time of King H. 3. Ed. 3. and Ed. 4. they in the Ecclesiastical Court have not any power to intermeddle with the Precinct of Parish-Churches neither are they there to Judge what shall be said to be a mans Parish-Church And so was the Opinion of the whole Court and therefore by the Rule of the Court a Prohibition was granted 41. Touching the Reparations of a Church and who were liable thereunto this being a question coming in debate before the Judges It was Resolved by the whole Court That for and towards the Reparation of a Church the Land of all as well of Foreigners there not inhabiting as of all others is liable thereunto and this is so by the general custome of the place and this is to be raised by a Rate imposed according to the value of the Land and that in the nature of a Fifteen and this is not meerly in the Realty Williams and Yelverton Justices and Flemming Chief Justice Not the Land but the person of him who occupieth the Land is to be charged Yelverton Justice A man is chargeable for Reparations of a Church by reason of the Land and for the Ornaments in the Church by reason of his coming to Church Williams Justice and Flemming Chief Justice If the person have Land there he is chargeable for both whether he come to Church or not for that he may come to Church if he please 42. In a Prohibition the Case was this The Defendant did Libel before the Bishop of London in the Consistory Court for a Seat in the Church Sentence there passed against the Defendant whereupon he Appealed to the Arches The Court was moved for a Prohibition in regard the Title to the Seat or Pew was grounded upon a Prescription The Court answered c. As for the Title we are not here to meddle with it this being for a Seat in the Church Haughton Justice This Disposition of Pews in the Church belongs of right to the order and discretion of the Ordinary and to this purpose is the case of 8 H. 7. fo 12 and Sir William Hall's case against Ellis Doderidge Justice I moved this case in the Court of C. B. and it was for a Seat in the Church An Action there brought for Disturbance and I there cited Hall's case and 9 E. 4. fo 14. The Case of the Grave-Stone and Coat-Armor for the taking of which an Action of Trespass lies at the Common Law and therefore by the same reason an Action of Trespass should lie for such a Disturbance in a Seat of a Church but there the Judges did all of them say That they would not meddle with the deciding of such Controversies for Seats in the Church but would leave the same to them to whom more properly it belonged Croke Justice Hall's case was this where a man did build an entire Isle in the Church and was at continual charge to repair it if he be disturbed in the use of this he shall for this Disturbance have his remedy at the Common Law and so it hath been adjudged But the Judges all said We are not here to meddle with Seats in the Church Doderidge Justice This Appeal here is like unto a Writ of Error at the Common Law but it doth differ in this By the Appeal the first Judgment or Sentence is suspended but after a Writ of Error brought the first Judgment still remains until it be reversed Coke Chief Justice It was Pym's Case in the Common Bench and 8 H. 7. fo 12. that the Ecclesiastical Court hath Jurisdiction and power to dispose of Pews and Seats in the Church But if there be an Isle built by a Gentleman or by a Nobleman and he hath used to Bury there and there hath his Ensigns of Honour as a Grave-stone Coat-Armor or the like which belongs not unto the Parson if he take them the Heir may well have an Action of Trespass Otherwise it is where the same is repaired at the Common charge of the Parish there they have the disposing of them Ellis and Hall's Case remembred a Kentish Case there the Seat was repaired by him and was belonging to his Capital Messuage by Prescription and so triable at the Common Law And so where the Case is Special that the party doth wholly and solely repair the same in such a case if a Suit be there concerning such a Seat a Prohibition well lieth but not otherwise But if a Nobleman comes to dwell in the Countrey he is now within the sole order and dispose of the Ordinary for his Pew and Seat in the Church and upon the former difference was Pym's case adjudged in the C. B. in this principal Case a Prohibition was denied by the whole Court CHAP. XIII Of Churchwardens Questmen and Sidemen 1. What such are in construction of Law how the choice of them is to be made and wherein the Office doth consist 2. What Actions at Law may lie for or against them 3. Whether Actions lie for the New Churchwardens in Trespas done in time of their Predecessors 4. Certain things appertaining to the Church within the charge and office of Churchwardens to provide and preserve 5. Cases in Law touching the Election of Churchwardens 6. What Sidemen or Questmen are and their duty 7. Action at Law against Churchwardens touching Distress taken by them for money for relief of the Poor 8. A Churchwarden refusing to take the Oath of Enquiry on the 39 Articles Action thereon 9. What remedy in case the Archdeacon refuses to Swear the Church-wardens Elect. 10. The Injunctions of King Ed. 6. touching all Marriages Baptisms and Burials to be Registred in the presence of the Churchwardens 11. Whether the Release of one Churchwarden shall be a Bar to his Companion in an Ecclesiastical Suit commenced by them both 12. Prohibition where Churchwardens have pretended a Custome to chuse the Parish-Clerk 13. The like upon a Presentment by Churchwardens against one in matter more proper for a Leet than the Ecclesiastical Court to take cognizance of 14. The prevalency of Custome against a Canon in choice of a Churchwarden in reference to a Vicar and the Parishioners 15. If question be whether Lands next adjoyning unto a Church-yard shall be charged with the repairs of the Fences thereof and Custome pleaded for it in what Court cognizable 16. In Action of Account by Parishioners against Churchwardens by whom a Release of Câ—sts is pleaded but disallowed in the Ecclesiastical Court whether Prohibition lies in that case 17. Whether Churchwardens are a Corporation qualified for Lands as well as Goods to the use of the Church 18. The Churchwardens disposal of Goods belonging to the Church without the assent of the Sidemen or Vestry void 19. Churchwardens not Ecclesiastical Officers but Temporal employed in Ecclesiastical Affairs Before whom are they to Account 20. Whether Churchwardens may have Action for Trespass done to the Church in their Predecessors time 21. Whether the Parishioners by force of a
