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.Google Scholar

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

⁴ Stutz, Ulrich, Die Eigenkirche als Element des mittelalterlich-germanischen Kirchenrechtes (Berlin. 1895). p 12Google Scholar; in translation, Barraclough, G. (ed). Medieval Germany. 911–1250 (Oxford. 1938). pp 35–70 at p 39.Google Scholar

⁵ See e.g. First Council of Toledo, AD 398. c. 5 (Mansi. Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio (Paris, 1759–1798)(reprint Graz, 1960–1962), 111. 999)Google Scholar; 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 33–62 at p 44.Google Scholar

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).Google Scholar

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

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.Google Scholar 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, 448–49Google Scholar, 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.Google Scholar

12 See Council of Orleans, AD 541. c. 33(M. G. H., Concilia, I, 94–95Google Scholar). 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).Google Scholar

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

¹⁴ Stutz, . Die Eigenkirche, p 18Google Scholar; 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.Google Scholar c. 11 (Mansi, CI, 701).

¹⁶ Stutz, , Die Eigenkirche, pp 16–17Google Scholar; Barraclough, p 43.

¹⁷ Stutz, . Die Eigenkirche, p 17.Google Scholar

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

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

²⁰ X. 3. 38. 25; Lyndwood, William. Provinciale (seu Constitutiones Angliae)(Oxford, 1679)Google Scholar, 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).Google Scholar

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 211–212).Google Scholar

²³ Tour, Imbart de la. Les paroisses. pp 131–132.Google Scholar

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

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

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

²⁷ Tour, Imbart de la. Les paroisses. p 109Google Scholar; 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.Google Scholar 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 155–156.Google Scholar See Stephen of Tournai, , Summa. p 218.Google Scholar

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 128Google Scholar: Corpus Iuris Civilis, vol. iii, Novellae. ed Schoell, R. and Kroll, G. (Dublin and Zürich, 1972). nov. 131. c. 14. p 663.Google Scholar 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.Google Scholar See the Synod of Frankfurt. AD 794. c. 54 (M. G. H.. Capit.. 1. 78Google Scholar); Capitulary of Louis the Pious, AD 818–819, cc. 6, 9, 10–12. 29 (M. G H. Capit.. 1. 276–277.Google Scholar 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, 277Google Scholar); Report of the Bishops to the Emperor Louis, AD 829. §18 (M. G. H.. Capit., 1. 35Google Scholar); Council of Rome, AD 826, c. 21 (M. G. H. Concilia, II. 576Google Scholar); Capitulary of Worms, AD 829, § 1 (M. G. H.. Capit., II. 12Google Scholar); 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, 160Google Scholar); Council of Augsburg, AD 952, c. 9 (M. G. H., Legum. II, p 28Google Scholar); Synod of Rome, 1059, c. 6 (M. G. H., Constits., 1. 547Google Scholar); Council of Rome, 1078. c. 2 (Mansi. XX, 509), also in Register of Gregory VII. VI. 5b. § 3 (M. G. H. Epistolae Selectae. 11. 403Google Scholar); Third Council of Lateran. 1179, c. 14 (Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, ed Tanner, Norman P. (Georgetown University Press, 1990), I, pp 218–219Google Scholar; Stutz, . Die Eigenkirche. p 21Google Scholar; 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. 291–292Google Scholar); 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 21Google Scholar; 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 89–125Google Scholar: Ullmann, Walter. The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages (3rd edn)(London. 1970). pp 294–299.Google Scholar

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 194Google Scholar); Third Council of Lateran, 1179, c. 14 (Ecumenical Councils, I, pp 218–219).Google Scholar

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 105–128.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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

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

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

⁴² See , Douglas, ed. Domesday Monachorum, pp 12–13.Google Scholar 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, 1903–1916)(reprint Leipzig, 1935), I. 196/197.Google Scholar 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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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

⁴⁷ See Page, William. “Some remarks on the Churches of the Domesday Survey”. Archaeologia, 66 (1915), pp 61–102 at p 98.Google Scholar

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

⁴⁹ Addleshaw, , Development of the Parochial System, pp 10Google Scholar, 15. See Lennard, Reginald, Rural England 1086–1135 (Oxford, 1959), p 320Google Scholar, and Page, , “Some remarks on the Churches of the Domesday Survey”, pp 87–88.Google Scholar

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

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

⁵² Egbert, Archbishop of York, AD 734–766, Dialogus Ecgberti, Thorpe, , Ancient Laws and Institutes of England, P. R. C. (London. 1840), II, 90–91.Google Scholar

⁵³ See notes 30 and 32 above.

