Skip to main content
×
×
Home

The Advowson: The History and Development of a Most Peculiar Property

  • Peter M. Smith (a1)
Extract

The right of patronage has for many centuries played a most significant role in the life of the English Church. In many ways it is a remarkable concept. What could be more spiritual than the right to present a clerk who is to have the care of the souls of a parish to the bishop for admission and institution? Yet from around the twelfth century this right has been regarded in England as a piece of secular property, and disputes concerning this right cognisable in the common-law courts. Coke tells us that it is an ‘incorporeall inheritance’, or, to use a more modern term, an ‘incorporeal hereditament’, which is real property capable of devolving to heirs on intestacy and yet takes no tangible form: an invisible right which gives substantial power to those who possess it.

Copyright
References
Hide All

2 SirCoke, Edward, First Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England or a Commentarie upon Littleton… (ed. London, 1628), lib. i, cap. 7, sec. 58, fo. 47.

3 Blackstone, , Commentaries on the Laws of England (14th edn)(London. 1803), 11, 21: Mirehouse and Mirehouse v Rennel (1883) 7 Bli NS 241 at 317. per Lord Lyndhurst.

4 Stutz, Ulrich, Die Eigenkirche als Element des mittelalterlich-germanischen Kirchenrechtes (Berlin. 1895). p 12; in translation, Barraclough, G. (ed). Medieval Germany. 911–1250 (Oxford. 1938). pp 3570 at p 39.

5 See e.g. First Council of Toledo, AD 398. c. 5 (Mansi. Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio (Paris, 17591798)(reprint Graz, 1960–1962), 111. 999); Council of Riez. AD 439. c. 4 (Mansi. V. 1193). See also Griffe, E., ‘Les paroisses rurales de la Gaule’, Maison-Dieu. Paris. 36 (1953), pp 3362 at p 44.

6 See Council of Vaison, AD 529, c. 1 (Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Legum, Section III. Concilia. I. Concilia Aevi Morovengici, ed Maassen, F. (Hanover, 1893). p 56).

7 Boyd, Catherine E., Tithes and Parishes in Mediaeval Italy: The Historical Roots of a Modern Problem (New York, 1952), p 50. See Stephen of Tournai, Die Summa des Stephanus Tornacensis über das Decreium Gratiani, ed von Schulte, J. F. (Geissen, 1891), p 218.

8 Baus, K., Beck, H.-G., Ewig, E. and Vogt, H. J., The Imperial Church from Constantine to the Early Middle Ages, trans. Biggs, Anselm (History of the Church. II, ed Jedin, H. and Dolan, J.)(London. 1980), p 647. See the Synod of Orange, AD 441, c. 10 (Mansi, VI, 437–438).

9 See note 8 above. See e.g. permission of Galasius I, dated C. AD 495–496. to bishops to consecrate such churches; Thiel, Andreas. Epistolae Pontificum Romanorum Genuinae (Braunsberg. 1867)(reprinted New York, 1974), I, 448–49, ep nos. 34 and 35. The early existence of such villae churches is evident from the First Council of Toledo, AD 398, c. 5 (Mansi, III, 999).

10 See e.g. Synod of Orange, AD 441, c. 10 (Mansi. VI. 437–138).

11 See e.g. Thiel, . Epistolae Pontificum, 1, 448–149.

12 See Council of Orleans, AD 541. c. 33(M. G. H., Concilia, I, 9495). In a letter of Pope Gregory I to the Bishop of Fermo, AD 598. permission was to be given for the consecration of a privately built church only on condition that specified provision was made for the maintenance of the priest (M. G. H., Epistolarum, Gregorü I Pupae Registrum Epistolarum, II, ed Hartmann, L. M. (Berlin, 1957), p 90).

13 Imbart de la Tour. Les paroisses rurales dans l'ancienne France du 4e au lle siécle (Paris, 1900), p 63.

14 Stutz, . Die Eigenkirche, p 18; Barraclough. p 45.

15 See e.g. Willibrord in AD 692: Alcuin, Opera Omnia, II, pt. v, opusc. iv. De Vita S. Willibrordi Trajectensis Episcopi, lib. i. p 188. c. 11 (Mansi, CI, 701).

16 Stutz, , Die Eigenkirche, pp 1617; Barraclough, p 43.

17 Stutz, . Die Eigenkirche, p 17.

18 Stutz, . Die Eigenkirche, p 18; Barraclough, p 45.

19 Knowles, David, The Monastic Order in England (2nd edn)(Cambridge, 1963), p 564. See Tour, Imbart de la, Les paroisses, p 90.

20 X. 3. 38. 25; Lyndwood, William. Provinciale (seu Constitutiones Angliae)(Oxford, 1679), lib. iii, tit. 21, c. 1. Cum secundum, gl. ad v.jus patronatus, p 216.

21 This conflict was already apparent in c. 26 of the Council of Orléans, AD 541 (M. G. H., Concilia, 1, 93).

22 See the recital in c. 3 of the Council of Pavia. AD 845 x 850 (M. G. H., Concilila, III, Concilia Aevi Karolini 843–859, ed Hartmann, W. (Hanover, 1984), pp 211212).

23 Tour, Imbart de la. Les paroisses. pp 131132.

24 Capitularia Maiorum Domus. AD 742. c. 3 (M. G. H.. Capit., 1. 25)(promulgated by Boniface in the Council of the German Church, c. 3 (M. G. H., Concilia II, pt. i. 3)); Council of Soissons. AD 744, c. 4 (M. G. H. Concilia. II, pt. i, 35); Council of Vernon, AD 755. c. 8 (M. G. H.. Capit., I. 34 35).

25 Capitularia Maiorum Domus. AD 742, c. 1 (M. G. H.. Capit., 1. 25)(Council of the German Church, c. 1 (M. G H. Concilia. II. pt. i. 3).