of Advowson of a Church he may only say that he was seized as of Fee and not in his Demesn as of Fee whether it be an Advowson in Gross or Appendant which Appendancy is held to be for the most part by Prescription and must relate to such things as are in their own nature of a perpetual continuance for which reason it is That Advowsons cannot be said to be Appendant to Rents Services and the like because such things are extinguishable And although an Advowson be not properly said to be a Demesn yet it may be Appendant to a Demesn as of Lands or things Corporeal and Perpetual and therefore as supposed not to a House of habitation meerly quatenus such yet to the Soyl whereon the House is erected whereby the Law which hath the clearest prospect of Casualties at a distance hath provided that the Advowson shall stand though the House fall but an Advowson Disappendant and in Gross which in man hath alone and not by reason of any other thing but severed from the Lands to which it was Appendant such an Advowson is exempt from divers prejudicial Incidents which the other viz. the Appendant cannot well avoid And where a Subject or Common person hath an Advowson Appendant to a Mannor and there be an Usurpation upon him by a Presentation made by a Stranger whose Clerk is in for Six months though this makes the Advowson of such Common person Disappendant to his Mannor yet it is otherwise in case of the King who may grant the Advowson notwithstanding such Usurpation for a man cannot put the King out of possession either by Presentation or Usurpation as hath been Adjudged Nor doth the King's Presentation by Lapse sever the Advowson from the Mannor or cause it to become disappendant as in Gawdy's Case against the Archbishop of Canterbury and Others was likewise Adjudged in which Case it was also said by Habard Chief Justice That neither doth a wrongful Collation of the Bishops make any Disappendancy nor any binding Plenarty against the true Patron but that he may not only bring his Quare Impedit when he please but also Present upon him seven years after Also whereas it was said before That an Advowson cannot be Appendant to things Extinguishable as to Rents Services and the like so it seems at the Common Law an Advowson in Possession cannot be Appendant to a Reversion expectant upon an Estate for life for the Case was The King seized of a Mannor with an Advowson Appendant granted the Mannor to J. S. for life and then granted the Mannor to J. D. after the death of J. S. Habendum una cum Advocatione and then by Parliament the King reciting both the Grants confirmed them by Parliament yet the Advowson passed not Finally whereas also it hath been Adjudged as aforesaid that the King cannot be put out of possession either by Presentation or Usurpation this seems to refer only as to the Kings Advowson and not as to his present Presentation for the Opinion of Sir H. Hobart Chief Justice is That although the King may be dispossessed of his present Presentation he cannot be so of his Advowson and therefore he may still grant it notwithstanding the Usurpation as was Judged in a Writ of Error upon a Judgment given to the contrary between the King and Campion for the Vicarage of Newton Valence 23. A Donative in the Kings Gift may be with Cure of Souls as the Church of the Tower of London is a Donative in the Kings Gift with Cure as in the Case of Fletcher and Mackaller where Information was brought upon the Stat. 31 Eliz. of Simony for procuring him to be promoted to the Church of the Tower for money and per Curiam it well lies 24. The Queen hath the Advowson of the Vicarage of H. and grants the Vicarage to J. S. It was the Opinion of all the Justices that the Advowson passeth not for that the Vicarage is another thing than the Advowson of the Vicarage The Queen seized of a Mannor to which an Advowson was appendant granted the Mannor cum Advocatione Ecclesiae the Church being then void It was Adjudged the Avoidance did not pass but the Queen should Present pro hac vice And in the Queen and Hussie's Case it was Resolved That a double Presentation would not put the Queen out of possession if she hath Right And in Stephens and Clarks Case it was Resolved That the Grant of the next Avoidance to one during the Avoidance is void in Law CHAP. XX. Of Appropriations 1. The great Antiquity of Appropriations a Conjecture of their Original whether Charles Martell was the occasion thereof they were prohibited in England anciently by the Pope whether they can be otherwise than by the King or some Authority derived from him 2. How the End and use of Appropriations is changed at this day from what it was in the Original Institution thereof 3. Appropriators why called Proprietarii The care of R. 2. in making Provision for thé Vicar in case of Appropriations Requisites of Law to make an Appropriation 4. A further discovery of the Original use and ends of Appropriations and under what qualifications 5. Whether Appropriations were anciently grantable to Nunneries 6. Appropriations not now to be questioned as to their Original 7. A Vicarage endowed may be Appropriated but not to a Parson 8. Three considerable Points of Law resolved by the Justices touching Appropriations 9. Whether an Advowson may be Appropriated without a Succession Appropriations usually were to Corporations or Persons Spiritual 10. How a Church Appropriate may be disappropriated 11. In Appropriations the Patron and his Successors are perpetual Parsons 12. Whether an Appropriation of a Parsonage without endowment of the Vicarage be good Also whether an Appropriation may be made without the Kings License 1. IT is a question at this day undecided Whether Princes or Popes were the first Authors of Appropriations the practice whereof by each of them is of great Antiquity but whether in imitation of Charles Martell's Sacrilegious President the first by whom Tithes were ever violated in the Christian World is but a Supposition rather than any Assertion among Historians It was long since Traditionally Recorded in History that about the year 650. when the said Charles Martell Father of Pipin after King of France in defence of his Country against the Hunnes Gothes and Vandals had slain no less than 34500 of those Infidel Sarazens in one Battel he did not restore to such of the Clergy of France their Tithes as from whom under a fair pretence of supporting the charges of the War thereby he had upon a Promise of Restitution thereof so soon as the War should cease obtained the same but instead thereof gratified such of the Nobility as had assisted him in the War by the grant thereof to them and their Heirs for ever But whether this Sacriledge if it be true had
