good Prescription that Inhabitants have used to pay Calves and Lambs and a peny for every Milch-Cow in satisfaction of all Tithes of Lambs Calves Milch-kine and all Barren and other Beasts and Agistments More 's Rep. And where a Parson sued for Tithes of Fodder and the Parishioners Prescribed in Non Decimando because the Fodder was for their Cattel which manured their Land It was held no good Prescription but it was Agreed Tithes should not be paid for their Agistments nor for Hedge-wood to enclose the Corn nor for Fuel More ibid. Case 892. In the Case between Pigott and Hearne the Lord of the Mannor of B. in the Parish of D. did Prescribe That he and his Ancestors and all those whose Estates c. had used from time to time whereof c. to pay to the Parson of D. the now Plantiff and his Predecessors 6 l. per Ann. for all manner of Tithes growing within the said Parish and that by reason thereof he and all those whose Estates c. Lords of the said Mannor had used time whereof c. to have Decimam Garbam decimum Cumulum Garbarum of all his Tenements within the said Mannor It was in this Case Resolved 1 That it was a good Prescription and that a Modus Decimandi for the Lord by himself and all the Tenants of his Mannor for barring the Parson to demand Tithes in kind is a good Prescription because it might have a lawful Commencement 2 It was Resolved That it was a good Prescription to have Decimam garbam decimum Cumulum garbarum vel granorum or the Tenth shock for he hath it as a Profit Appender and not as Tithes 3 Resolved in this Case That if the Queen be Lady of the Mannor she may Prescribe to have Tithes for that she is capable of them she being Persona Mixta Capax Spiritualis Jurisdictionis More 's Rep. And in Green and Handlyes Case it was Resolved 1 That it is a good Custome to pay the Tithe-Wool at Lammassday though it be due upon the clipping 2 That for the Pasturage of young Barren Cattel preserved for the Plough and Pail no Tithe shall be paid 3 That a Prescription to pay a peny called a Hearth-peny in satisfaction of the Tithe of all Combustible Wood is a good Prescription More Case 1213. Priviledge is derived from the Supream Authority upon good Consideration and referrs sometimes to Persons sometimes to Places and is an exemption from Tithes derived from such Supream Authority None are to pay Tithes for Lands priviledged or lawfully discharged from the payment thereof Stat. 2 Ed. 6. c. 13. yet such Priviledges as are meerly Personal do not exempt Lands from the payment of Tithes longer than they are in the hands or occupation of Priviledged persons Q QVarries of Stone are not Tithable Adjudged Mich. 19 Eliz. B. R. Pasch 34 Eliz. C. B. Liff and Watts Case Cro. par 1. More 's Rep. Nor do the Quarries of Slate Cole or the like pay any Tithe More Case 1275. Nor Quarries of Lime Gravel Sand or Clay for these are parcel of the Inheritance Regist 55. F. N. B. 53. Broo. Dismes 18. Mich. 15 Car. B. R. Skinner 's Case No Tithes shall be paid of Quarries for they are parcel of the Freehold Hill 11 Jac. B. R. per Curiam R RAkings of the Stubble of Corn or Grain are not Tithable for they are to be left for the Poor and Orphans and the Law will not give to the Parson or Vicar Tithe of that which is appointed for Alms. Mich. 6 Jac. C. B. Smith's Case Pasch 7 Jac. C. B. Adjudg Cro. 1. 660. So that whereas it is said that the Rakings of the Stubble of Corn is not Tithable where the Corn it self was Tithed More Case 433. It may not be understood as if the Tithing the Corn it self were the Reason why the Rakings are not Tithable but because they are by the Law of Moses due to the Poor and therefore not to be Tithed understand this also of Ordinary Rakings not voluntarily scattered for of such only it is that no Tithes shall be paid as not due by the Levitical Law and for that they are but the scattering of the Grain whereof he had paid Tithes before Pasch 7 Jac. B. per Curiam Hill 8 Car. B. R. Saunders Paramour per Cur. Trin. 3 Jac. B. R. Pasch 14 Jac. B. R. Pitt and Harris Prohibition granted otherwise it is in case the Rakings were voluntarily and fraudulently scattered Hill 14 Jac. B. R. Peck and Harris per Cur. Adjudged Mich. 3 Jac. B. R. per Popham Pasch 7 Jac. per Cur. Mich. 14 Jac. B. R. Joyse Parker And where there is a Prohibition of Tithes of Rakings the Suggestion ought to be That they were Minus voluntarie sparsae otherwise it is not good for it is not sufficient to say That they were Lapsae dissipatae in Collectione And it was Resolved in Johnson and Awbrey's Case That Tithes are not to be paid for After-pasture