26 See the Council of Cabillonum, AD 813.c. 15 (M. G. H.. Concilia. 11. 277)(Decretum Grat., D. 94, c. 3).

27 Tour, Imbart de la. Les paroisses. p 109; Addleshaw, G. W. O.. The Development of the Parochial System from Charlemagne (768–814) to Urban II (1099–1099) Borthwick Institute of Historical Research. St Anthony Hall Publications No. 6)(London. 1954). p 6. The breaking up of the city parish into smaller parochial units was not to occur until the eleventh century: Addleshaw. p 6. In Northern Italy, the extended parish of the older form, with its collegiate baptismal church and dependent chapels, remained the fundamental rural unit well into the high middle ages: Boyd, . Tithes and Parishes, pp 155156. See Stephen of Tournai, , Summa. p 218.

28 I.e. as signifying authority in Roman Law: see e.g. Codex Justinianus. 3. 13, 7, 1. Corpus luris Civilis, vol. ii, ed Krueger, P. (Dublin and Zürich, 1970), p 128: Corpus Iuris Civilis, vol. iii, Novellae. ed Schoell, R. and Kroll, G. (Dublin and Zürich, 1972). nov. 131. c. 14. p 663. For an early use of this term in the context of episcopal authority, see the Synod of Orange, AD 441. C. 10 (Mansi. VI, 437 438).

29 Addleshaw, . Development of the Parochial System. p 9. See the Synod of Frankfurt. AD 794. c. 54 (M. G. H.. Capit.. 1. 78); Capitulary of Louis the Pious, AD 818–819, cc. 6, 9, 10–12. 29 (M. G H. Capit.. 1. 276277. 279 280); Council of Trosley. AD 909, c. 6 (Mansi. XVIIIA. 279–283 at 281).

30 Council of Trosley, AD 909, c. 6: ‘designamus denique gubernationem episcopi. non nobis vindicamus potestatem domini’ (Mansi, XVIIIA, 279–283 at 281).

31 Capitulary of Louis the Pious, AD 818–819. c. 9 (M. G H., Capit., 1, 277); Report of the Bishops to the Emperor Louis, AD 829. §18 (M. G. H.. Capit., 1. 35); Council of Rome, AD 826, c. 21 (M. G. H. Concilia, II. 576); Capitulary of Worms, AD 829, § 1 (M. G. H.. Capit., II. 12); Council of Trosley, AD 909, c. 6 (Mansi. XVIIIA, 279–283 at 281); Council of Ingelheim. AD 948, c. 3 (M. G. H.. Concilia. VI, 160); Council of Augsburg, AD 952, c. 9 (M. G. H., Legum. II, p 28); Synod of Rome, 1059, c. 6 (M. G. H., Constits., 1. 547); Council of Rome, 1078. c. 2 (Mansi. XX, 509), also in Register of Gregory VII. VI. 5b. § 3 (M. G. H. Epistolae Selectae. 11. 403); Third Council of Lateran. 1179, c. 14 (Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, ed Tanner, Norman P. (Georgetown University Press, 1990), I, pp 218219; Stutz, . Die Eigenkirche. p 21; Barraclough, p 48.

32 Capitulary of Louis the Pious, AD 818–819. c. 9; Capitulary of Worms, AD 829. § 1: Allocutio Missi cujusdam Divionensis. AD 857. § 1 (M. G. H., Capit., II. 291292); Council of Trosley, AD 909, c. 6; Council of Ingelheim. AD 948. c. 3; Council of Augsburg, AD 952. c. 9; Stutz, , Die Eigenkirche. p 21; Barraclough, p 48.

33 See Tellenbach, Gerd. Church. State and Christian Society at the time of the Investiture Contest, trans Bennett, R. F. (Oxford, 1940). pp 89125: Ullmann, Walter. The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages (3rd edn)(London. 1970). pp 294299.

34 See note 31 above.

35 See the Synod of Rome. 1059. c. 6; Council of Rome 1078, c. 2; Council of Nimes, 1096, c. 8 (a clerk was not to receive a church from a layman ‘quia non intravit per ostium, sed ascendit aliunde sicut fur et latro …”)(Mansi. XX. 936); First Council of Lateran, 1123, c. 18 (Ecumenical Councils, 1, p 194); Third Council of Lateran, 1179, c. 14 (Ecumenical Councils, I, pp 218219).

36 Decretum Grat., C. 16. q. 2. c. 6.

37 See Thomas, P.. Le droit de propriété des laïques sur les églises et le patronage laïque au moyen âge (Paris, 1906). pp 105128.

38 Addleshaw, G. W. O., The Beginnings of the Parochial System (Borthwick Institute of Historical Research, St Anthony Hall Publications No. 3)(2nd edn)(London, 1959). p 12.

39 Barlow, Frank. English Church. 1000–1066 (2nd edn)(London, 1979). p 184.

40 Addleshaw, . The Beginnings of the Parochial System, p 12.

41 See Addleshaw, . The Beginnings of the Parochial System, p 14.

42 See , Douglas, ed. Domesday Monachorum, pp 1213. 78–79. II Eadgar, 1, § 1, refers to the payment of tithes to the old church (ealdan mynstre )to which obedience was due: Liebermann, F., Gesetze der Angelsachsen (Halle, 19031916)(reprint Leipzig, 1935), I. 196/197. The Quadripartitus (1113 x 1118) version has it: ‘ad matrem ecclesiam cui parochia adiacet’: ibid. 197.

43 Blair, John, ed. Minsters and Parish Churches: the Local Church in Transition 950–1200 (Oxford, 1988), p 7.

44 Textus Roffensis. Rochester Cathedral Library MS A. 3.5, fo. 93r, ed Peter Sawyer (Copenhagen, 1952), Early English Manuscripts in Facsimile, vols. vii and xi.pt. 1 (vol. vii); Liebermann. Gesetze, 1, 456/457, § 2.

45 Barlow, , English Church. 1000–1066. p 185.

46 Barlow, . English Church. 1000 1066. p 184.

47 See Page, William. “Some remarks on the Churches of the Domesday Survey”. Archaeologia, 66 (1915), pp 61102 at p 98.

48 Barlow, . English Church, 1000–1066, p 187.

49 Addleshaw, , Development of the Parochial System, pp 10, 15. See Lennard, Reginald, Rural England 1086–1135 (Oxford, 1959), p 320, and Page, , “Some remarks on the Churches of the Domesday Survey”, pp 8788.