been only a reviver of an Ancient power which had been formerly invested in his Predecessors and in all other Christian Princes If we consult the Records of elder Times it will readily appear not only that the Roman Emperours of the House of France did Nominate the Popes themselves but that after they had lost that power they retained the Nomination of the Bishops in their own Dominions The like done also by the German Emperours by the Kings of England and by the Ancient Kings of Spain The Investure being then performed per Annulum Baculum that is by delivering of a Ring together with a Crosier or Pastoral Staff to the party nominated 22. By Ancient Right the Bishops of London are accounted Deans of the Episcopal Colledge and being such are by their place to signifie the pleasure of their Metropolitan to all the Bishops of the Province to execute his Mandates and disperse his Missives on all emergency of Affairs As also to preside in Convocations or Provincial Synods during the vacancy of the See or in the necessary absence of the Metropolitan 23. In O Brian and Knivan's Case the Case was That King Ed. 6. under his Privy Seal signified to Sir J. C. and to the Lord Chancellor and others in Ireland That he elected and appointed J. B. to be Bishop of Ossory Requiring them to Instal him in the Bishoprick The Deputy being removed the Chancellor and the other made a Commission under the Great Seal of Ireland to the Bishop of Dublin to Consecrate him which was done accordingly and he did his Fealty and recovered the Temporalties out of the Kings hands Afterwards in the life of J. B. Queen Mary elected J. T. to be Bishop there who was likewis◠Consecrated and who made a Lease of divers Lands of the Bishoprick for 101 years which was confirmed by the Dean and Chapter J. B. died and after J. T. died J. W. was elected Bishop The Questions in the Case were 1. Whether J. B. was well created Bishop 2. Whether this Lease made by J. T. being Bishop de facto but not de jure in the life of J. B. he surviving J. B. should be good to bind the Successor Resolved The Commission was well executed although the Deputy Sir J. C. were removed 2. Resolved That before the Statute of 2 Eliz. the King might by Patent without a Writ of Congé d'eslire create a Bishop for that was but a Form or Ceremony 3. Resolved That although J. T. was Bishop de facto in the life of J. B. that the Lease made by him for 101 years was void though it was confirmed by the Dean and Chapter and should not bind the Successor But all Judicial Acts made by him as Admissions Institutions c. should be good but not such voluntary Acts as tended to the depauperation of the Successor A Bishop made a Lease for three Lives not warranted by the Statute of 1 Eliz. rendring Rent the Successor accepted the Rent It was Resolved It should bind him during his time so as he shall not avoid the Lease which otherwise was voidable CHAP. IV. Of the Guardian of the Spiritualties 1. What the Office of such a Guardian is and by whom Constituted 2. The power of such Guardians in vacancy of Archbishopricks 3. What Remedy in case they refuse to grant such Licenses or Dispensations as are legally grantable 4. Who is Guardian of the Spiritualties of Common Right 5. What things a Guardian of the Spiritualties may do 1. GVardian of the Spiritualties Custos Spiritualium vel Spiritualitatis is he to whom the Spiritual Jurisdiction of any Diocess during the vacancy of the See is committed Dr. Cowell conceives that the Guardian of the Spiritualties may be either Guardian in Law or Jure Magistratus as the Archbishop is of any Diocess within his Province or Guardian by Delegation as he whom the Archbishop or Vicar General doth for the time depute Guardian of c. by the Canon Law pertains to the Appointment of the Dean and Chapter c. ad abolend Extr. Nè sede vacante aliquid innovetur But with us in England to the Archbishop of the Province by Prescription Howbeit according to Mr. Gwin in the Preface to his Readings divers Deans and Chapters do challenge this by Ancient Charters from the Kings of this Realm Cowell verb. Custos This Ecclesiastical Office is specially in request and indeed necessarily in the time of the Vacancy of the Episcopal See or when the Bishop is in remotis agendis about the publick Affairs of the King or State at which time Presentations must be made to the Guardian of the Spiritualties which commonly is the Dean and Chapter or unto the Vicar General who supplies the place and room of the Bishop And therefore if a man Recover and have Judgment for him in a Quare Impedit and afterwards the Bishop who is the Ordinary dieth In this case the Writ to admit the Clerk to the Benefice must be directed to the Guardian of the Spiritualties Sede vacante to give him Admission But if before his Admission another be created Bishop of that See and Consecrated Bishop in that case the power of the Guardian of the Spiritualties doth cease and the party may have a new Writ to the new Bishop to admit his Clerk A Guardian of the Spiritualties may admit a Clerk but he cannot confirm a Lease 2. The Guardian of the Spiritualties takes place as well in the vacancy of Archbishopricks as Bishopricks and hath power of granting Licenses Dispensations and the like during such Vacancies by the Statute of 25 H. 8. whereby it is provided and enacted That if it happen the See of the Archbishop of Canterbury to be void that then all such Licenses Dispensations Faculties Instruments Rescripts and other Writings which may be granted by virtue of the said Act shall during such vacation of the said See be had done and granted under the Name and Seal of the Guardian of the Spiritualties of the said Archbishoprick according to the tenor and form of the said Act and shall be of like force value and effect as if they had been granted under the Name and Seal of the Archbishop for the time being Where it is also further enacted 3. That if the said Guardian of the Spiritualties shall refuse to grant such Licenses Dispensations Faculties c. to any person that ought upon a good just and reasonable cause to have the same then and in such case the Lord Chancellor of England or the Lord Keeper of the Great Seal upon any complaint thereof made may direct the Kings Writ to the said Guardian of the Spiritualties during such Vacancy as aforesaid refusing to grant such Licenses c. enjoyning him by the said Writ under a certain penalty therein limited at the discretion of the said Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper that he shall in due form grant such License Dispensation Faculty