of Land nor for Rakings of Corn. Also in Green and Hunn's Case a Prohibition was for suing for the Tithes of Rakings of Barley a Prescription to make the Barley into Cocks being alledged and to pay the Tenth Cock in satisfaction of all Tithes of Barley and Adjudged a good Prescription Notwithstanding in the Case between Bird and Adams in a Prohibition to stay a Suit in the Ecclesiastical Court for Tithes of the Rakings of Lands after the Crop of Corn was taken away It was held That the Prohibition would not lie but that Tithes should be paid of Rakings More 's Rep. But vid. 42 Eliz. B. R. in Green and Hale's Case it was Adjudged That by the Custome of the Realm Tithes should not be paid of Rakings Also in Green and Handlye's Case it was
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
interdum vicesima aut tricesima And in Heâ—sloe's Case Co. 9. par it is said That Tithes Quatenus Tithes were Spiritual things and due ex jure Divino and were not accounted as Temporal Inheritances Hence it is That where a Parson leased all his Glebe Lands with all Profits and Commodities rendring 13 s. 4 d. pro omnibus exactionibus demandis and afterwards Libelled in the Spiritual Court against his Lessees for the Tithes thereof It was the Opinion of the Court That Tithes are not things issuing out of Lands nor any Rent or duty but Spiritual and if the Parson doth Release to his Parishioners all Demands in his Lands his Tithes thereby are not extinct and therefore a Consultation was granted And in the like case it hath been Adjudged That the Lessee should pay Tithes to the Parson for that they are jure Divino due and cannot be included in Rent If a Parishioner sets forth his Tithes and sever the Tenth part from the Nine parts justly and truly although he doth not give Personal notice to the Parson nor general notice in the Church of the time of setting forth his Tithes whereby the Parson might be present at the setting of them forth and to see that it be justly done yet it is a good setting forth of the Tithes as in the Case between Chase and Ware in a Writ of Error upon a Judgment in an Action upon the Case against the Parson for leaving his Tithe of Hay upon the Parishioners ground after notice of setting them forth whereby the Parishioner lost his Grass there But it was not alledged that the Parson had notice of the time of setting them forth and yet the Court affirmed the Judgment against the Parson A. Parson in Consideration of 20 s. yearly promised to B. that B. should pay no Tithe for a certain Wood per parol and in Consideration thereof B. promised to pay the 20 s. yearly and this Agreement was during their Lives B. made a Lease at Will of the Wood the Lessee had a Prohibition against him for the Agreement was good and Jermyn demanded what Remedy against the Lesse for the 20 s. Doderidge None but he shall have Action on the Case against B. or his Executors but the Lessee for years may have Action against the Parson if he Sue him in the Ecclesiastical Court. For the Case was There was an Agreement per parol made between S. Parson and B. the Parishioner B. promised to S. for himself his Executors and Assigns to pay him Ten load of Wood and 10 s. for the Tithe of a Wood during the life of S. And S. promised not to Sue him c. for any other Tithe B. dies his Executor made a Lease at Will of the Wood the Question is whether the Tenant at Will may take his Action against the Parson who sued him for other Tithes c. In a Prohibition against a Parson who sued for Tithes it was Surmized That the Clerk of the Parish and his Predecessors Assistants to the Minister had used to have five shillings for the Tithe of the Lands where c. It was the Opinion of the Court That if this Special matter be shewed in the Surmize it might perhaps be good by reason of long continuance But they held that by Common intendment Tithes are not payable to a Parish-Clerk and he is no party in whom a Prescription can be alledged wherefore a Consultation was awarded The Parson of T. sued for Tithe-Wood of the Park of T. for a Prohibition it was surmized That he and all those c. time out of mind c. had used to pay to the Vicar of T. ten shillings yearly for all Tithes of Wood growing in the place and the proof was That he paid ten shillings for discharge of Tithe-Wood in the Park and two other places The Prohibition was denied and a Consultation awarded because the right of Tithes between the Parson and the Vicar came in question and because the party failed in the proof of his Prescription In a Prohibition to stay Suit for Tithes surmizing that he