50 Domesday Book, I, gen. ed. John Morris, vol. 31, Lincolnshire, ed Morgan, Philip and Thorn, Caroline (Chichester. 1986), pt. ii. fo. 365a §10, p 44; Lennard, , Rural England, p 320.

51 Domesday Book, pti. fo. 351c § 84, p 14; Lennard, , Rural England, p 320.

52 Egbert, Archbishop of York, AD 734–766, Dialogus Ecgberti, Thorpe, , Ancient Laws and Institutes of England, P. R. C. (London. 1840), II, 9091.

53 See notes 30 and 32 above.

54 Ætthelred, V, c. 10 § 2 (Liebermann, , Gesetze, 1, 240241; Laws of the Kings of England from Edmund to Henry I, ed. and trans. Robertson, A. J. (Cambridge, 1925). p 83); Æthelred, VI, c. 15 (Liebermann, , Gesetze, 1. 250251; Robertson, , Laws, p 97). See the Laws of the Northumbrian Priests, cc. 20–22 (Liebermann, , Gesetze, I, 380381); Thorpe, . Ancient Laws, 11, 292295.

55 See note 35 above.

56 Council of Winchester, 1072, c. 5 (Whitelock, D., Brett, M. and Brooke, C. N. L., Councils and Synods (Oxford. 1981), I, pt. ii. 606); Council of Westminster, 1125, c. 4 (Whitelock, et al. Councils, I, pt. ii, 739); Council of Westminster, 1127. c. 10 (Whitelock, et al. , Councils, I, pt. ii, 749); Council of Westminster. 1138. c. 5 (Whitelock, et al. Councils, I. pt. ii, 775).

57 Addleshaw, G. W. O., Rectors. Vicars and Patrons (Borthwick Institute of Historical Research, St Anthony Hall Publications No. 9)(London. 1956), pp 17, 18. See Lyndwood, Provinciate, lib. iii, tit. 2, c. 1, Ut cleri calis, gl. ad v. beneficiati. pp 125–126.

58 See Glanvill, (Tractatus de legibus et consuetudinibus regni Angliae qui Glanvilla vocatur ), ed Hall, G. D. G. (London, 1965), iv. ch. 7. p 47, and xiii, ch. 19, p 161; Bracton, , De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae. ed Woodbine, George E., translated with revisions and notes by Thorne, Samuel E. (Harvard University Press. Cambridge. Mass, and London. 19681977), f. 248b (III, 234); Watson, William, The Clergy-Man's Law: or the Complete Incumbent (London, 1725), p 64. Patrons were called advocati because they were bound to defend the rights of the church; Lyndwood. Provinciale, lib. ii, tit. 2, c. 2. Circumspecte, gl. ad v. advocatus, p 97; Gibson, Edmund. Codex Juris Ecclesiastici Anglicani (2nd edn)(Oxford, 1761), II, 757.

59 Bracton, . De Legibus, f 53 (II, 160). See also Bracton's Note Book, ed Maitland, F. W. (London, 1887), III. 373. pl. 1418.

60 See Denton, J. H.. English Royal Free Chapels 1100 1300 (Manchester. 1970). pp 23.

61 Bracton, . De Legibus. f. 241b (III. 215): ‘capella domini regis quae nulli subiecta est ecclesiae nee ad ali-quam pertinet. sed ecclesia poterit esse pertinens ad capellam talem’.

62 Ayliff, John, Parergon Juris Canonki Anglicani (2nd edn)(London, 1734), p 418: Burn, Richard. Ecclesiastical Law (9th edn)(London, 1842). III. 92.

63 Denton, , English Royal Free Chapels, p 9.

64 Dugdale, William, Monastion Anglicanum. ed Caley, J. et al. (London. 18191830). VI. 13551356.

65 The grant of exemption included only the ‘capellam. collegium, canonicos, presbyteros, clericos, milites et ministros’: ibid; Denton, , English Royal Free Chapels, pp 116117. That the peculiar character of the chapel was confined to the foundation itself is evident from the visitation of 1378: Wilkins, David. Concilia Magnae Britanniae et Hiherniae (London. 1737), III. 132134.

66 Hamilton-Thompson, A., in Visitations in the Diocese of Lincoln, 1517–1531, I (Lincoln Record Society, vol. 33 (1940)). p xi. refers to the castle chapel of the Earl of Leicester as a ‘free chapel’ which was appropriated to the Abbey of St Mary in 1143.

67 E.g. Bull of Innocent III to King John. 1215 (Wilkins, . Concilia, 1. 546); Bull of Gregory IX, 1236 (Les Registres de Grégoire IX. ed Auvray, Lucien, Bibliothèque des Ecoles Françaises d' Athenes et de Rome (Paris. 18841921). no. 3133; Calendar of Entries in the Papal Registers relating to Great Britain and Ireland: Papal Letters, vol. I 1198–1304. ed Bliss, W. H. (London. 1893), p 153; Denton, . English Royal Free Chapels. App iv. p 159); Bull of Innocent IV, 1245 (Annales Monastici, ed Luard, H. R.. Rolls Series 36 (London. 18641869). I, 275; Foedera, Conventiones, Litterae.… ed Rymer, Thomas (Record Comm.)(London, 18161830), I. i. 261; Regesta Ponliftcum Romanorum (1198–1304), ed Potthast, A. (Berlin, 18961908). II. 998, no. 11738.

68 Denton, . English Royal Free Chapels, p 95.

69 Letter of Henry III to the prelates assembled in the Council of Oxford, 1250 (Powicke, F. M. and Cheney, C. R., Councils and Synods, with other Documents relating to the English Church. II (Oxford. 1964). pt. i. 446447). For later examples, see Calendar of Close Rolls. 1256–1259 (H.M.S.O.. London, 1932), p 427: Calendar of Patent Rolls. 1258 1266 (H.M.S.O.. London. 1910). p 126: Council of Lambeth, replies to the complaints of the clergy (Powicke and Cheney. Councils. II. pt. i. 688); Calendar of Close Rolls, 1288 1296 (H.M.S.O., London, 1904), p 423.

