Chapels of

ease.

Appropriations with

vileges, in two forms.

divine service, and had a small portion of the revenue allotted to them. (1)

There were some cures which had chapels of ease belonging to them, and they who officiated in them were called Capellani, and had their subsistence out of the oblations and obventions, and were often perpetual and presentative.

Where the incumbents had several chapels of ease, and only assistants to supply them, the canon law did not call them Rectores, but Plebani, who had a sort of peculiar jurisdiction in lesser matters; but still they were under the bishop's authority in visitations and other ecclesiastical censures, because the care of the whole diocess belonged to him jure communi. (2)

Appropriations were made with different pridifferent pri- vileges in two forms, the one pleno jure, sive utroque jure, tam in spiritualibus quam in temporalibus, where the interests in the benefice, both temporal and spiritual, were annexed to some religious house, and the other non utroque jure, though pleno jure, as it is described, in temporalibus, where temporal interests only were con

(1) Alden v. Tothill, Gwm. R. 436. 3 Salk. R. 43. Com. Dig. tit. Adv. D. 1. Grendon v. The Bishop of Lincoln,

| Plowd. R. 497. Domats. Suppl. to the Civil Law, lib. 1. tit. 10. 443.

(2) Still. Ecc. Cases, 133.

veyed, such as the tithes or patronage of the benefice. (1)

trons to

threaten to

draw back their right of patron

Such, however, was the ambition and avarice Avarice of of the religious houses to appropriate advowsons the monks induced pato their own use, without making proper provision for the performance of religious services in parochial districts, which duty was neglected, and, to use the language of those times, a decay of hospitality evinced, that lay-patrons began to threaten to draw back that right of patronage to the churches which their ancestors had conferred. (2)

age.

interference.

First requi

The power of the bishops and successive Legislative canons of the popes had in vain been exercised to stop the abuses of this growing evil; and the murmurs and complaints of all soon got to such a pitch, that legislative interference became necessary; and it was enacted, that in appropriations of benefices there should be a provision made for the poor and the vicar, and that in site of an approprievery licence to be made in chancery of the ap- ation since propriation of any church, there should be a perpetual vicar, not removable at the caprice of the appropriator, but properly and sufficiently endowed at the discretion of the ordinary, to do divine service, to inform the people, and to keep hospitality. (3)

(1) The Duke of Portland v. Bingham, Haggard's Rep.

163.

(3) 15 Ric. 2. c. 6. 4 Hen. 4. c. 12. Britton v. Wade, Cro. Jac. 515. Seld. c. 12. s. 1.

(2) 1 Spelm. Concil. Ang. Ayl. Par. Jur. Can. Ang. 513. Degge's P. C. Part. 1. ch. 13.

593.

the statutes.

Endowment of a vicar.

necessary.

Hence the sufficient endowment of a vicar was made a necessary condition of appropriating the benefice; and thus arose vicarages and endowments, which were generally made up of a part of the small tithes belonging to the benefice, which the appropriators found it difficult to collect, and a portion of the glebe or land of the parsonage.

Endowment By endowment a vicarage becomes a benefice distinct from the parsonage, and without endowment the appropriation was not good. (1) If the small tithes and oblations (the common allotment to a vicar) would not amount to a third share, then some part of the greater tithes, as of corn and hay, was allowed to make up such deficiency, which, indeed, was the cause of many vicarages being now so endowed. (2)

Vicarages to be met with as early as Henry 2.

Although there are no vicarages at common law, and vicarages are supposed to have had their beginning in the eighth year of king Henry the Third, they certainly existed before that period, and are to be met with as early as the time of king John; indeed there is an instance of a perpetual vicar being appointed in the reign of Henry the Second. (3)

(3) Wright v. Gerrard, Hob. | Coventry, Hob. R. 140. Seld. R. 307. Grendon v. The

Bishop of Lincoln, Plowd. R.
496. Colt v. The Bishop of

c. 12. s. 1.

(2) 1 Burn's Eccl. L. 69. (3) Britton and Ward's case, Palm. R. 113.

The endowment might either be in the act of Endowment appropriation, or a separate act, and a separate either in act might be instrument, so that in searching for an endow- of appropriation or in a ment, neither the act of endowment, nor the act separate inof appropriation should be neglected; for though strument. a separate act or instrument of endowment may not be found, yet it is possible the endowment may have been made in the act of appropri ation. (1) Where the vicarage is not endowed, the impropriator of the small tithes is bound to maintain a priest, and, upon information by the attorney-general for that purpose, the king may assign such an allowance or proportion of the small tithes as he may think proper, though this cannot be the case if the vicar is endowed, however small the endowment may be. (2)

solved.

It would appear from the case of Parry and AppropriBancks, in the exchequer (3), that an appropri- ation not dissolved, when ation would not be dissolved, where a vicarage vicarage disis dissolved by the bishop and appropriated to the rectory, but the appropriation must in such case remain in a spiritual body. This, it is to be observed, was the case of an appropriation made since the statutes of Richard the Second, and Henry the Fourth, and since the restraining statute of the thirteenth of Elizabeth. In the case of Robinson v. Bedel, the appropriation

(*) Anon. Styles's Rep. 156.

(2) Bonsey v. Lee, 1 Vern. R. 247.

(3) Cro. Jac. 518.

Sinecures.

Notwithstanding the statute

4 Hen. 4.

There are instances of

monks serv

ing in some particular places.

was made before the time of Richard the Second, and the dissolution before the thirteenth of Elizabeth. (1)

Endowments under the above circumstances are to be distinguished from those where the rector and the vicar both receive institution from the bishop, as is the case of sinecures, where the rector, with proper consent, had power to intitle a vicar in his church to officiate under him, and so the rector having been long excused from residence, is in common opinion discharged from the cure of souls. (3)

Although by the statute 4 Hen. IV. c. 12. requiring the appointment and proper endowment of a vicar, an appropriation would not be good unless a secular person were ordained vicar perpetual, canonically instituted and inducted, and convenably endowed; so that by institution and induction, the vicar was placed on the same footing as a rector, and though the vicar was to be secular, there are several examples of licences to the monks to serve a parochial cure by themselves, by reason of the contiguity of the churches, or poverty of the house; and there is an instance of a licence to an abbot to serve a parochial cure by a removeable secular chaplain.

(1) Robinson v. Bedel, Cro. El. 873.

Gibs. Cod. tit. 30.

(2) Degge's P. C. Part 1. ch. 13. 195. 199.