The Statute of 13 El. cap. 12. Ordained That the Articles agreed by the Archbishop and Bishops of both Provinces and all the Clergy in the Convocation held at London c. shall be read by the Incumbent otherwise he is ipso facto deprived Or admitting all these Requisites have had their due performance so that he is a compleat Parson to all intents and purposes of Law whatever yet he may not under pretence of this or that Custome extend the Lines of his Parsonage beyond its due limits or bounds out of an Avaricious design to advance the perquisites of his Parsonage 5. Edward Topsall Clerk Parson of St. Botolphs without Aldersgate London and the Churchwardens of the same Libelled in the Ecclesiastical Court against Sir John Ferrers and alledged that there was a Custome within the City of London and specially within that Parish That if any person being Man or Woman die within that Parish and be carried out of the Parish to be Buried elsewhere that in such case there ought to be paid to the Parson of this Parish if he or she be buried elsewhere in the Chancel so much and to the Churchwardens so much being the Sums that they alledged were by Custome payable unto them for such as were buried in their own Chancel And then alledging that the Wife of Sir John Ferrers died within the Parish and was carried away and buried in the Chancel of another Church and so demanded of him the said Sum. Whereupon for Sir John Ferrers a Prohibition was prayed by Serjeant Harris and upon debate it was granted For this Custome is against Reason That he that is no Parishioner but may pass through the Parish or lie in an Inne for a night should if he then die be forced to be Buried there or to pay as if he were and so upon the matter to pay twice for his Burial 6. The words Parsonage Church and Rectory are frequently in the Law used Synonymously and promiscuously but the word Advowson is another thing and distinct from each of them And as to some Parsonages there are certain Rents due and payable so out of some Parsonages or Rectories there are issuing certain Rents or Pensions which Pensions are not suable at the Common Law but in the Ecclesiastical Court as was said in Crocker and York's Case against Dormer against whom they had a Recovery in a Writ of Entry in the Post among other things of a yearly Rent or Pension of four Marks issuing out of the Church or Rectory of F. In which Case it was agreed by Clench and Fenner that a Pension issuing out of a Rectory is the same with the Rent of which Popham seemed to make some doubt for there being in that Case a Demand for Rent in the Disjunctive viz. a Rent or Pension he moved that the greatest difficulty in the Case was the Demand made in the Disjunctive viz. of an Annual Rent or Pension for if a Pension issuing out of a Rectory shall be said to be a thing meerly Spiritual and not to be demanded by the Common Law or meerly of another nature than the Rent it self with which it is there conjoyn'd by the word or that then it is Erroneous 7. B. brought an Action of Debt against W. upon an Obligation of 600 l. the Condition was That if W. Resign a Benefice upon Request that then the Obligation should be void And the Condition was Entered the Defendant Demurred and Judgment in B. R. pro Querente And upon Error brought Judgment was Affirmed in the Exchequer for this Obligation is not voidable by the Statute of 14 Eliz. which makes Obligations of the same force as Leases made by Parsons of their Glebes viz. per Non-Residency And it doth not appear by the Plea of the Defendant that it was not an Obligation bona fide which might be lawful As if a Patron which hath a Son which is not yet fit to be presented for default of Age and he present another with an Agreement that when his Son come to the Age of 24 years he shall Resign it it is a good Obligation And this Case viz. an Obligation with Condition to Resign had been Adjudged good in the Case of one Jones An. 8 Jac. And the Counsel said That he who is presented to a Church is Married thereto and it is like as if a man who hath married a Wife should be bound to be divorced from her or not cohabit with her these Conditions are void But these resemble not our Case 8. It was said in Johnson's Case That if a Parson Leases his Rectory for years or parcel of his Glebe reserving a Rent and dies if his Successor accepts the Rent that Acceptance does not make the Lease good because by his death the Franktenement is in Abeyance and in no Man And also a Parson cannot Discontinue And by consequence That that he did without Livery is determined by his death And it is not like to the Case of an Abbot Prior or Tenant in Tail 9. Hendon moved for Dr. Clay Vicar of Hallifax That a Prohibition might be granted to the High Commissioners of York for that that these Articles by one Smith were exhibited against him viz. 1. That he read the Holy Bible in an irreverent and undecent manner to the scandal of the whole Congregation 2. That he did not do his duty in Preaching but against his Oath and the Ecclesiastical Canon had neglected for sundry Mornings to Preach 3. That he took the Cups and other Vessels of the Church consecrated to holy use and employed them in his own House and put Barm in the Cups that they were so polluted that the Communicants of the Parish were loath to drink out of them 4. That he did not observe the last Fast Proclaimed upon the Wednesday but on the Thursday because it was an Holy-day 5. That he retained one Stepheson in one of the Chappels of Ease who was a man of ill Life and Conversation viz. an Adulterer and a Drunkard 6. That he did not Catechize according to the Parish-Canon but only bought many of Dr. Wilkinson's Catechisms for every of which he paid 2 d. and sold them to the Parishioners for 3 d. without any examination or instruction for their benefit And that he when any Commissions were directed to him to compel any person in his Parish to do Penance he exacted money of them and so they were dismissed without inflicting any penalty upon them as their Censure was And that he and his Servants used divers Menaces to his Parishioners and that he abused himself and disgraced his Function by divers base Labours viz. He made Mortar having a Leathern-Apron before him and he himself took a Tithe-Pigg out of the Pigsty and afterwards he himself gelded it And when he had divers Presents sent him as by some Flesh by some Fish and by others Ale he did not spend it in the invitation of his Friends and Neighbours or