70 Y.B. 21 Edw 3, Mich., fo. 60, pl. 7; SirFitzherbert, Anthony. The New Natura Brevium (9th edn)(London. 1794), 1, 42A.

71 Y.B. 27 Edw 3, Mich., fo. 8. pl. 25, at fo. 9; Fitzherbert. 1, 42A.

72 Ecclesiastical Licences Act 1533 (25 Hen 8, c 21), s 20.

73 Supremacy of the Crown Act 1534 (26 Hen 8. cl).

74 See The Report of the Commission into Ecclesiastical Courts (1832), p 21.

75 Ecclesiastical Commissioners Act 1836 (6 & 7 Will 4, c 77).

76 Ecclesiastical Commissioners Act 1858 (13 & 14 Viet, c 94), s 24.

77 See Ecclesiastical Law Society Working Party on Peculiars, Provisional List (3 Ecc L J (1993–1995). 310).

78 ‘Et mettons que un qui est seigniour de un frée chapel, a quel il doit mesme faire collacion sans ascun fois present de son clerk.…’ Y.B. 22 Hen 6, Mich., fo. 25, pi. 46, at fo. 26. per Newton CJ and Paston J. See Y.B. 8 Edw 3, Lib. Ass., fo. 18, pi. 31; Deane & Chapter de Femes (1607) Davis 42 at 46.

79 See e.g. Y.B. 8 Edw 3, Lib. Ass., fo. 18, pl. 31; Y.B. 6 Hen 7. Hill., fo. 13, p 2; and the references in note 78 above.

80 E.g. Fairchihld v Gaire (1605) Yelv 60, sub nom Farchild v Gayre (1605) Cro Jac 63: Deane & Chapter de 1607) Davis 42.

81 Degge, Simon, Parson's Counsellor (6th edn)(London. 1703), pt. i, ch. 13, p 197: Watson, . Clergy-Man's Law, p 170; SirPhillimore, Robert, The Ecclesiastical Law of the Church of England (2nd edn)(London. 1895), 1, 252253.

82 Y.B. 8 Edw 3, Lib. Ass., fo. 18, pl. 31; Y.B. 6 Hen 7, Hill., fo. 13, pi. 2 at fo. 14; SirBrooke, Robert. La Graunde Abridgement, (ed Tottell, Richard, London, 1576), pt. i, fo. 217. no. 10. and pt. ii. fo. 141. no. 21: Fairchild v Gaire (1605) Yelv 60, sub nom Farchild v Gaxre (1605) Cro Jac by, Allane v Exton (1672) I Mod Rep 90; “Donative”, 3 Salk 140; Coke, First Part of the Institutes, lib. iii. cap. 11, sec. 648. fo. 344; Ayliffe, . Parergon. p 231.

83 Allane v Exton (1672) 1 Mod Rep 90; “Donative”, 3 Salk 140.

84 Fairchild V Gayre (1605) Yelv 60 at 62, sub nom Farchild v Gayre (1605) Cro Jac 63. But the incumbent was otherwise subject to the supervision of the ecclesiastical ordinary with respect to personal offences: Finch V Harris (1701) 12 Mod Rep 640; Colefatt v Newcomb (1705) 1 Ld Raym 1205.

85 Queen Anne's Bounty Act 1714 (1 Geo l, St2, c 10), s 14.

86 Benefices Act 1898 (61 & 62 Vict, c48), s 12.

87 Gibson, . Codex. II. 756: Watson, . Clergy-Man's Law. pp 64, 66, 72.

88 Pollock, F. and Maitland, F. W.. The History of English Law before the time of Edward I (2nd edn)(reissued Cambridge. 1968). II, 136. See Coke. First Part of the Institutes, lib. ii. cap. 11, sec. 184. fo. 122; Watson, . Clergy-Man's Law. pp 65. 66: Tyrringham's Case 1584) 4 Co Rep 36b at 37a.

89 Henry, Rolle, Un Abridgment des plusieurs Cases et Resolutions del Common Lev (London. 1668). I. 231. § 17.

90 SirCoke, Edward. Seeond Part of the Institutes of the Lawes of England (ed. London. 1628). lib. iii. sec. 541. fo. 307; Gibson, . Codex. II. 758: Watson, . Clergy-Man's Law. p 65: Cruise, William. Digest of the Laws of England (London. 18041806). III. Advowson. p 4. § 8. See the gloss Casus) on X. 3. 38. 7. ‘jus patronatus transit cum universitate nisi specialiter excipiatur’: Decretales D. Gregorii Papae IX. suae iniegritati una cum glossis restitulae. Lyon, 1606). II. col. 1319.

91 Y.B. 21–22 Edw 1 (Year Books of the Reign of King Edward the First, 21 and 22. ed. Horwood, A. J.. Rolls Series 31A (London, 1873)). p 604/5 at p 608/9: Pollock, and Maitland, . History of English Law. 11, 136.

92 , Watson, Clergy-Man's Law. p 66; Pollock, and Maitland, . History of English Law. II. 136. See e.g. Y.B. 21–22 Edw 1 at p 609.

93 See Coke. First Part of the Institutes, lib. ii. cap. 11. sec. 181. fo. 120v.

94 See Watson, . Clergy-Man's Law. pp 6667. 68–71; Phillimore, , Eeelesiastical Law. 1. 264267. These commonly arose with respect to sales of part of the land to which the advowson was appendant, or the creation of various kinds of limited or reversionary interests. E.g. Y.B. 33 Hen 6. Hill., fo. 11. pi. 17.

