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
Church for that he may then be twice charged for he may be charged for that in the Parish where the Land doth lie in which case Prohibition hath been granted 27. If a Citizen of London erect a House in the Parish of A. with intent of dwelling there in time of Sickness at London and hath not any Land in the Parish and after is Assessed 20 s. for Reparation of the Church where others who have 100 acres of Land in the same Parish pay but 6 d. yet no Prohibition shall be granted on a Suit for the said 20 s. in the Ecclesiastical Court for that they have Jurisdiction of the thing and for which reason they may order it according to their Law 28. If there be a Chappel of Ease within a Parish and any persons of the Parish have used time out of mind c. alone and by themselves without others of the Parishioners to repair that Chappel of Ease and there to hear Divine Service and to Marry and all other things only they Bury at the Mother-Church yet they shall not be discharged of Reparations of the Mother-Church but ought to contribute to the same for the Chappel was Ordained only for their ease But if Inhabitants within a Chappelry prescribe to be discharged time out of mind c. of the Reparation of the Mother-Church and are sued in the Ecclesiastical Court for the same a Prohibition lies on that Surmize 29. If a man be rated for the Ornaments of the Church according to the Land which he hath in the Parish a Prohibition lies for the Rate for that ought to be according to the personal Estate Also if a man who is not any Inhabitant within the Parish but hath Land there be rated for the Ornaments of the Church according to the Land a Prohibition lies for the Inhabitants ought to be rated for that and it was said by Yelverton That it had been often so Resolved 30. If all the Parishioners are not rated for the Reparation of the Church but some are and some are not and those that are rated be sued in the Ecclesiastical Court a Prohibition will lie But if the major part of the Parishioners of a Parish where there are four Bells doth agree that there shall be a fifth Bell made and it be made accordingly and a Rate made for payment of the same it shall bind the lesser part of the Parishioners although they did not agree to it for otherwise any obstinate persons may hinder any thing intended to be done for the Ornament of the Church and therefore in this case a Prohibition was denied 31. The Ecclesiastical Court may not try the Bounds of a Parish if therefore there be a Suit there depending for that a Prohibition will lie as where the difference is between two Vicars concerning a Chappel of Ease As when the Vicar of a Parish Libels against another to avoid his Institution to the Church of D. which he supposes to be a Chappel of Ease belonging to his Vicarage if the Defendant suggest that D. is a Parish of it self and not a Chappel of Ease a Prohibition lies for they may not try the Bounds of a Parish 32. If a Vicar sue the Parson Impropriate for dammages for cutting down the Trees growing in the Church-yard a Prohibition lies for that if the Trees belong to him he may have Trespass at Common Law And in this case a Prohibition was granted 33. One being sued in the Ecclesiastical Court for money for reparation of the Church prayed a Prohibition and had it and after it was moved for a Consultation The case was this viz. The party that was sued prescrib'd that there is a Chappel within the same Village in which they have had at all times Sacramenta Sacramentalia and that he nor the Inhabitants of that Village which resort to the said Chappel have ever used to repair the said Church the first point in this case was whether the Prescription were good and the Chief Justice said that it is contrary to Common right that they who have a Chappel of Ease in a Village should be discharged of repairing the Mother-Church and it may be that the Church being built with Stone it may not need any Reparation within the memory of man and yet that doth not discharge them without some special cause of discharge shewed The second point was the taking away of an Objection as they said viz. That a Prescription which is incident to Ecclesiastical things shall be tried in the Ecclesiastical Court and so that Objection removed and commonly the Church-wardens are chosen in the Ecclesiastical Court yet the Lord of a Mannor may prescribe for that and then it shall not be tried in the Ecclesiastical Court although it be a Prescription of what appertains to a Spiritual thing 34. Note that in the case of Churchwardens the Chief Justice said That for the repairing the Fabrick of the Church the charge is real charges the Land and not the person but for the Ornaments of the Church it is personal and there if a man be not an Inhabitant within the Parish he is not chargeable in respect of his Land for such Tax doth charge the Goods only And to this Chamberlain Justice agreed and none denied it but where there is a Farmor of the Land there the Farmor alone shall not be charged for it is not reason that a poor Husbandman who paies Rent for his Land and perhaps to the utmost value should build Churches but it may be unknown to the Parishioner and