set forth his Tithes and for some reasonable cause he detained part of them And the Parson sued him in the Ecclesiastical Court upon which it was Demurred because by the fetting forth they were Lay-Chattels But the Court held That the Prohibition did not lie for against the party himself who setteth forth his Tithes a Suit is maintainable in the Ecclesiastical Court if he detains them although he might have his Remedy for them at the Common Law Otherwise if they were taken away by a Stranger after they were set forth For a Prohibition it was Surmized That he had used to pay the Tenth sheaf of Corn the Tenth Cock of Hay the Tenth Fleece of Wool and so the like in satisfaction of all Hay Corn Cattel c. And it was held That it was no sufficient Surmize for a Prohibition because that which he used to pay is but the Tenth in kind In Sands and Pruries Case the question was whether Tithes were grantable by Copy It was Objected they could not because it is against the nature of Tithes whereof none could have property before the Council of Lateran and it was impossible there should be any Custome to demise them by Copy when none had interest in them and they cannot be parcel of a Mannor for they are of several natures though united in one mans hands But by the Court Resolved they might be granted by Copy so it had been time so out of mind A Parishioner severed his Tithes but being in a Close the Gate was locked so as the Parson could not come at them The question was whether the Gate were locked or open and thereupon a Prohibition brought The Court was of Opinion that although the Tithes were severed yet they remain Suable in the Ecclesiastical Court and then the other is but a consequent thereof and Triable there and the Prohibition denied In Sharington and Fleetwood's Case it was Resolved That if a Parson Libels for Tithes and a Prohibition is granted and after he Libelleth for the Tithes of another year the first Suit not being determined an Attachment upon the Prohibition lieth against him And in the Case between Talentire and Denton where the Bishop of Carlisle being seized in Fee of Tithes in right of his Bishoprick made a Lease of them for Three Lives rendring the ancient Rent the Tithes having been usually demised for the same Rent It was Resolved That the Lease was not good against his Successor because he had not remedy for the Rent by Distress or Action of Debt Otherwise it had been if only a Lease for years for there Debt lieth for the Rent In Leigh and Wood's Case it was Resolved That if the Owner sets forth his Tithe and a Stranger takes them no Suit shall be for the same in the Ecclesiastical Court
had before are Bastards at the Common Law and Muliers by the Civil Law If a Man hath Issue by a Woman and after marry the same Woman the Issue by the Common Law is Bastard and Mulier by the Ecclesiastical Law Likewise if a man espouse a Woman bigg with Child by another Man and within three dayes after she is delivered of Child by the Common Law this is a Mulier and by the Ecclesiastical Law a Bastard If a Woman Elope and hath Issue in Adultery such Issue is a Mulier at the Common Law and a Bastard by the Ecclesiastical Law yet if the Woman continue in Adultery and hath Issue such Issue are Bastards even by the Common Law But by the Law of the Land a man may not be reputed a Bastard who is born after Espousals unless there be some special matter in the Case as aforesaid But if a man who hath a wife doth during her life take another wife and hath Issue by her such Issue are Bastards by both the Laws for the second Marriage is void 20. A Divorce causa Praecontractus doth Bastardize the Issue so also doth a Divorce causa Consaguinitatis likewise if the Divorce be Causa Affinitatis it doth Bastardize the Issue and the Law is the same in case the Divorce be causa Frigiditatis A Man hath Issue a Bastard and after marries the same Woman and hath Issue by her divers Sons and then deviseth all his Goods to his Children Q. whether the Bastard shall take by the devise But if the Mother of the Bastard make such a devise it is clear the Bastard shall take because he is known to be Child of the Mother 21. B. contracted himself to A. afterwards A. was Married to F. and cohabited with him whereupon B. sued A. in the Court of Audience and proved the contract and Sentence was there pronounced that she should Marry the said B. and cohabit with him which she did and they had Issue C. B. and the Father died It was argued by the Civilians that the Marriage betwixt B. and A. was void and that C. B. was a Bastard But it was resolved