95 Ayliffe, Parergon. p 510.

96 Degge, . Parson's CounseIlor. pt. i. ch. 13. p 195.

97 Sir Anthony Fitzherbert. La Graunde Abridgement (ed. 1516). III. fo. 55v. 5 Edw 3. Quare impedit 165.

98 Rolle, , Abridgment. II. 341, (S)§3: Watson, . Clergy-Man's Law. p 195.

99 See Y.B. 17 Edw 3. Mich., fo. 51. pl. 25. per Shardelow Cj (with which the court agreed): Cottesmore J in Y.B. 11 Hen 6. Hill., fo. 18, pl. 11.

100 Grendon v Bishop of Lincoln (1576) 2 Plow 493 at 497; Rolle, . Abridgment, 1. 238. § 4; Watson, . Clergy-Mans Law, p 190; Ayliffe, , Parergon, p 87. Or the Crown as successor to the Pope as supreme ordinary: Grendon v Bishop of Lincoln at 497498; Watson, , Clergy-Man's Law, p 190.

101 Fitzherbert, , La Graunde Abridgement, III. fo. 55v, 5 Edw 3, Quare impedit 165; Grendon v Bishop of Lincoln (1576) 2 Plow 493 at 497, 498; Rolle, . Abridgment. I. 238 § 2; Watson, . Clergy-Man's Law. p 190; Ayliffe, , Parergon, p 87. See Y.B. 29 Edw 3, Hill., fo. 9. pl. 3.

102 Appropriation of Benefices Act 1391 (15 Rich 2. c 6); Appropriation of Benefices Act 1402(4 Hen 4. c 12); Y.B. 17 Edw 3, Mich., fo. 51. pl. 25, per R. Thorpe sjt; Grendon v Bishop of Lincoln (1576) 2 Plow 493 at 497. 498–499; Anon (1617) Poph 144 at 145; Anon (1649) Style 156; Watson, . Clergy-Man's Law, p 190; Ayliffe, . Parergon, p 87.

103 See Brink, Daphne H., The Parish Church of St Edward King and Martyr, Cambridge, a Later Mediaeval Appropriation, Cambridge Antiquarian Society Occasional Publications no. 3 (1992).

104 See Clark, J. W., ‘History of the Church of S John Baptist, Cambridge, commonly called S John Zachary’. Cambridge Antiquarian Communications, Cambridge Antiquarian Society, vol. 4. 18761880 (Cambridge, 1881), Comm. xxvi, App A. pp 358359; Brink, , Parish Church of St Edward. App 1(4). pp 7576.

105 Warren's Book, ed Dale, A. W. W. (Cambridge. 1911). p 59; Clark, . ‘History of S John Baptist’. App C. p 360; Brink, , Parish Church of St Edward, App 1 (6). pp 7677.

106 See note 102 above.

107 Clark, . ‘History of S John Baptist’. App B. p 359. Doubts, however, appear to have arisen as to the validity of this transaction, so that it seems that a later confirmatory grant was required from the prior and convent, this time directly to Trinity Hall: see the bond entered into by the prior (Clark. App H. pp 365–366).

108 See Bishop Bourgchier's commission to inquire concerning the appropriation of Kingston Church to Barnwell Priory: Brink, , Parish Church of St Edward, App 1 (11), pp 7879.

109 Warren's Book, pp 5456; Clark, . ‘History of S John Baptist’. App J. pp 366369; Brink, , Parish Church of St Edward, App 1(14), pp 8084. I am indebted to Mrs Brink for originally bringing this history of St Edward's to my attention.

110 See the Appropriation of Benefices Act 1391 (15 Rich 2, c 6); Appropriation of Benefices Act 1402 (4 Hen 4, c 12); Anon (1649) Style 156.

111 See Duke of Portland v Bingham (1792) 1 Hag Con 157 at 165166. This was the arrangement with respect to the appropriation of St Edward's, above, in which the royal licence gave express permission to depart from the requirements of the Acts cited in note 110 above. Bishop Bourgchier's charter permitted the college to appoint a stipendiary chaplain without reference to the bishop, thereby creating a kind of donative, which may have given rise to the erroneous view that St Edward's is or was a peculiar.

112 Sherley v Underhill and Bursev (1618) Moore KB 894; Code v Hulmed (1623) 2 Roll Rep 304; Rolle, , Abridgment. 1. 231. § 13. and II. 59(Z). § 4; Gibson, (Wn, I,719. See Y.B. 17 Edw 3, Mich., fo. 51, pl. 25; Anon (1576) 3 Dyer 350b.

113 R v Bishop of Norwich, Cole and Saker (1615) Cro Jac 385; Sherley v Underhill and Bursey (1618) Moore KB 894; Reynoldson v Blake and the Bishop of London (1697) 1 Ld Raym 192 at 200; Degge, , Parsons Counsellor, pt. i. ch. 13. p 195; Watson, , Clergy-Man's Law, p 67.

114 Watson, . Clergy-Man's Law. pp 68 71.

115 Ayliffe, . Parergon, p 90: Duke of Portland v Bingham (1792) 1 Hag Con 157 at 162–163 and at 162n.

116 Benefices Act 1898 (Amendment) Measure 1923 (14 & 15 Geo 5, No 1)(repealed); Patronage (Benefices) Measure 1986 (No 3). s 3(1).

117 E.g. the grant of the right of presentation on the next avoidance.

118 See below.

119 Law of Property Act 1925 (15 Geo 5, c 20).

120 Cruise, , Digest, III, 8, § 23; Phillimore, , Ecclesiastical Law, 1, 270.

121 Watson, , Clergy-Man's Law, p 75.

122 Maitland, F. W., Roman Canon Law in the Church of England London. 1898), p 56.

123 Helmholz, R., Roman Canon Law in Reformation England (1990), pp 1011.

124 See X. 4. 17. 6, addressed by Pope Alexander III to the Bishop of Exeter.

125 SirHoldsworth, W. S., History of English Law (7th edn, revised)(London, 19561966). 11, 218: ‘et omnes Comites et Barones una voce responderunt quod nolunt leges Angliae mutare quae usitatae sunt et approbatae’. See Bracton's Note Book. I. Introduction, pp 104–108.