⁵⁴ Ætthelred, V, c. 10 § 2 (Liebermann, , Gesetze, 1, 240–241Google Scholar; Laws of the Kings of England from Edmund to Henry I, ed. and trans. Robertson, A. J. (Cambridge, 1925). p 83)Google Scholar; Æthelred, VI, c. 15 (Liebermann, , Gesetze, 1. 250–251Google Scholar; Robertson, , Laws, p 97Google Scholar). See the Laws of the Northumbrian Priests, cc. 20–22 (Liebermann, , Gesetze, I, 380–381Google Scholar); Thorpe, . Ancient Laws, 11, 292–295.Google Scholar

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)Google Scholar; Council of Westminster, 1125, c. 4 (Whitelock, et al. Councils, I, pt. ii, 739Google Scholar); Council of Westminster, 1127. c. 10 (Whitelock, et al. , Councils, I, pt. ii, 749Google Scholar); Council of Westminster. 1138. c. 5 (Whitelock, et al. Councils, I. pt. ii, 775).Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Addleshaw, G. W. O., Rectors. Vicars and Patrons (Borthwick Institute of Historical Research, St Anthony Hall Publications No. 9)(London. 1956), pp 17Google Scholar, 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 161Google Scholar; 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. 1968–1977), f. 248b (III, 234)Google Scholar; Watson, William, The Clergy-Man's Law: or the Complete Incumbent (London, 1725), p 64.Google Scholar 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.Google Scholar

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

⁶⁰ See Denton, J. H.. English Royal Free Chapels 1100 1300 (Manchester. 1970). pp 2–3.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Bracton, . De Legibus. f. 241b (III. 215)Google Scholar: ‘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 418Google Scholar: Burn, Richard. Ecclesiastical Law (9th edn)(London, 1842). III. 92.Google Scholar

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

⁶⁴ Dugdale, William, Monastion Anglicanum. ed Caley, J. et al. (London. 1819–1830). VI. 1355–1356.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ The grant of exemption included only the ‘capellam. collegium, canonicos, presbyteros, clericos, milites et ministros’: ibid; Denton, , English Royal Free Chapels, pp 116–117.Google Scholar 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. 132–134.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Hamilton-Thompson, A., in Visitations in the Diocese of Lincoln, 1517–1531, I (Lincoln Record Society, vol. 33 (1940)). p xi.Google Scholar 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. 546Google Scholar); Bull of Gregory IX, 1236 (Les Registres de Grégoire IX. ed Auvray, Lucien, Bibliothèque des Ecoles Françaises d' Athenes et de Rome (Paris. 1884–1921). no. 3133Google Scholar; 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 153Google Scholar; Denton, . English Royal Free Chapels. App iv. p 159Google Scholar); Bull of Innocent IV, 1245 (Annales Monastici, ed Luard, H. R.. Rolls Series 36 (London. 1864–1869). I, 275Google Scholar; Foedera, Conventiones, Litterae.… ed Rymer, Thomas (Record Comm.)(London, 1816–1830), I. i. 261Google Scholar; Regesta Ponliftcum Romanorum (1198–1304), ed Potthast, A. (Berlin, 1896–1908). II. 998, no. 11738.Google Scholar

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

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. 446–447).Google Scholar For later examples, see Calendar of Close Rolls. 1256–1259 (H.M.S.O.. London, 1932), p 427Google Scholar: Calendar of Patent Rolls. 1258 1266 (H.M.S.O.. London. 1910). p 126Google Scholar: 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.Google Scholar

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

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.Google Scholar

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 197Google Scholar: Watson, . Clergy-Man's Law, p 170Google Scholar; SirPhillimore, Robert, The Ecclesiastical Law of the Church of England (2nd edn)(London. 1895), 1, 252–253.Google Scholar

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)Google Scholar, 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.Google Scholar

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 640Google Scholar; Colefatt v Newcomb (1705) 1 Ld Raym 1205.Google Scholar

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. 756Google Scholar: Watson, . Clergy-Man's Law. pp 64Google Scholar, 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.Google Scholar See Coke. First Part of the Institutes, lib. ii. cap. 11, sec. 184. fo. 122; Watson, . Clergy-Man's Law. pp 65.Google Scholar 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.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ SirCoke, Edward. Seeond Part of the Institutes of the Lawes of England (ed. London. 1628).Google Scholar lib. iii. sec. 541. fo. 307; Gibson, . Codex. II. 758Google Scholar: Watson, . Clergy-Man's Law. p 65Google Scholar: Cruise, William. Digest of the Laws of England (London. 1804–1806). III. Advowson. p 4.Google Scholar § 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 604/5Google Scholar at p 608/9: Pollock, and Maitland, . History of English Law. 11, 136.Google Scholar

⁹² , Watson, Clergy-Man's Law. p 66Google Scholar; Pollock, and Maitland, . History of English Law. II. 136.Google Scholar 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 66–67.Google Scholar 68–71; Phillimore, , Eeelesiastical Law. 1. 264–267.Google Scholar 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.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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.Google Scholar § 4; Watson, . Clergy-Mans Law, p 190Google Scholar; Ayliffe, , Parergon, p 87.Google Scholar Or the Crown as successor to the Pope as supreme ordinary: Grendon v Bishop of Lincoln at 497–498Google Scholar; Watson, , Clergy-Man's Law, p 190.Google Scholar