the Churchwardens who hath the Fee in reversion and therefore they may impose the whole Tax on the Farmor and he by way of Answer may alledge in the Ecclesiastical Court that he is but the Farmor and thereupon the Tax shall be divided between him and his Landlord according to the Rate which the Land is worth more than the Rent and on the Landlord according to the quantity of the Rent quod quaere for in Jeofferie's Case 5 Coke it is Resolved That the Farmor alone is chargeable and that a Consultation was granted but not for that reason but for that the Reversioner had pleaded an insufficient plea in the Ecclesiastical Court viz. That he was not an Inhabitant within the Parish which is not a good plea as also for the great delay which he had used having made or brought two Appeals and after a Prohibition and so had put the Parish to 60 l. charge for the recovery of 6 l. and for that reason chiefly and not on the matter in Law was the Consultation granted 33. In Frances and Ley's Case it was Resolved by the Justices That Coats of Arms placed in Windows or a Monument placed in the Church or Church-yard cannot be beaten down and defaced by the Parson Ordinary Churchwardens or any other And if they be the Heir by descent interessed in the Coat
Advowson lieth for him who hath an Estate in an Advowson in Fee-simmple or Right of an Estate therein to him and his Heirs in Fee-simple Which Writ being Quod clamat tenere de te doth suppose a Tenure and lieth not only for the whole Advowson but also for some part thereof As also because a Praecipe quodreddat lieth for it as hath been Adjudged As also that a Common Recovery may be suffered of an Advowson as hath been likewise Adjudged As also because an Advowson as other Temporal Inheritances may be forfeited by Attainder of Treason or Felony or lost by Usurpation six months Plenarty Recusancy Outlawry Negligence or Lacks of Presentment Translation or Cesser and given away in Mortmain As also for that the Wife shall be endowed thereof and have the third Presentment and the Husband shall be Tenant thereof by the Courtesie also it is successively devisable among Coparceners that the priority of Presentment shall be in the eldest Sister likewise it may pass by way of Exchange for other Temporal Inheritance and albeit during the vacancy of the Church it be not in it self valuable yet otherwise it is as to an Incumbent and by Grat of all Lands and Tenements an Advowson doth pass if not by Livery yet by Deed is transferable as other Temporal Inheritances and pass with the Mannors whereunto they are appendant by Prescription unless there were before a severance by Grant Deed Partition or other Legal Act which Prescription is so requisite to Appendancy as without which it cannot well be at all 8. An Advowson in Gross is understood as under a more beneficial qualification than that which is Appendant and that which is Appendant may by severance become an Advowson in Gross And therefore in the Case where a man being seized of a Mannor whereto an Advowson was Appendant and by Deed granting one Acre belonging to that Mannor unà cum Advocatione Ecclesiae did further by the same Deed give and grant the said Advowson the Question was whether the Advowson did pass as Appendant to the Acre or as an Advowson in Gross And the better Opinion was That by that Grant the Advowson was severed from the Mannor and was become in Gross for that the Deed shall be taken most beneficial for the Grantee to have the Advowson in Gross and not as Appendant to the Acre But in that case it was Agreed If the whole Mannor had been granted then the Advowson had passed as Appendant and not in Gross Yet an Advowson Appendant to a Mannor descending to divers Coparceners making Partition of such Mannor without mentioning the Advowson remains Appendant notwithstanding such Division and Severance from the Mannor Yea although the Mannor of D. to which an Advowson is Appendant be granted and by the same Deed the Advowson also of the Church of D. So as it is named no otherwise than in Gross yet it shall thereby pass only as Appendant 9. If the King makes a Lease for life of a Mannor to which an Advowson is Appendant without making any mention of the Advowson the Advowson remains in the King as in Gross as was granted by the Justices And it was said by them That in such case by Grant of the Reversion Habendum the Reversion with the Advowson the Advowson passeth not to the Patentee for that the Advowson was severed and became in Gross as to the Fee And in another Case where it was found before Commissioners That A. was seized of a Mannor to which an Advowson was appendant and that he was a Recusant convict whereupon two parts of the Mannor were seized into the Kings hands who leased the Mannor with Appurtenances and all profits and commodities and Hereditaments to the same belonging unto J. S. for 21 years if A c. and afterwards the Church became void In this Case it was held That albeit there was no mention in the seizure of the Advowson yet the Presentment belonged to the King and that the King alone should Present Secondly That there were no words in the Kings Grant to J. S. to carry away the Advowson from the King and that notwithstanding that