by the Justices that C. the Issue of B. was legitimate and no Bastard 22. The Case was wherein a Man was divorced causa Fridigitatis and afterwards took another Wife and had Issue it was argued by the Civilians and also by the Justices whether the Issue were Bastard or not it was adjudged that the Issue by the second Wife was not a Bastard For that by the Divorce the Marriage was dissolved à vinculo Matrimonii and each of them might Marry again But admit that the second Marriage was voidable yet it good till it be dissolved and so by consequence the Issue born during the Coverture is a lawful Issue 23. Upon an information in the Castle-chamber in Ireland against the Bishop of K. and C. B. and others that by Practice and Combination and by undue course of proceedings they endeavoured to prove the said C. B. who was ever before reputed a Bastard to be the legitimate or lawful Son and Heir of G. B. Esq to the disherison and defamation of E. B. who was the sole Daughter and Heir of the said G. B. And upon Oier of this cause the Case appear'd to be this viz. About twenty six years before the exhibiting of this Bill the said G. B. had Issue the said C. B. on the Body of one J. D. who during the life of G. B. was not reputed his Wife but his Concubine and the said C. B. for all the time aforesaid was only accounted the natural Son of G. B. but not for legitimate Afterwards viz. sixteen years after the birth of C. B. his Mother being then living G. B. took to Wife a Lady of good Estate and Reputation with the assent of her Friends by whom he had Issue the said E. B. and died After the death of the said G. B. the said C. B. his reputed Son nor his Mother who was yet living said nothing by the space of nine years but at last they practiced and combined with the said Bishop of K. being of their Kin and with many others to prove the legitimation of the said C. B. by an irregular and undue course to the intent to bastardize and disinherit the said E. B. according to which practice and combination the Bishop without any Suit commenced or moved in any of the Kings Temporal Courts or any Writ directed to him to certifie Bastardy or Legitimation in that Case and which is more without any Libel exhibited in his Ecclesiastical Court touching that matter of his own will and pleasure privately and not convocatis convocandis nine years after the death of the said G. B. took the depositions of many Witnesses to prove that the said G. B. twenty nine years before had lawfully Married and took to Wife the said J. D. Mother of the said C. B. and that the said C. B. was the legitimate and lawful Son and Heir of the said G. B. And these depositions so taken the said Bishop caused to be engross'd and reduced into the form of a solemn Act and having put his Signature and Seal to that Instrument delivered the same to C. B. who published it and under colour of that Instrument or Act declared himself to be the Son and lawful Heir of the said G. B. c. And for this practice and misdemeanour the said Bishop of K. and others were censured and thereupon these points were resolved 1. That although all Matrimonial causes have of a long time been determinable in the Ecclesiastical Courts and are now properly within the jurisdiction and cognizance of the Clergy yet ab initio non fuit sic For causes of Matrimony as well as cause Testamentary were heretofore civil Causes and appertaining to the civil Magistrate as is well known to all Civilians until the Christian Emperors and Kings as an honour to the Prelates of the Clergy did grant and allow unto them the cognizance and jurisdiction of these Cases And therefore the King of England who is and of right ever was the Fountain of all Justice and Jurisdiction in all Causes as well Ecclesiastical as Civil within his own Dominions although that he allow the Prelates of the Church to exercise their several Jurisdictions in those Causes which properly appertain to their cognizance yet by the Rules of the Common Law he hath a superintendency over their proceedings with power of direction how they shall proceed and of restraint and correction if they do not proceed duly in some cases as is evident by the Writs of several natures directed to Bishops by which the King commands them to certifie Bastardy Excommunication Profession Accouplement en Loyal Matrimony De admit Clericis de Cautione admittenda c. as also by the Writs of Prohibition Consultation and Attachment upon a Prohibition 2. It was resolved that
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
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