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

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).Google Scholar

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. 1876–1880 (Cambridge, 1881), Comm. xxvi, App A. pp 358–359Google Scholar; Brink, , Parish Church of St Edward. App 1(4). pp 75–76.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Warren's Book, ed Dale, A. W. W. (Cambridge. 1911). p 59Google Scholar; Clark, . ‘History of S John Baptist’. App C. p 360Google Scholar; Brink, , Parish Church of St Edward, App 1 (6). pp 76–77.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ See note 102 above.

¹⁰⁷ Clark, . ‘History of S John Baptist’. App B. p 359.Google Scholar 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 78–79.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Warren's Book, pp 54–56Google Scholar; Clark, . ‘History of S John Baptist’. App J. pp 366–369Google Scholar; Brink, , Parish Church of St Edward, App 1(14), pp 80–84.Google Scholar 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 165–166.Google Scholar 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.Google Scholar § 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 195Google Scholar; Watson, , Clergy-Man's Law, p 67.Google Scholar

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

¹¹⁵ Ayliffe, . Parergon, p 90Google Scholar: Duke of Portland v Bingham (1792) 1 Hag Con 157Google Scholar 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, 8Google Scholar, § 23; Phillimore, , Ecclesiastical Law, 1, 270.Google Scholar

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

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

¹²³ Helmholz, R., Roman Canon Law in Reformation England (1990), pp 10–11.Google Scholar

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, 1956–1966). 11, 218Google Scholar: ‘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.Google Scholar

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 261–313.Google Scholar 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 205–234 at p 228Google Scholar; Maitland, . Roman Canon Law, p 64.Google Scholar 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.Google Scholar See Gray, J. W.. ‘The lus Praesentandi in England from the Constitutions of Clarendon to Bracton’. English Historical Review. 67 (1952). pp 481–509, at p 487.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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

¹⁴⁰ Powicke, and Cheney, . Councils. II, pt. i. 674Google Scholar, 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. 378bGoogle Scholar (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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar 28 (‘que vacat ut dicitur.…’). See also Glanvill. xiii. ch. 19, p 161.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

¹⁵² Woodbine, , ‘The Origins of the Action of Trespass’, Yale Law Journal. 33 (1923–1924). 799–816. at 807–808.Google Scholar

¹⁵³ Pollock, and Maitland, . History of English Law. 1. 145Google Scholar: Milsom, S. F. C.. Historical Foundations of the Common Law (2nd edn)(London. 1981). p 138Google Scholar; Sutherland, Donald, The Assize of Novel Disseisin (Oxford. 1973). p 7Google Scholar; 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 9–26.Google Scholar at pp 22–24.

¹⁵⁴ D. 43. 16. 1 (Digest of Justinian, ed. Mommsen, Theodor. Paul Krueger and Alan Watson (Pennsylvania. 1985), IV. 582–586).Google Scholar

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

¹⁵⁶ See Sutherland, , Novel Disseisin, pp 22–23.Google Scholar

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). 333Google Scholar: 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.Google Scholar 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). 373Google Scholar. 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.Google Scholar 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).Google Scholar

¹⁶¹ Van Caenegem, . Royal Writs. 333.Google Scholar

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

¹⁶³ Bracton, , De Legibus, f. 238Google Scholar (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.Google Scholar 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.Google Scholar 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.Google Scholar 50. 128.

¹⁷⁰ Glanvill. iv, ch. 6. p 46.

¹⁷¹ Bracton, , De Legibus. f. 54Google Scholar (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. 139–140.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar See Bishop of Exeter v Marshall (1868) LR 3 HL 17Google Scholar at 39. per Willes J. This is not an exhaustive list: Heywood v Bishop of Manchester (1884) 12 QBD 404 at 418Google Scholar. 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 17Google Scholar: Willis v Bishop of Oxford (1877) 2 PD 192.Google Scholar

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

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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

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.Google Scholar 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 111Google Scholar, 227. See Newton CJ in Y.B. 22 Hen 6. Mich., fo. 28. p 48. at fo. 29.

¹⁹⁰ Gibson, , Codex, 11, 778.Google Scholar

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 87–88. no. 114.Google Scholar 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.Google Scholar 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 105Google Scholar, 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 129–130Google Scholar; Gibson, , Codex, II, 779Google Scholar; Watson, , Clergv-Man's Law, p 236.Google Scholar

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 18Google Scholar; Watson, , Clergy-Man's Law, p III.Google Scholar

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

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

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

²⁰¹ Degge, . Parson's Counsellor, pt. i. ch. 3, p 12.Google Scholar 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.