Grant the Advowson remained still Appendant to the Mannor 10. By words implying meerly matter of profit or things gainful as Cum omnibus commoditatibus Emolumentis proficuis advantagiis and the like an Advowson will not pass because it is contrary to the nature of an Advowson regularly and therefore the Advowson of a Vicarage appendant to a Prebend passed not by a Lease with such words of several parts of the Prebend to which such Advowson was appendant Not will an Advowson appurtenant to a Mannor pass by the Grant of an Acre of Land parcel of that Mannor cum pertinentiis otherwise if the Grant be of the Mannor it self cum pertinentiis Yet in a Case where the King being seized of a Mannor to which an Advowson was appendant granted the Mannor to J. S. for life and then granted the Mannor to J. D. after the death of J. S. Habendum cum Advocatione and then by Parliament the King reciting both the Grants confirmed them by Parliament yet it was Adjudged in that Case That the Advowson did not pass Nor will an Advowson if once Appendant pass without special words of Grant thereof which may not be strained in the construction thereof to an unusual or unreasonable sense for which reason an Appropriation will not pass by the name of an Advowson but as aforesaid an Advowson of a Vicarage may be Appendant to a Prebend All which hath been Resolved in the fore-cited Case And if Tenant in Tail be of a Mannor to which an Advowson is appendant the Church being full and he grants proximam Advocatione and then dies by his death the Grant becomes meerly void as was also Resolved in Walter and Bould's Case In a Quare Impedit The Case was between the Chancellor and Scholars of Oxford and the Bishop of Norwich and others The Plaintiff counted upon the Statute of 3 Jac. That J. S. being Owner of an Advowson 2 Jac. was a Recufant convict and that afterwards the Church became void and so they by the Statute ought to Present One of the Defendants pleaded That the Advowson was appendant to a Mannor and that two parts of the Mannor were seized into the Kings hands by Process out of the Exchequer and that the King by his Letters Patents granted the Two parts to the Defendant with the Appurtenances and granted also all Hereditaments but Advowsons were not mentioned in the Letters Patents and so said the Presentation did belong to the Defendant It was Resolved That the Advowson did not pass by the word Appurtenances without mention of Advowson or words Adeo plena integra in tam amplo modo forma as the Recusant had the Mannor 11. In case a Patron be Outlawed and the Church becoming
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-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
that Case it was said If Willowes grow within the Site of a House it is Waste to fell them yet if they be felled that Tithes shall be paid of them Woad yields a Predial Tithe and regularly to be computed inter Minutas Decimas yet in some Cases may be Great Tithes in places where it is much sowed as in Vdall and Tindall's Case The Case was That in Trespass for taking of two Loads of Woad the Jury found That if they were Minutae Decimae then the Jury found the Defendant guilty if they were not Minutae Decimae then for the Plaintiff It was said for the Plaintiff That without more Circumstances it shall not be intended Minutae Decimae for it may be That a great quantity of Woad may be sown and the greatest part of the Commodity in the Parish may consist in it for Minutae Decimae are but of small consideration in a Parish as Herbs in a Garden and such like and therefore Woad sown in a Field is not Minutae Decimae It was Resolved by the Court That Woad growing in the nature of an Herb the Tithe thereof ought to be accounted Minutae Decimae and belong to the Vicar And the Dean and Chapter of Norwich Case was vouched to prove it That the Tithe of 40 acres of Land sowed with Saffron did belong unto the Vicar and not to the Parson because they were Minutae Decimae Hill 1 Car. C. B. Sir Rich. Vdal and the Vicar of Altons Case Cro. 3. par 20. vid. Hutton 77. the same Case Wood is computed among the Predial Tithes as also among the Great Tithes yet it hath been Resolved That if a Vicar be only endowed with the Small Tithes and hath by reason thereof alwaies had the Tithe Wood that in such case it shall be accounted a Small Tithe otherwise it is to be accounted among the Great Tithes Wood or a great Wood consisting for the most part of Underwoods only some Great Trees here and there sparsim therein the whole Wood is Tithable unless they be specially exempted But if the Wood for the most part consist of Timber-Trees only some small parcel of Underwoods or Bushes in the same no Tithe shall be paid for such Wood the Timber-Trees do in that case priviledge the rest of the Wood Wood converted into Arable shall not be discharged of Tithes as Barren Land within the Statute of 7 E. 6. Trin. 12 Jac. B. R. Case Maschal Price Roll. Rep. The Tenth acre of Wood in a Coppice is a good payment of the Tithe specially if such be the Custome of Tithing Wood in that Countrey otherwise Wood in a Coppice or the like cut and sold the Tithe thereof is to be answered not by the Buyer but the Seller as some conceive which by others is opposed who hold That the Buyer not the Seller of Woods selled to be sold shall answer the Tithe the Reason is because Tithes do follow the Fruits yet the Parson for his Right hath his Remedy against either But Wood of Coppices or Trees that one cuts and spends in his own House-keeping though he spend much is not Tithable unless the Parson can alledge and prove a special Custome to the contrary for generally Wood used for Fewel in House-keeping is not Tithable sed Qu. the Custome it being not so per Legem terrae Nor is there any Tithe to be paid for such Wood as is cut for Hop-poles where Tithe is paid of the Hops But where Wood is grubbed up the Land that thereby is made fit for the Plough shall pay Tithe presently And if the Tithes of Wood after the Inheritance thereof sold be subtracted the Parson may by the Canon Law implead either the Buyer or the Seller at his choice though he can recover but of one but now by the Statute the Seller only unto Treble dammages If there be Parson and Vicar in one Church and the Vicar hath the Tithe of Woods and the Parson the Tithe of the Pasture and Wood be felled for Fencing and enclosing the Pasture the Vicar shall not have Tithe of the Wood Woodlands converted into Arable or Tillage is not discharged of Tithes as Heath Waste or other Barren Grounds within the Statute of 7 Ed. 6. Trin. 12 Jac. B. R. Case Maschall vers Price in fin Roll. Rep. A Prohibition in another Case was granted to stay a Suit for Tithe Wood upon a Surmize That the Wood was spent in his House for Firing and shews that the Custome in the same Parish is That the Owners of any House and Land in the said Parish who pay Tithes to the Parson ought not to pay Tithe of Wood spent for Fewel in their Houses And Issue being upon this Custome it was found for the Defendant It was moved in Arrest of Judgment That although it be found there is no such Custome that yet he ought not to pay Tithe for Wood spent in his house nor for Fencing-stuff for Hedges but per Legem terrae ought to be discharged of them But it was Resolved by the Court That it is not de jure per Legem terrae that any be discharged of them for it is usual in Prohibitions to alledge Customes or by reason of other Lands whereof he pays Tithes that he is discharged of that Tithe 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 it was Adjndged for the Defendant that a Consultation should be awarded By Custome Tithes may be paid for Wood spent in a mans own House Mich. 14 Jac. B. Watley and Hanberry Agreed And albeit there are some Trees of what age or bigness soever they be are regularly to pay Tithes as Willows Hasels Hollies Maples Birch Alders Thorns c. yet if they are cut for Fencing of Grounds or for Fewel to be spent in the Houses of the Owner within the same Parish no Tithes shall be paid thereof unless it hath been otherwise by Custome Also Wood cut for Burning of Bricks to be used for repair of the Owners Buildings in the same Parish pay no Tithes otherwise if used for Bricks to sell or for making Houses not of necessary habitation so as the Wood in its own nature be Tithable Likewise Tithe shall not be paid of the Roots of such Coppice-Wood as paid Tithe at the cutting thereof if such Roots were soon after the cutting such Wood grubbed up to cleanse the Ground If Woodlands be mixt with Woods partly Tithable partly not Tithable it hath been held That if the Major part be not Tithable it shall priviledge the rest but if the greater part be Tithable then all that is Tithable shall pay Tithes Touching the manner of Tithing of Wood and Trees and how the Tithes thereof are to be paid and delivered the Reader for his better satisfaction
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
whether sufficient Notice thereof were given or not are examinable only in the Ecclesiastical Court and when the Licence is sufficient and the Provisoes well and duly observed and Notice thereof and This be refused or rejected in the Ecclesiastical Court yet no Prohibition lies but the Party grieved must have his Remedy by way of Appeal and not otherwise 4 That where power is given by Act of Parliament to the Archbishop to grant Licence either de novo or in Confirmation of his Authority yet the form of the Dispensation and the observation of the Provisoes and Conditions thereof and whether sufficient Notice were given or not are examinable in the Ecclesiastical Court and if they there adjudg in that case irregularly no Prohibition lies but the Remedy is only by way of Appeal But if it come into question in the Ecclesiastical Court whether the words of the Act of 25. H. 8. do give sufficient power to the Archbishop to grant a Licence there if the Ecclesiastical Court doth judge against the power a Prohibition lies and not otherwise but if they allow the Licence in point of power and only insist upon the Form and Notice and other Circumstances in such case a Prohibition doth not lie For though a power to grant Licences be by Act of Parliament which is a Temporal thing yet the Licence it self remains an Ecclesiastical thing and the examination of all these things saving the Power remains to the Ecclesiastical Court as it was before CHAP. XXXIIII Of Adultery 1. What Adultery