126 The concern that a determination of legitimacy by an ecclesiastical court might affect inheritance to property was evidently one of which the Papacy was aware: see X. 4. 17. 7. where Alexander III conceded in letters to the Bishops of London and Worcester that though the Church might decide questions of legitimacy, any question involving property rights was to be left to the king's courts.

127 Farming of Benefices for Aliens Act 1379(3 Ric 2, c 3): Holding of Benefices by Aliens Act 1383(7 Ric 2, c 12).

128 King's Presentation to Benefice Act 1389 (13 Ric 2. St 1. c 1).

129 Appropriation of Benefices Act 1391 (15 Ric 2, c 6): Appropriation of Benefices Act 1402 (4 Hen 4, c 12).

130 Y.B. 11 Hen 7, Hill., fo. 12. pl. 1.

131 This was recognised by the composition Articuli Cleri 1315 (9 Edw 2. St 1, c4).

132 See X. 3. 38 (De iure patronatus), especially c. 21.

133 Cap. Stubbs, I., Select Charters (9th edn)(Oxford. 1913). p 164.

134 X. 2. 1.3.

135 See Flahiff, G. B., ‘The Writ of Prohibition to Court Christian in the Thirteenth Century’, Mediaeval Studies, 6 (1944), pp 261313. at pp 274–275. There are a number of examples to be found in Bracton's Note Book, index. 1. 187. For an interlocutory form of a writ in an action between two clerks, see Glanvill, iv, ch. 13, p 52.

136 Grosseteste, Roberti, Episitolae. ed Luard, H. R.. Rolls Series 25 (London. 1861). ep. no. 72, pp 205234 at p 228; Maitland, . Roman Canon Law, p 64. See Athon, Constits. Othobon. c. 9. Sacrorum canonum. gl. ad v. collatio, p 96; Lyndwood. Provinciale, lib. v. tit. 2. c. 4, Nulli liceat, gl. ad v. regia, p 281.

137 Flahiff, . ‘Writ of Prohibition’, p. 275. See Gray, J. W.. ‘The lus Praesentandi in England from the Constitutions of Clarendon to Bracton’. English Historical Review. 67 (1952). pp 481509, at p 487.

138 In 1202 the Abbot of Lessay brought an action to recover an advowson from the Abbot of Peterborough: Select Civil Pleas. I. ed Baildon, W. P., Selden Society vol. 3 (1889). p 97. case 245.

139 Bracton's Note Book, II, 427, pi. 551.

140 Powicke, and Cheney, . Councils. II, pt. i. 674, c. 6.

141 Statute of Praemunire 1393 (16 Ric 2, c 5).

142 This statute amplified the Statute of Provisors 1351 (25 Edw 3, St 4)(Ruffhead edn and Statutes at Large 25 Edw 3, St 6) and the Statute of Praemunire 1353 (27 Edw 3. St 1, c 1).

143 Lyndwood conceded that this jurisdiction belonged to the temporal court, but on the foot of custom: Provinciale, lib. v, tit. 15. c. I, Eternae. gl. ad v. jure patronatûs. p 316.

144 Bracton, . De Legibus, f. 378b (IV, 185).

145 See Glanvill. iv. chs. 1–6. pp 45–47.

146 Glanvill, i, ch. 6. p 5.

147 Glanvill, ii. ch. 13. p 32; iv.ch. 6. p 47.

148 See Gray, , ‘Ius Praesentandi’. p 488.

149 For the various forms of the writ, see Haas, Elsa de and Hall, G. D. G., ed.. Early Registers of Writs, Selden Society, vol. 87 (1970)(London. 1970). pp 4. 28 (‘que vacat ut dicitur.…’). See also Glanvill. xiii. ch. 19, p 161.

150 Known as the ‘petty assizes’, they were the assizes of novel disseisin, mort d'ancestor, utrum. and darrein presentment.

151 For the general early form of the writ in a number of registers, see Haas, and Hall, , Early Registers of Writs. pp2. 22. 83. 258.

152 Woodbine, , ‘The Origins of the Action of Trespass’, Yale Law Journal. 33 (19231924). 799816. at 807–808.

153 Pollock, and Maitland, . History of English Law. 1. 145: Milsom, S. F. C.. Historical Foundations of the Common Law (2nd edn)(London. 1981). p 138; Sutherland, Donald, The Assize of Novel Disseisin (Oxford. 1973). p 7; Cheney, M.. ‘Litigation between John Marshal and Archbishop Thomas Becket in 1164: a Pointer to the Origin of Novel Disseisin?’ in Law and Social Change in British History, ed. Guy, J. A. and Beale, H. G. (London, 1984). pp 926. at pp 22–24.

154 D. 43. 16. 1 (Digest of Justinian, ed. Mommsen, Theodor. Paul Krueger and Alan Watson (Pennsylvania. 1985), IV. 582586).

155. Decretum Graf, C. 2. q. 2: C. 3, q. 1.

156 See Sutherland, , Novel Disseisin, pp 2223.

157 Bracton. De Legibus. f. 164b (III. 25).

158 Probably 1179–1180: Van Caenegem, R. C.. Royal Writs in England from the Conquest to Glanvill, Selden Society vol. 77 (London. 1959). 333: Glanvill. p 160. n. 1. A very early reference may be seen in a final concord dated 1180 which recites a recognition in the king's court ‘de presentatione persone que ultimo in ea obiit…’. Cartulary of Oseney. ed. Salter, H. G.. IV. Oxford Historical Society vol. 97 (Oxford, 1934). 478. no. 439. Possibly the oldest surviving writs dated 1199 are in Pleas before the King or his Justices 1198–1202. I. ed. Stenton, Doris M.. Selden Society vol. 67 (1948)(London. 1953). 373. no. 3497; 402. no. 3533; and 403. no. 3534.