may have a Writ of Right of Advowson but this Writ lieth not for him unless he claim to have the Advowson to him and his Heirs in Fee-simple which Advowson is valuable though the Presentment be not 18. The Queen seized of an Advowson being void the Ancestor of P. Presented and so gained it by Usurpation and then the Church being void he Presented again his Clerk dies and then the Queen grants the Advowson to Y. the Plaintiff who brings a Quare Impedit in the Queens Name supposing that this Usurpation did not put the Queen out of Possession It was argued That the Grant could not pass without special words because it is in the nature of a Chose in Action And Dyer Mead and Windham held That this Usurpation did gain possession out of the Queen and that she should be put to her Writ of Right of Advowson but the Opinion of Anderson Cheif Justice was clearly That the Queen was not out of Possession for he said That it was a Rule in our Books that of a thing which is of Inheritance the act of a Common person will not put the Queen out of possession But if she had only a Chattel as the next Advowson then perhaps it is otherwise But Mead and Windham very earnestly held the contrary relying on the Book of 18 E. 3. where Shard said That if the King had an Advowson in his own Right and a Stranger who had no Right happen to Present it puts the King out of Possession And the King shall be put to his Writ of Right as others shall The Defendant alledged Two Presentations in his Ancestor after the Title of the King and demanded Judgment if the King should have a Writ of Possession and the Plea was admitted to be good But after Pasch 25 Eliz. Judgment was given for the Queen for that she might very well maintain a Quare Impedit and the two Presentments did not put her out of possession 19. In a Quare Impedit by G. against the Bishop of L. and D. Incumbent The Case was That a Mannor with the Advowson Appendant was in the hands of the King and the Church became void and the King grants the Mannor with the Advowson If the Grantee shall have the Presentation or the King was the question All the Justices held clearly That the Avoidance would not pass because it was a Chattel vested And Periam said that in case of a Common person without question an Advowson appendant would not pass by such Grant for if the Father die it shall go to his Executor but if it be an Advowson in Gross in case of a Common person there is some doubt But in the Principal Case all the Judges held ut supra and said That so it was in 9 E. 3. 26. Quare Impedit 31. and in Dyer in the Case of the Church of Westminster But F. N. B. is contrary 33. N. 20. Of Advowsons there are three Original Writs whereof one is a Writ of Right the other two of Possession viz. Darrein Presentment and Quare Impedit And where an Advowson descendeth unto Parceners though one Present twice and usurpeth upon his Co-heir yet he that was negligent shall not be clearly barr'd but another time shall have his turn to Present when it falleth And by the Statute of 3 Jac. 5. every Recusant Convict is utterly disabled to Present to any Ecclesiastical Living or to Collate or Nominate to any Donative whatsoever the Advowson of every such Recusant being left to the disposition of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge Also by the Statute of 13 E. 1. 5. it is directed what Action shall be maintained by him in the Reversion who is disturbed to Present after the Expiration of a particular Estate where there is also provided a Remedy for him in the Reversion or Remainder or others that have right where there is an Usurpation of an Advowson during any particular Estate And that Judgments given in the Kings Courts touching Advowsons shall not be avoided by Surmizes but by lawful means Likewise it is Statute-Law to hold That Advowsons shall not pass from the King but by Special words for when the King doth give or grant Land or a Mannor with the Appurtenances unless he make express mention in his Deed of Advowsons of Churches when they fall belonging to such Mannor or Land they are reserved to him notwithstanding the word Appurtenances albeit among Common persons it hath been otherwise observed nor is it lawful to purchase an Advowson during the dependancy of a Suit at Law concerning the same 21. If a Feme Covert be seized of an Advowson and the Church becomes void and the Wife dieth the Husband shall Present Where Parson and Vicar be Endowed in one Church and the Vicarage becomes void the question is To whom the Advowson of the Vicarge doth belong and who in that case shall be said to be the Patron of the Vicarage Whether the Patron of the Parsonage or the Parson It seems the Books at Common Law the Judges and the Court were divided in Opinion touching this point some of the Judges were of Opinion That the Advowson of the Vicarage appertains to the Parson Others that it belongs to the Patron Such as inclined that it is in the Patron gave for reason That the Ordinary cannot make a Vicar without the assent of the Patron 5 E. 2. Quare Impedit 165. puts the Case That although the Vicarage be Endowed with the assent of the Patron and Ordinary yet the Advowson of the Vicarage doth remain in the Parson because the same is parcel of the Advowson of the Parsonage And 16. E. 3. Grants 56. it was a question Whether by the Grant of the Advowson of the Church the Advowson of the Vicarage did pass and there it was said by Stone That it doth pass as Incident to the Parsonage And in regard the Vicar is as the Parsons Substitute and his Endowment originally only as a Maintenance for him in officiating the Cure for the case of the Parson whose Concern it is to see that he be a fit and able person sufficient for the Cure it should thence seem rational that the Parson should be his Patron to Present such an one to the Vicarage as shall be sufficient for the Cure for which reasons the Patronage of the Vicarage should seem rather to belong unto the Parson than to the First Patron of the Parsonage Appropriate 22. An Advowson cannot it seems at the Common Law be called a Demesne for that it is not such a thing as a man hath a Manual occupation or possession of as he hath of Lands Tenements and Rents whereof he may say in his Pleading That he was seized thereof in his Demesn as of Fee which he cannot say that hath only the Advowson of a Church because it lies not as the other in Manual occupation And therefore in the case