is why so called and in what Court Cognizable 2. The Punishment of Adultery under the Levitical Law and what it was anciently by the Civil Law 3. The several Punishments thereof anciently according to the Quality of the Offenders respectively 4. Adulterers compared to Idolaters strange Punishments of Adultery among the ancient Pagans 5. The Severity of certain Ecclesiastical Laws in ancient times against Adultery 6. The Customs among the Arabians Mahumetans Tartars Indians Pagans in punishing Adulterers 7. The Civil Law touching Jealousie and second Marriage the former Husband then living 8. Adultery what in sensu largo how the punishment thereof is now mitigated at the Civil Law to what it was anciently and how punished at the Canon Law 9. The diversity of punishments inflicted on Adulterers according to the divers Customs of Nations respectively 10. In what respect the Temporal Laws may take some Cognizance of Adultery 11. What the Saxons of old in this Kingdom called the Punishment of Adultery the remarkable Case of Sr. Jo. de Camois 11. Adultery fals under a Threefold Consideration of Law the History of the Adulterous Stork 1. ADULTERY or Adulterium quasi ad alterius thorum where the Rights of lawful Matrimony are violated Lindwood's Const de Offic. Archipresb verb. tertium mandat is the Incontinencie of Married persons or of persons whereof the one at least is under the Conjugal Vow This is properly cognizable within the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction the Conviction whereof is by Examination and other Legal proof requisite by the Law of the Church which if committed by any of the Clergy duely convicted thereof he was punishable by Imprisonment at the discretion of the Bishop or Ordinary of that Diocess wherein he resides 2. By the Levitical Law Adultery was punished with Death in both Sexes yea Stoned to death By the Civil Law also which cals it the Violating of another mans Bed the Punishment anciently was Death both in the Man and in the woman But afterwards the Punishment was mitigated by that Law as to the Woman she being first whipt and then shut up in a Monasterie but by the Canons other Laws are inflicted 3. At the Synod in Ireland held by St. Patrick and other Bishops an 456. by the 19 th Canon thereof the Adulterers were to be excommunicated At the Council held at Berghamstead by Bertwald Archbishop of Canterbury the Bishop of Hereford and others in the fifth year of Withred King of Kent an 697. several Laws were made against Adultery according to the several qualities and conditions of the Persons offending respectively beside Excommunication against all such if the Adulterer were an Alien he was to depart the Land and to take his Sins and his Estate away with him If a Soldier then to be fin'd five pounds If a Rustick or Countrey Husbandman known in the Law by Paganus then to pay fifty shillings If a Priest then to be inhibited from administring the Sacrament of Baptism 4. Boniface Archbishop of Mentz when he was the Popes Legate in Germany an 745. in his Epistle to AEthelbald King of Mercia compares Adulterers to Idolaters and moreover says that the Greeks and Romans Compar'd Adultery to Blasphemy when committed by or with one of religious Orders and adds that among the Pagans in the time of the old Saxons the very pactice was that if a Virgin Adulterously defil'd her Fathers Family or a Married woman plaid the whore they were enforced to be their own Executioners and by their own hands to reduce themselves by Strangling to dead Corps which being after burnt the Adulterer was hangd over the Ashes thereof and at other times the Adulteresses were by those of their own Sex out of their Zeal to Chastity whipt from Village to Village till they were whipt to death In Antiqua Saxonia ubi nulla est Christi cognitio si Virgo in paterna domo maritata sub Conjuge fuerit adulterata manu propria strangulatam cremant supra fossam sepultae corruptorem suspendunt aut cingulo tenus vestibus abscisis flagellant eam castae matronae cultellis pungunt de Villa in Villam inter se occurrunt novae flagellatrices donec interimant By the Laws of William the Conqueror the Adulterer was to be put to death Si Pater deprehenderit Filiam in Adulterio in domo sua seu in domo Generi sui bene licebit ei oure lege forsan occire occidere Adulterium 5. In the Ecclesiastical Laws of Keneth King of Scots an 840. By the 14 th and 15. Canon thereof it is ordained That he who deflowrs a Virgin shall dye for it unless she desires him for her Husband and that he who Adulterates another mans Wife not dissenting Both shall suffer the severest punishment unless she were under a force in which case she shall be acquitted By the Ecclesiastical Laws of Hoel Dak King of Wales an 940. it was a sufficient cause of Divorce if a Woman did but kiss any other man than her Husband l. 18. Yea she must lose her Dower and all her Rights by that Law and only for a kiss and by the same Law Adultery in the Man was held as a kind of Hostility In the time of the latter Saxons by the Ecclesiastical Laws of King Edmund an 944. Adulterers and Murderers had one and the same punishment and both alike denied Christian Burial After him by the Ecclesiastical Laws