159 Four months in some versions.

160 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, ed Tanner, Norman P (Georgetown University Press, 1990), 1. 220: X. 3. 38. 3. The canon law ultimately permitted a lay patron four months and the clerical patron six months: Sext. 3. 19. un; Lyndwood. Provinciale, lib. iii. tit. 21. c. 1. Cum secundum. gl. ad v. neutri. p 216. It is not clear how the six-month period came to be universally applied in England by the secular courts, but it seems to have been in the belief that this was the period required by the Council: Maitland. Roman Canon Law. 77. See Bracton, , De Legibus. f. 241 (III. 214).

161 Van Caenegem, . Royal Writs. 333.

162 See Glanvill. iv. ch. 1. pp 43 44: xiii.chs. 18–22. pp 160–163.

163 Bracton, , De Legibus, f. 238 (111.206)(There is a translation error in the Thome edition: ‘talis’ must refer to the plaintiff rather than the ‘parson’). This largely follows the form of the writ in Glanvill, xiii. ch. 19, p 161. though reference to the time of peace is there omitted, but clearly contemplated in iv. ch. 1. p 44.

164 Glanvill. xiii.ch. 20. p 162.

165 Pollock, and Maitland, . History of English Law. II. 138. It may have been because of this added complication of pleading that although novel disseisin might be determined by local justices of assize, it was required by Magna Carta that darrein presentments should be reserved for the justices of Common Pleas: Magna Carta 1217. c. 15. amending the original Magna Carta 1215. c. 18, and becoming Magna Carta 1224–1225 (9 Hen 3). c 13. The distinction was preserved until the Statute of Westminster II 1285(13 Edw 1), c 30 (justices of nisi prius). which provided that the assize of darrein presentment and inquests of quare impedit were to be determined in their own county.

166 As to the general relationship of possessory actions to those higher actions to try right, see Ferrer's Case (1598) 6 Co Rep 7a.

167 Glanvill. xiii.ch. 20. p 161: Gibson. Codex. II. 784.

168 Bracton, . De Legibus, ff. 54. 55. 247 (II, 162. 164. III. 230).

169 The action appears to be settled by the time of Bractons Note Book. e.g. 11. 28. pl. 34:99–100. pl. 111: 148. pl. 182: 325, pl. 395: 371. pl. 474 etc. Bereford CJ tells us that ‘en auncien temps il ny avoit nul brief de advowson, sinoun brief de droit. et l';assise de darrein presentment, per qui le Quare Impedit fuit ordine ou I'assise ne poet servir’: Y.B. 10 Edw 2. Mich., to. 300, Quare Impedit. at fo. 301. For the various forms of the writ, see Haas, and Hall, , Early Registers of Writs, pp 31. 50. 128.

170 Glanvill. iv, ch. 6. p 46.

171 Bracton, , De Legibus. f. 54 (II, 162): arg. per Vavasour sjt. Y.B. 22 Edw 4. Pasch., fo. 8, pI. 25 at fo. 9: Pollock, and Maitland, . History of English Law. II. 139140.

172 Statute of Westminster II 1285 (13 Edw 1). c 5 (recovery of advowsons).

173 Y. B. 43 Edw 3. Pasch., fo. 14. pl. 6. per Thorp CJ. at fo. 15: arg. per Skrene sjt. Y.B. I Hen 4. Mich., fo. 1, pI. 3. at fo. 2: Read and Redman's Case (1612) 10 Co Rep 134a at 134b.

174 Advowsons Act 1708(7 Anne, c 18).

175 Real Property Limitation Act 1833 (3&4 Will 4. c27).

176 Bishop of Exeter v Marshall (1868) LR 3 H L 17.

177 ‘First, concerning the person, as bastardy, villenage. outlawry, excommunication, a lay-man, under age, and the like: Secondly, concerning his conversation, as if he be criminous. etc. Thirdly, concerning his inability to discharge his pastorall duty, as if he be unlearned, and not able to feed his flocke with spirituall food. etc.': Coke, Sir Edward. Seeond Part of the Institutes of the Lawes of England (ed. London, 1642), ch. 13, fo. 632. See Bishop of Exeter v Marshall (1868) LR 3 HL 17 at 39. per Willes J. This is not an exhaustive list: Heywood v Bishop of Manchester (1884) 12 QBD 404 at 418. Further grounds for refusal were added by the Benefices Act 1898 (61 & 62 Viet, c 48). s 2(1), and the Benefices Measure 1972 (No 3), s 1(1). See the Revised Canons Ecclesiastical, canon C 10, paras 2A. 3. Where the refusal is on the ground of lack of orthodoxy, learning or moral unfitness, the bishop must state in what respect the person presented is not idoneus with sufficient particularity for a court to judge whether his objection is valid: Specot's Case (1590) 5 Co Rep 57a; Bishop of Exeter v Marshall (1868) LR 3 HL 17: Willis v Bishop of Oxford (1877) 2 PD 192.

178 Watson, . Clergy-Man's Law. p 230.

179 The basis of the duplex querela was a complaint by a clerk that the ordinary had delayed giving justice, which lay both against the judge and him at whose instigation justice was delayed: Rastell, John, Termes de la Ley (ed. London. 1721). p 278.

180 Benefices Act 1898 (61 & 62 Viet, c 48). s 3(1).

181 Benefices Act 1898. s 3(1)(amended by the Patronage (Benefices) Measure 1986 (No 3), s 18( 1)).

182 Benefices Act 1898. s 3 (5).

183 Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963 (No 1). s 10(1)(b).

184 RSC Ord 6, r 2.

185 Elvis v Archbishop of York. Taylor and Bishop (1619) Hob 315 at 317: Degge, . Parson's Counsellor, pt. i. ch. 3, p 14.

186 Rolle, , Abridgment. II, 384 (P) § 1; Degge, . Parson's Counsellor, pt. i, ch. 3. p 11; Watson, . Clergy-Man's Law. p 227.

187 ‘Mes nienobstant jeo entende que I'evesque doit faire cest inquest a son peril’: Y.B. 34 Hen 6. Mich., fo. II, pl. 22, per Moyle J.