of Six months By the Common Law of England as well Clerks as Laicks have Six months to Present before the Lapse incurr Dr. Stu. 116. b. Per la Com. Ley De Scoce Laici Patroni quadrimestre Ecclesiastici vero Sex mensium spatium habent sibi concessum ad Praesentandum personam idoneam Ecclesiae vacanti Skene Regiam Majestatem 10. b. But Jac. 6. pl. 1. cap. 7. Pl. 7. cap. 102. pl. 12. cap. 119 158. Concedit Patrono Laico spatium Sex mensium infra quod Praesentare debet The Question is not so much when the Term shall end and determine as when it shall commence and from what time the Six months shall be computed The Answer falls under a double consideration or is diversified according to the divers manners of Avoidances for if by Death Creation or Cession the Church be void then the Six months shall be computed from the Death Creation or Cession of the last Incumbent whereof the Patron is to take Notice at his peril But if the Avoidance be by Resignation or Deprivation then the Six months shall begin from the time of Notice thereof given by the Bishop to the Patron who is not obliged to take knowledge thereof from any other than by signification from the Bishop But in case the Avoidance were caused by an Union for so it might be then the Six months should be computed from the time of the Agreement upon that Union for in that case the Patron was not ignorant of but privy to the Avoidance for there could be no Union made but the Patron must have the knowledge thereof and then it was to be appointed who should Present after the Union as whether one or both either joyntly or by turns one after another as the Agreement was upon the Union 3. The Continuance of a Voidance of a Church by the several Lapses of Patron Bishop and Archbishops derives the Title of Presentation at last to the King as Patron paramount of all the Churches in England and wherever the Original Patron by Law ought to take notice of a Voidance at his peril there and in such case by a Non-Presentation within Six months from the time of such Voidance the Lapse will ever incurr And generally by the Admission Institution and Induction to a Second Benefice Prima Ecclesia vacat de persona of the Incumbent vacans continuat till new Induction But when an Archbishop Bishop or other Ordinary hath given a Benefice of right devolute unto him by Lapse of time and after the King Presenteth and taketh his Suit against the Patron who possibly will suffer that the King shall recover without Action tried in deceipt of the Ordinary or the possessor of the said Benefice In such and all other like cases where the Kings Right is not tried the Archbishop Bishop Ordinary or Possessor shall be received to counterplead the Title taken for the King and to have his Answer and to shew and defend his Right upon the matter although that he claim nothing in the Patronage so that the Ordinary may Counterplead the Kings Title for a Benefice fallen to him by Lapse Also when the King doth make Collation or Presentment to a Benefice in anothers Right the Title whereupon he groundeth himself may be well examined that it be true which if before Judgment it be by good information found to be otherwise the Collation or Presentment thereof made may be Repealed whereupon the true Patron or Possessor may have as many Writs out of Chancery as shall be needful There are some Statutes the King not being bound by Lapse of Time for nullum Tempus occurrit Regi which are good remedies and reliefs for the Ordinary that hath Collated by Lapse as also for the Clerk that is Collated for otherwise a Common person might by Practice have turned out a lawful Collatee to which purpose the Lord Hobart doth instance in a Case A Common person no true Patron Presents within Six months and the true Patron himself Presents not in time whereupon the Ordinary Collates by the Lapse against whom the Pretender brings a Quare Impedit because his Clerk was refused wherein he must needs prevail if his Title be good and it must be taken for good because neither Ordinary nor Incumbent could deny it for de non apparentibus de non existentibus eadem est ratio which Inconvenience is remedied by the said Stat. of 25 E. 3. c. 7. Note that Lapse doth not incurr to the Ordinary by reason of his not examining the Clerk within Six months Trin. 3 Jac. B. R. inter Palmer Smith Resolved per Cur. 4. If a Plea be depending between Two parties and it be not discussed and determined within Six months the Bishop may Present by Lapse and he that hath the Right to Present shall according to the Statute recover his Dammages But it is expresly provided by the Statute of 13 Eliz. 12. That no Title to Collate or Present by a Lapse shall accrue upon any Deprivation ipso facto but after Six months after Notice of such Deprivation given by the Ordinary to the Patron But if the Church become void by Death Creation or Cession of the last Incumbent the Patron is at his peril to take Notice of such Avoidances within the next Six months thereof But if it become void by Deprivation or Resignation the Clerk is not obliged to tender his Presentation to the Bishop nor the Patron obliged to Present his Clerk but within Six months next after Notice legally given him by the Ordinary of the Avoidance by such Deprivation or Resignation which Six months are to be calculated or computed by 182 days and not by 28 days to the Month Nor is there any Addition of time over and above the Six months allowed the Patron to Present from the Vacancy a Second Clerk in case the former were legally refused by the Bishop Yet the Ordinary may not take advantage of the Lapse in case the Patron Present his Clerk before the other hath Collated though it be otherwise with the Canonists Lindw c. Si aliquo evincente c. verb. Injuria But if the Bishop Collate and the Patron Present before Induction in that case it seems he comes too late And at the Common Law Sir Simon Degge in his Parsons Counsellor makes it a doubtful Question if the Church Lapse to the King and the Patron Presents before the King take advantage of the Lapse whether this shall avoid the Kings Title by Lapse This says he is a Question by Dyer though Hobart seems to be clear in it that the King shall not have the benefit of the Lapse but adds that divers Authorities are against them And in the Cases aforesaid wherein Notice of Avoidance ought to be given to the Patron before the Lapse can incurr the Patron is not obliged to take Notice thereof from any person other
Form thereof according to the Canon Law what required of the Clerk in order thereto and his Remedy in case the Ordinary denies him such Institution as he may claim by Law 9. Matters of Institution properly cognizable in the Ecclesiastical Courts yet in certain Cases not exclusively to the Common Law or Temporal Jurisdiction 10. Institution gives the Parson jus ad rem not jus in re 11. Whether Institution without Induction works a Plenaâ—ty also whether it be good being Sealed with another Seal and done out of the proper Diocess The difference between the Common Law and the Canon Law as to a Coveat entered before Institution 12. Whether Suit may be in the Ecclesiastical Court to remove an Incumbent after Induction 13. Whether the First-Fruits be due upon the Institution before Induction 14. A Case at Common Law touching Resignation and whether it may be made Conditionally 15. A Case touching the Rightful Patron 's Presentation after the Induction of another by Vsurpation 16. What Induction is and the Bishop's Order therein 17. Induction is a Temporal not Spiritual Act In what manner it is to be executed 18. A Caveat entered in the Life-time of an Incumbent is void 19. In what Case an Induction made by a Minister not resident within the Archdeaconry may be good 20. Institution to a Minor and Vnder-age is meerly void 21. Whether after Induction the Institution may be questioned in the Ecclesiastical Court 22. Whether Incumbency be triable only at Common Law 23. In what Court the validity of Induction is determinable 1. EXamination is that Trial or Probation which the Bishop or Ordinary makes before his Admission of any person to holy Order or to a Benefice touching the qualification of such persons for the same respectively So that there are Two certain times or seasons especially wherein this Examination is required the one before an Admission to Holy Orders the other before an Admission to a Benefice The former of these is expresly enjoyned by the 35th Canon Ecclesiastical whereby it is required That the Bishop before he Admit any person to Holy Orders shall diligently Examine him in the presence of those Ministers that shall assist him at the Imposition of hands or in case of any lawful Impediment of the Bishop then the said Examination shall be carefully performed by the said Ministers provided they be of the Bishops Cathedral Church if conveniently it may otherwise by at least Three sufficient Preachers of the same Diocess And in case any Bishop or Suffragan shall Admit any to Sacred Orders who is not Examined as is before ordained then shall the Archbishop of the Province having notice thereof and being assisted with one Bishop suspend the said Bishop or Suffragan from making either Deacons or Priests for the space of Two years So also when the Clerk is Presented by the Patron of the Advowson before he be Admitted as Clerk to serve the Cure the Ordinary is to Examine him of his Ability For if upon his Examination he be found unable to serve the same or be Criminous the Ordinary may refuse to Admit and Institute him into the Benefice By the Ancient Cannons the Bishop hath Two months time to enquire and inform himself of the sufficiency and quality of every Clerk Presented to him as appears by the Canon in 1 Jac. cap. 95. But by the said Canon it is Ordained That the said Two months shall be abridged to 28 days only Upon sufficient enquiry and Examination the Ordinary may accept or refuse the Clerk Presented and regularly all such matters as are causes of Deprivation are also causes of Refusal but for a Presentce to have another Benefice is no cause of Refusal for that is at his own peril and possibly the Second Benefice is more worth than the former which only is void in such case 2. If the Bishop doth demand of the Clerk his Letters of Orders and Letters Testimonial of his good behaviour and the Clerk requires time to shew them as the space of a week or the like because he hath them not there with him and the Bishop doth thereupon Refuse him to the Church and Presents another the Bishop in such case hath been adjudged to be a Disturber for the Statute of 13 Eliz. doth not compel the Clerk to shew his Orders nor Letters Testimonial of his good Behaviour And so it was Adjudged Yet by the 39th Canon it is by way of Caution expresly Ordained That no Bishop shall Institute any of a Benefice who hath been Ordained by any other Bishop except he first shew unto him his Letters of Orders and bring him a sufficient Testimony of his former good life and behaviour if the Bishop shall require it 3. Examination of the Clerk is to be done at a convenient time within the Six months for the Ordinary cannot refuse to Examine the Clerk during all the Six months and so suffer a Lapse to incurr to himself for by so doing the Patron should lose his Presentation and the Ordinary take advantage of his own wrong But if the Ordinary when the Clerk comes to be examined Sedet circa curam Pastoralem he is not then obliged to leave the business in hand and presently Examine the Clerk but he may appoint a convenient time and place for the Examining of him This Examination by the Diocesan touching the Conversation and Ability of such as were ordained to Peach the Word of God or Presented to a Benefice is enjoyned by the Provincial Constitutions Lindw de Haereticis cap. 1. 4. A Quare Impedit was brought by B. against the Bishop of Rochester who pleads that he claims nothing but as Ordinary and yet pleads further That the Clerk which the Plaintiff Presented had before contracted with the Plaintiff Simmiacally and therefore because he was Simoniacus he refused and that the Church was then void and so remained void whereupon the Plaintiff had a Writ to the Archbishop of Canterbury who returned that before the coming of this Writ viz. 4. July the Church was Full of one Dr. Grant ex Collatione of the said Bishop of Rochester who had Collated by Lapse and this Return was adjudged Insufficient First it is clear That though the Six months pass yet if the Patron Present the Bishop ought to Admit although it be after the Title devolved unto the Metropolitan And it seems also Reason that he ought to Admit though that the Title by Lapse be accrued to the King for he claims it as Supream Ordinary Vid. Dyer 277. quaere But in this Case the Bishop who is the Defendant is bound by the Judgment and the Writ is notwithstanding the claim of the Bishop that he Admit the Clerk for the Bishop ought to execute the Process of the Court It was urged by Serjeant Henden that there is a Canon in Lindwood That if the Church be vacant when the Writ comes to the Bishop that he is bound to execute
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
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
Vi Laica removenda further explain'd 26. The Writ Quod clerici non eligantur in Officium 1. AGainst the unlawful Possessor who is the Usurper liveth Three Writs viz. One of the Right as the Writ of Right of Advowson and the other two of the Possession viz. A Quare Impedit and Darrein Presentment This Assize of Darrein Presentment or Assisa ultimae Praesentationis is a Writ which lieth where a man or his Ancestor hath presented a Clerk to a Church and after the Church becoming void by his death or otherwise a stranger presents his Clerk to the same Church in disturbance of him who had last presented This Writ is otherwise also used and differs from that of a Quare Impedit for the Quare Impedit lies upon the disturbance of one who hath the Advowson in his Presentation when the Church is void The other lies where a man or his Ancestors had presented before and now the Church becoming void again a stranger presents in disturbance of him who had last presented Where ever a man may have Assize of Darrein Presentment he may have a Quare Impedit but not e contra He that hath right to present after the death of the Parson and bringeth no Quare Impedit nor Darrein Presentment but suffereth a stranger to usurp upon him yet he shall have a Writ of Right of Advowson but this Writ lieth not unless he claim to have the Advowson to him and his heirs in Fee Simple Where the Ordinary Metropolitan or King presents for Lapse any of these Collatives will serve the Patron for a possession in his Assize of Darrein Presentment which Assize of Darrein Presentment may not be purchased pending a Quare Impedit for the same avoidance and therefore in the Case where William St. Andrewes brought a Writ of Assize of Darrein Presentment against the Archbishop of York Mary Countess of Shrewsbury and one Hacker aud the Bishop making default the Countess and Hacker pleaded in Abatement that the Plaintiff before the Writ purchased brought a Quare Impedit against the same Defendants and shews all certain which remains undetermined and averrs that they are both of the same avoidance And upon Demurrer the Writ was abated by Judgment 2. Assize de utrum or Assisa utrum is a writ which lieth for a Parson against a Layman or for a Layman against a Parson for Land and Tenements doubtful whether it be Lay-Fee or Free Almes These Writs are called Assizes probably either because they settle the possession and so an outward Right in him that obtains by them or because they were originally executed at a certain time and place formerly appointed or because they are tryed most commonly by especial Courts set and appointed for that purpose The Incumbent as touching his Right for his Rectory hath the onely Writ of Juris utrum and for his possession any other possessory Action 3. Quare Impedit is a Writ which lieth for him who hath purchased an Advowson in Gross or a Mannor with an Advowson thereunto appendant and against him who when a Parson Incumbent dieth or a Church otherwise becomes void disturbeth the other in the Right of his Advowson by presenting a Clerk thereunto being void Vhis Writ is distinguish'd from the former of Darrein Presentment or Assisa ultimae Praesentationis because this latter lieth as aforesaid onely where a man or his Ancestors formerly presented but the Quare Impedit lies properly for him who himself was the Purchaser of the Advowson though he that may have Assize of Darrein Presentment may have the other if he please but not so Vice versa as was also before observed Yet it is said in Reg. Orig. f. 30. That a Quare Impedit is of a higher Nature than an Assize of Darrein Presentment because it supposeth both a Possession and a Right Which Quare Impedit the Executors of a Testator may as well as himself might have upon a disturbance made to the Presentment and so was the Opinion of the whole Court in Smallwoods Case awainst the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield that the Executors may have a Quare Impedit upon a disturbance made to the Presentation which Writ lieth also of a Chappel Prebend c. And in case after the death of the Ancestor of him that presented his Clerk unto a Church the same Advowson be be assigned in Dower to any Woman or to Tenant by the Courtesie which do present and after the death of such Tenants the very Heir is disturbed to present when the Church is void it is in his election whether he will sue the Writ of Quare Impedit or of Darrein Presentmet the which it seems is also to be observed in Advowsons Demised for term of life or years or in Fee Tail And Dammages shall be awared in both these Writs that is if the time of Six Months pass by the disturbance of any so that the Bishop doth thereby Collate to the Church and the very Patron lose his Presentation for that turn Dammages shall be awarded for two years value of the Church And if the Six Months be not elapsed but the Presentment bederaigned within that time then Dammages shall be awarded to the half years value of the Church And if the disturber hath not wherewith to satisfie the Damages where the Bishop Collateth by lapse of time he shall suffer two years Impisonment and half years imprisonment where the Advowson is deraigned within the half year Likewise he that recovers a Mannor whereunto an Advowson is appentlant being disturbed to present when the Church is void shall have a Quare Impedit In which as also in Assise of Darrein Presentment plenarty of the Defendants or Disturbers party is no plea but two Quare Impedits of one Church and for one avoidance a man cannot have In the Case between the King and the Bishop of Norwich and Saker and Cole it was resolved that when one is admitted instituted and inducted by the presentation of a common person though it was upon an usurpation upon the King yet the King cannot remove the Incumbent without a Q. Impedit brought for the Church is full of him till he be removed Cro. par 2. 4. Ne admittas is a Writ that lieth for the Plaintiff in a Quare Impedit or him that hath an Action of Darrein Presentment depending in the Common Pleas and feareth that the Bishop will admit the Clerk of the Defendant during the dependency of the Suit betwixt them This Writ must be sued within six months next after the Avoidance because after the six months the Bishop may present by the lapse Therefore if the Patron of a Church vacant having or not having any Controversie depending with another touching the right of Presentation doubteth that before he makes his Presentation the Bishop may collate a Clerk of his own or admit a Clerk presented by another to the same Benefice unto