188 Y. B. 35 Hen 6, Mich., fo. 18, pl. 27, per Prysot CJ: Y.B. 8 Edw 4. Hill., fo. 24. pl. 6: Watson, . Clergy-Man's Law, p 111. Degge suggests that this is the accepted practice and that the better view is that the bishop is not bound to award a jure patronatus at his own cost and risk: Parson's Counsellor, pt. I. ch. 3. p 12. See Brooke. La Graunde Abridgement. ‘Costes’, pt. i, fo. 186.§ 2.

189 Watson, , Clergy-Man's Law. pp 111, 227. See Newton CJ in Y.B. 22 Hen 6. Mich., fo. 28. p 48. at fo. 29.

190 Gibson, , Codex, 11, 778.

191 Lyndwood, Provinciale, lib. iii. tit. 21, c. 3, Per nostrum, gl. ad v. inquisitionem. p 217. For an example of a standard form of articles of inquiry, see Register of John de Halton. Bishop of Carlisle. 1292 1324. e. W. N. Thompson (with introduction by T. F. Tout). Canterbury and York Society, vol. 12 (1913). I. f. I v. pp 4–5. substantially repeated at ff. 29–29v. 39v, 41, 42v, pp 162–163. 221.227. 233. See also e.g. Newington Longville Charters, ed. Salter, H. E., Oxford Record Society, vol. 3 (1921). pp 8788. no. 114. Gray. ‘lus Praesentandi’. gives some early fourteenth-century forms in an appendix, pp 508–509. Although this was the usual form, the inquiry concerning idoneity might be held separately. The inquest de hire patronatus had to be held in the church concerned: Gray, p 492. n. 6.

192 Council of Lambeth, 1281. c. 14: Powicke and Cheney. Councils. II. pt. ii. 909–910.

193 This transitional stage in the development of the inquest may be seen in the Register of John de Sandale, dated 1314. where the inquiry was made ‘per viros fidedignos, clericos et laicos’: The Registers of John de Sandale and Rigaud de Asserio, Bishops of Winchester, 1316–1323, ed. Baigent, F. J., Hampshire Record Society (volume for 1893)(London. 1897), ff. 43. 43v. p 143. Similarly, in the Registers of Roger Martival, Bishop of Salisbury. 1315–1330, II, ed. Elerington, C. R., Canterbury and York Society, vol. 57 (Oxford, 1963). fo. 26, p 105, the mandate is to cite a number of inhabitants from three local villages who were ‘viros fidedignos libere condicionis’ as well as the incumbents of six neighbouring churches.

194 Clarke, Francis. Praxis (2nd edn)(London. 1684), tit. xcviii, pp 129130; Gibson, , Codex, II, 779; Watson, , Clergv-Man's Law, p 236.

195 See Paston J in Y.B. 22 Hen 6, Mich., fo. 28, pi. 48, at fo. 29.

196 Brickhead v Archbishop of York (1617) Hob 197 at 201. See Council of Oxford, 1222, c. 10, Cum secundum upostolum. Powicke and Cheney, Councils, II, pt. i, 109.

197 Y.B. 34 Hen 6, Mich., fo. 11. pl. 22; Gerrard's Case (1584), 2 Leon 168; Elvis v Archbishop of York, Taylor and Bishop (1619) Hob 315 at 317–318; Degge, , Parson's Counsellor. pt. i, ch. 3, p 18; Watson, , Clergy-Man's Law, p III.

198 Elvis v Archbishop of York. Taylor and Bishop (1619) Hob 315 at 318; Watson, , Clergy-Man's Law, p 236.

199 Watson, . Clergy-Man's Law, p 236.

200 Degge, . Parson's Counsellor, pt. i. ch. 3, p 12.

201 Degge, . Parson's Counsellor, pt. i. ch. 3, p 12. See Y.B. 34 Hen 6, Pasch., fo. 38, pl. 9, particularly the argument of Littleton sjt at fo. 38 and Prysot CJ at fo. 40. Nevertheless, this would be strong evidence in a quare impedit, and would also have the advantage of putting the successful party into possession: per Littleton sjt.

202 Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963 (No 1), s6(l)(c).

203 Simony Act 1713 (13 Anne. ell).

204 Ecclesiastical Commissioners Act 1836 (6 & 7 Will 4, c 77); Ecclesiastical Commissioners (Exchange of Patronage) Act 1853 (16 & 17 Viet, c 50)

205 Ecclesiastical Commissioners Act 1840 (3 & 4 Viet, c 113), s 73; Ecclesiastical Commissioners Act 1841 (4 & 5 Viet, c 39), s 22.

206 These began with the Church Building Act 1818 5 Geo 3. c 45 and continued until the New Parishes Acts and Church Building Acts Amendment Act 1884 (47 & 48 Viet, c 65). The Church Building Acts 1818 to 1884 were listed in the Schedule to the 1884 Act.

207 These began with the New Parishes Act 1843 (6 & 7 Viet, c 37) and continued until the New Parishes Acts and Church Building Acts Amendment Act 1884 (47 & 48 Viet, c 65). The New Parishes Acts 1843 to 1884 are listed in the Short Titles Act 1896 (59 & 60 Viet, c 14), Sch 2.

208 New Parishes Measure 1943 (6 & 7 Geo 6. No 1).

209 Pastoral Measure 1968 (No 1).

210 Ibid, s 32(2)(consolidated in the Pastoral Measure 1983 (No.l). s 32(2)).

211 Pastoral Measure 1968, s 32(3)(consolidated in the Pastoral Measure 1983, s 32(3)).

212 Patronage (Benefices) Measure 1986 (No. 3). It came into force on 1 January 1989.

213 Ibid, s 1(1),(2).

214 Ibid, s 8.

215 Ibid, s 12.

216 Ibid, s 13.

1 This article is based on a paper given to the Private Patrons Consultative Group. Grimsthorpe Castle, on 27 September 1997.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Ecclesiastical Law Journal
  • ISSN: 0956-618X
  • EISSN: 1751-8539
  • URL: /core/journals/ecclesiastical-law-journal
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed