UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES 
 
 SCHOOL OF LAW 
 LIBRARY
 
 A 
 
 PRACTICAL TREATISE 
 
 ox THl 
 
 3^uri£)trictiou of tlje OFfrifsiia^tical Couiti^, 
 
 RF.LATIN(; TO 
 
 PROBATES AND ADMINISTRATIONS. 
 
 WITH • 
 
 AN APPENDIX, 
 
 CONTAINING AN ACCOUNT OF 
 
 ALL THE COURTS IN THE DIOCESE OF LINCOLN, 
 
 THE EXTENT OF THEIR JURISDICTION, 
 AND THE PLACES WHERE THE WIIXS ARE PROVED AND DEPOSITED. 
 
 BY ROBERT SWAN, 
 
 IRegistrar of t^e Biocese of 1£inroIn. 
 
 Reriim ordo confunditur, si unicuique Jiirisdictio non servetur. — ProcEmium, 4 Inst. 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 S. SWEET, LAW BOOKSELLER, 3, CHANCERY-LANE ; 
 
 AND J. W. DRURY, LINCOLN. 
 
 1830.
 
 1330 
 
 LONDON : 
 PRINTED BY BRADBUaV AND CO., OXFORD ARMS PASSAGE.
 
 
 V 
 
 4 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 The Author was led to investigate the subject of 
 tliis Pamphlet for his own information, and in the behef 
 that it will be found useful to the Profession, is now 
 induced to publish it. 
 
 Lincoln, 
 January 29, 1830. 
 
 /O I /J -v <2
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Chapter Page 
 
 Introduction 7 
 
 I. Testamentary Jurisdictions 13 
 
 II. Prerogative Court 33 
 
 III. Bona Notabilia 33 
 
 Cases in which Probates and Administrations are 
 to be granted by the Prerogative Court . . ib. 
 
 Cases in which Probates and Administrations are 
 not to be granted by the Prerogative Court . 41 
 
 IV. Whether Probates and Administrations 
 
 granted by the Prerogative Court, 
 where there are not bona notabilia in 
 ANOTHER diocese, are void or voidable . . 45 
 
 1 . Cases deciding such Probates and Admini- 
 strations .to be voidable only by sentence . ib. 
 
 2. Cases deciding such Probates and Admini- 
 strations to be void 48 
 
 3. Observations on the Cases 55 
 
 V. The Bishop's Diocesan Court .... 60 
 
 VI. The Jurisdiction of the Dean and Chap- 
 ter and Prebendaries 64 
 
 VII. Courts OF the Commissaries for the Arch- 
 deaconries Q^ 
 
 VIII. Courts of the Archdeacons 71 
 
 IX. Peculiar Jurisdictions 72 
 
 1. What is a Peculiar and Exempt Jurisdiction ib. 
 
 2. What Jurisdictions come under the denomi- 
 nation of a Peculiar and Exempt Jurisdiction 74
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Page 
 
 3. What Jurisdictions are not exempt from, bnt 
 
 are subordinate to, the Bishop of the Diocese 76 
 
 4. What PecuUars are subject to the Preroga- 
 tive Court, where the person dying has, at 
 the time of his death, goods to the value of 
 
 51. in another PecuHar or Diocese .... 79 
 Appendix I. 
 
 Copy of the Composition between the Arch- 
 bishop of Canterbury and Bishop of Lincoln, 
 in 1319, acknowledging the right of the 
 Bishop to grant Probates and Administrations 
 where the deceased left goods in another 
 
 Diocese 81 
 
 Copy of the Statement made by the Bishops in 
 Convocation, in the Controversy of 1512, 
 between them and the Archbishop, respect- 
 ing the Probates of Wills, &c 87 
 
 The 92d and 93d Canons 98 
 
 Grant of Jurisdiction to the Dean and Chapter 
 and Prebendaries, in 1160, by the Bishop . 101 
 Appendix II. 
 
 An account of the several Jurisdictions empow- 
 ered to grant Probates, &c., in the Diocese of 
 
 Lincoln 103 
 
 In the County of Lincoln 1 04 
 
 In the County of Leicester 1 06 
 
 In the County of Buckingham 107 
 
 In the County of Huntingdon 108 
 
 In the County of Hertford 109 
 
 In the County of Bedford 110 
 
 In the County of Oxford Ill 
 
 In the Counties of Northampton and Rutland , 112
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 No part of the laws of this kingdom seems so much 
 involved in doubt, or so little understood, as the laws 
 which regulate the jurisdiction of Ecclesiastical Courts, 
 in matters relating to the Probates of Wills and 
 Administration to Intestates' effects. Considerino* the 
 immense amount of personal property, in continual 
 distribution by executors and administrators, a due 
 understanding of these laws is of great importance ; 
 for, if a probate or administration be obtained from a 
 Court not having competent jurisdiction, such probate or 
 administration is by the Canons void, and the executor 
 or administrator acting under it, must be involved in 
 much difficulty ; more particularly in the case of an ad- 
 ministrator, where an administration may be granted by 
 the proper Court to another person in equal degree of 
 relationship, and the administrator so appointed must 
 supersede the administrator who may have acted under 
 the administration granted by the Court not having 
 jurisdiction. And in these cases, when any dispute may 
 arise, either in the collection or distribution of the
 
 INTRODUC riON 
 
 effects of the deceased, no proceedings at law or in 
 equity can be supported, unless the probate or admi- 
 nistration shall have been granted by the proper Court. 
 Very many estates are held by leases for years, as well 
 where the leases are held by the lessee beneficially, as 
 in those of houses, farms, &c., where the leases are at 
 a rack rent ; and as there are terms for years, either 
 by way of mortgage or otherwise, in almost all freehold 
 estates, and as the title to any of these, to be derived 
 from a deceased person through a probate or adminis- 
 tration, must be defective, unless such probate or admi- 
 nistration shall receive its authority from the proper Ec- 
 clesiastical Court, an enquiry into the laws regulating 
 the jurisdiction of Ecclesiastical Courts appears to be 
 of the most urgent necessity. 
 
 For want of this enquiry, very many abuses have 
 crept into practice in the granting of probates and ad- 
 ministrations, and occasioned nmch unnecessary trouble, 
 inconvenience, and expence to the public. 
 
 All the jurisdiction in testamentary matters, except 
 in Royal, Archiepiscopal and manorial peculiars, origin- 
 ally belonged to the Bishops of the dioceses in which 
 the persons died ; but to prevent executors and ad- 
 ministrators from being called into two Courts for 
 the probate or administration of the same persons, 
 in the same province, when goods should be left by 
 them in any other diocese besides that in which they 
 died, the Prerogative Court was estabhshed to make 
 one probate or administration do, without any inter- 
 ference on the part of the ordinaries of the dioceses 
 where the parties died, or k^ft goods: and, as the 
 peculiar jurisdictions of the Archbishop of Canter- 
 bury, which are dispersed throughout the province, arc
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 exempt from the jurisdiction of the Bishops of the 
 dioceses in which they are situated, these peculiars 
 were also made subject to the jurisdiction of the Pre- 
 rogative Court, as to the probates of the testaments 
 or administration of the goods of persons dying in 
 such peculiars, and leaving goods in a diocese or 
 dioceses, or another peculiar besides those in which 
 they died. 
 
 These salutary regulations are now commonly de- 
 parted from ; and, although the Prerogative Court was 
 confined to dioceses and the peculiar jurisdictions of the 
 Archbishop, yet, in the present day, if a person leave 
 goods in any two divisions of a diocese, the probates and 
 administrations are granted by the Prerogative Court ; 
 nay, indeed, executors and administrators are, in the pre- 
 sent day, so perplexed by monitions from the Prerogative 
 Court to prove wills or obtain administrations, where the 
 probates or administrations have been already granted 
 by the diocesan Court, that they commonly prove the 
 wills and obtain administrations originally from the Pre- 
 rogative Court, even where that Court has no jurisdic- 
 tion. x4nd these encroachments have been much pro- 
 moted by the assumption that a probate or administra- 
 tion granted by the Prerogative Court, even when it has 
 no jurisdiction, is voidable only, and not void, founded 
 as it is upon a case that was decided in the Queen's 
 Bench in the 22d of Eliz.(a), which was, however, 
 over-ruled in the Exchequer Chamber in 37 Eliz. (6), and 
 which decision took place before the establishment of 
 the Canons of 1603. The 93d Canon was meant to meet 
 
 («) Vere and Jefferiea, 5 Coke, (/>) Smeuthwick v. Bingham, 
 
 30. See /)ost, p. 46. Croke's Elix. 457. See pcsf, p.51.
 
 10 INTIIODIJCIION. 
 
 this case, and it declares and pronounces all acts of 
 the Prerogative Court, in cases where the person dying- 
 does not leave goods to the value of 5/. in some other 
 diocese, or peculiar jurisdiction within the same pro- 
 vince, than that in which he died, to be ipso jure void 
 and of no effect. And it requires no great exertion of 
 reason to discover, that what a Court does without 
 having jurisdiction, must be null and void. 
 
 If any advantage were derived to the pubhc from 
 this usurped practice of the Prerogative Court, the 
 usurpation ought to be legalised ; but parties proving 
 the wills or obtaining Administrations from the Pre- 
 rogative Court, are not only put to much more 
 trouble than in the Diocesan Court ; but all the 
 original wills proved in any Court being necessarily 
 deposited in the registry of that Court, the parties re- 
 siding in distant dioceses, and claiming small legacies 
 or interests under such wills, must, when the wills 
 are proved in the Prerogative Court, necessarily incur 
 considerable expence in enquiring into their rights, 
 either by personal inspection, or by the employment of 
 professional men ; whereas, when wills are proved in 
 Diocesan Courts, they are deposited in the respective 
 registries of their Courts, in the midst of the persons 
 claiming under them, and may be moie conveniently 
 inspected. 
 
 Most of the wills that are proved relate also to real 
 estates, and all actions concerning lands being neces- 
 sarily tried in the counties where such lands are 
 situated, it is but reasonable that such wills should be 
 deposited within the county where the lands are. 
 The present practice of the Prerogative Court takes to 
 a distance from the counties, the wills relating to lands,
 
 INTRODUCTION. II 
 
 and ought, on that account, to be avoided as much as 
 possible. Executors, however, have it in their power 
 to remedy this inconvenience ; the proviso in the 92d 
 Canon reserving the option to all persons to take out a 
 probate or administration from the jurisdiction in which 
 the testator died, and also one from the Prerogative 
 Court. And it is much to be regretted, that this 
 plan has not been generally adopted, inasmuch as 
 the wills of every diocese. Sec. would have been regu- 
 larly deposited within such diocese; and executors and 
 administrators would not have been subject to the risk 
 of acting under void probates or administrations.
 
 TESTAMENTARY JURISDICTION 
 
 ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 TESTAMENTARY JURISDICTIONS. 
 
 The manner in which probates and administrations 
 first became subject to the jurisdiction of the Church, 
 seems to be a matter of dispute. But we find in Magna 
 Charta, that the goods of intestates should be distri- 
 buted among their relations per visum ecclesice, which 
 may be deemed to be either a grant to the Church, at 
 that period, of the superintendence of the distribution 
 of the intestate's effects, or otherwise as an acknow- 
 ledgment that the Church already possessed such 
 power. But to avoid any difficulty in defining the 
 meaning of the words "per visum ecclesia," a reference 
 to certain canons made in 1240, will explain that the 
 will is there ordered to pass under the view of the 
 Bishop (a), or per visum Episcopi{b). 
 
 (a) Wilkins's Concilia, p. 674. nolds, Archdeacon of Lincoln, pub- 
 
 (6) Historical Essay, by Geo. Rey- lished Anno 1743, p. 58.
 
 14 TESTAMENTARY .JURISDICTIONS. 
 
 In 1 248 {a) another style came into use in the probates 
 of wills, viz. : " Pralatns siius," " Episcopiis s//?/s," 
 and " Ordinarius.'' And in the provincial constitutions 
 of 1261, " Ordinarius loci " is often to be met with, as 
 likewise in the Council of Dublin, about 1217, and in 
 the Scotch Provincial Synod, about 1225. It was also 
 the lano-uage of the Canon Law . 
 
 And by the General Council in London, in 1268, 
 the appropriation of this jurisdiction to the ordinary of 
 the place, seems to have been provided for in exclusion 
 of the Prerogative ij>). " We ordain that the testament 
 of him, who had, whilst he lived, benefices in divers 
 dioceses, shall be proved by the Bishop in whose diocese 
 the testator died" (t). 
 
 After this, several of Henry the Third's confirmations 
 of the Great Charter, wherein are reserved to the pre- 
 lates the liberties and customs which they had in times 
 past, came in aid of the diocesan's right; and it may 
 deserve observation that in the ensuing controversies, 
 the suffragans laid great stress upon this, " that, by 
 the custom of the Kingdom of England, the probation 
 of testaments and administration of goods, belong to 
 the ordinary of the place, in each diocese of the pro- 
 vince of Canterbury" {d). 
 
 Nevertheless, this foundation was not strong enough 
 to discourage Archbishop Peckham to attempt to sub- 
 vert it by legatine omnipotence ; for it was in express 
 terms, jz/re legationis, and not as metropolitan, that he 
 claimed this controverted jurisdiction ; there not being 
 wanting precedents of his Holiness's intervention in 
 testamentary dispositions, to countenance his legate's 
 claim to it {d). 
 
 (a) Athona, p. 107. (f ) 3 Wilkins's Concilia, G.'jS. 
 
 (b) 2 Wilkins's Concilia, «. (^d) Keynulds, 58.
 
 TESTAMENTARY JURISDICTIONS. }5 
 
 Alexander the Third granted, about the year 1175, 
 the effects of deceased clergymen, within the province 
 of York, to Roger, Archbishop of that See (a); and in 
 1246 (b), Innocent the IV. seized the estates of Robert 
 Hailes, Archdeacon of Lincoln, Almaric, Archdeacon 
 of Bedford ; and of John Hotosp, Archdeacon of Buck- 
 ingham, granting, about the same time, a general 
 commission to the Minorite Friars, to sequester the 
 goods and chattels of intestate laymen, as well as 
 clergymen, in exclusion of the next of kin (c). 
 
 Against a grant of this kind from the Pope to Henry 
 the Third (d), the Proctors of the diocese of Lincoln ar- 
 ticled in the parliament of 1255, in the following words ; 
 " They are so disquieted, because the legacies, which 
 ought to be distributed according to the will of the de- 
 ceased to the use of the poor, their parents, and ser- 
 vants, and to other pious uses, are granted to the King 
 for other purposes, contrary to the will of the de- 
 ceased (e). 
 
 And among other indulgencies to laymen (/), issued 
 out of the Chancery at Rome, one was, " that executors 
 might retain those goods, which by the wills are directed 
 to be distributed amongst the poor"(g), so that the 
 articles of impeachment against Wolsey, " that by his 
 authority legatine he had taken the goods of deceased 
 clergymen," by reason whereof their wills be not per- 
 formed, was a description of such exorbitances as 
 legates had commonly been guilty of, and were au- 
 thorized to perpetrate (/O. 
 
 (a) Reynolds, 53. (/) Reynolds, 59. 
 
 (b) M. Paris, 945, 962. (g) Taxa Cancell, p. 33. 
 
 (c) Ibid. (/OCoke, Art. 17, 30, oflmpeacii- 
 
 (d) Reynolds. ment of Wolsey, 4th Institute. 
 
 (e) Burton Annal. p. 356.
 
 16 TESTAMF.NTAK V J U R I S D U Tl ON S. 
 
 Neither is it wonderful that the Pope, who looked 
 upon himself as Lord of the Universe, and had dis- 
 tributed provinces and even empires, should disregard 
 the rights of the dead, who cannot complain, or the 
 fences of private property (a). 
 
 From this fruitful root, the Prerogative of Canter- 
 bury made frequent shoots ; there being no one rule 
 more steadily observed by the Metropolitans of that 
 See, than that it was their duty to imitate the Roman 
 Pontiff in the use of that power they derived from 
 him(//). 
 
 Accordingly the controversy sprouted out again about 
 the year 1300, between Archbishop Winchelsea and 
 John Dalderly, Bishop of Lincoln, but came to no 
 conclusion, the Archbishop being disabled from carry- 
 ing it on, by the displeasure of Edward I. who com- 
 pelled him to leave the kingdom (c). 
 
 However it was soon resumed by his successor, 
 Walter Reynolds, and about 1319, terminated by his 
 entering into a composition with the same Bishop of 
 Lincoln, (d) which not only acknowledged the exclusive 
 rights of the Bishops of Lincoln to the grant of all 
 probates and administrations when the deceased had 
 goods only in the diocese of Lincoln, but also when 
 they left goods in divers dioceses ; and in reference 
 to the 92d Canon, it will be found to be one of 
 those compositions between the Archbishop and Bishops 
 which were exempted from the operation of that Canon ; 
 and this Composition was constantly acted upon, not 
 only in granting probates and administrations when the 
 
 (a) Reynolds. (d) Registry Dalderby's Merno- 
 
 (ft) Ibid. randums, f. 103. apud Lincoln ; and 
 
 (c) Ibid. see Appendix, No. I.
 
 TESTAMENTARY JURISDICTIONS. 17 
 
 deceased left goods in other dioceses ; but there are 
 entries in the registry of Lincoln, from 1345 to 1624, of 
 decrees by the Bishop of Lincoln for the revocation 
 of probates of wills, passed in the Prerogative Court (a), 
 in which there were goods in different dioceses be- 
 queathed, and the probates were afterwards granted by 
 the Bishop of Lincoln according to the composition. 
 
 But that the general power of granting probates 
 and administrations resided in the Bishops, is fully 
 established by the decree of the Council of 1368, 
 over which John Stratford, the then Archbishop of 
 Canterbury, presided. " The testaments moreover 
 being proved and approved before the ordinaries of 
 the places, to whom the probation and approbation 
 of Testaments belong." (6). Nor was there in any 
 Canon made then, or at any other time previous to 1603, 
 any reservation, or even mention of any prerogative right 
 of the Archbishop of Canterbury, to prove wills where 
 the deceased had goods in divers dioceses. 
 
 But although the composition regulated the juris- 
 dictions of the Archbishop and Bishop as far as re- 
 garded the diocese of Lincoln, the other parts of the 
 province had not a long respite, for in 1384 and in 
 1400, this matter was in contest between the Arch- 
 bishop and Bishop of Exeter; and in 1414, certain 
 commissioners appointed by Hen. V. to inquire into 
 the state of the Church, represented this prerogative 
 assumed by Archbishops, as a common grievance to 
 the subject, as well as the ordinary (c). 
 
 " Article the thirty-first, concerning the Prerogatives 
 of the Churches of Canterbury and York." 
 
 " Wherefore the prerogative of the churches of 
 
 (a) Reynolds, 42. (r) Reynolds. 
 
 (6) 2 Wilkins's Concilia, 705.
 
 18 TESTAMF.NTAKY JURISDICTIONS. 
 
 Canterbury and York, which was never founded on 
 right, has veiy much unsettled the jurisdictions of 
 the inferior Bishops and other ordinaries, by unne- 
 cessarily troubling the persons living within them ; 
 wherefore many things at variance with what is right 
 have been the consequence, and the powers given to 
 the ordinaries have been impeded in their regular 
 exercise" (a). 
 
 And upon this consideration it was judged equit- 
 able (Z*), in the year 1707, to relieve the widows and 
 orphans of persons engaged in the Government dock- 
 yards, from the inconveniences to which they were 
 subject by contentions between the Prerogative Court 
 and the Ordinary Jurisdiction ; and the Act of 4 and 5 
 Anne was passed to direct that the probates of the 
 wills, and the letters of administration of the goods 
 and chattels of such persons, should be granted by 
 the person, to whom the ordinary power should be- 
 long, where the party should die ; and that the wages 
 due to such party should not be considered bona 
 notabilia to found the Prerogative upon. 
 
 About the year 1494(t), Pope Alexander IV. induced, 
 as he was pleased to declare, by no other motive than 
 his own knowledge of the benefits accruing to the pro- 
 vince from it, repaired the jurisdiction of the Prero- 
 gative Court of Canterbury by a new grant of privileges, 
 in respect of testamentary cognizance (rf). 
 
 In this Bull there were two very significant clauses(e). 
 The first was a clause to supply all defect of fact as 
 well as of law. The preamble of the Bull suggested 
 that the Archbishops had immemorially enjoyed the 
 
 (a) 3 Wilkins's Concilia, 364. (cZ) 3 VVillcins's Concilia, 641. 
 
 (6; Reynolds. (e) Reynolds, 46. 
 
 (,c) /6trf.,64.
 
 TESTAMENTA RY JURISDICTIONS. 19 
 
 privilesje of taking probates of wills, when the effects 
 bequeathed were in different dioceses; lest, therefore, 
 the notoriety of the falsehood of that suggestion should 
 invalidate the grant, it was found adviseable to provide 
 a supplement for truth (a). 
 
 The second was a general non obstante to any autho- 
 rity that was contrary to this concession, and parti- 
 cularly to the Constitution of 1268, about the probate 
 of the will of a plurahst, which has before been set out 
 at large (b). 
 
 Upon this accession of strength, Archbishop Morton 
 resumed the exercise of his prerogative with fresh vigour ; 
 and by the terror of excommunications and other cen- 
 sures, which he fulminated with great profuseness, drove 
 his comprovincial Bishops, their Archdeacons, and the 
 possessors of testates' and intestates' effects in crowds 
 into the Prerogative Court ; where he made himself 
 judge of the rights in controversy between the Pre- 
 rogative Court and the diocesan Consistories, and 
 pronounced for his own jurisdiction (c). 
 ^ Against these violences Richard Hill, Bishop of 
 London, remonstrated to the Pope ; as did likewise 
 William Wareham, his successor in the See of London, 
 opposing the extension of the prerogative with more 
 spirit than foresight (c?). For he who had been the 
 most strenuous advocate for diocesan rights, was no 
 sooner exalted to the primacy, than he carried his prero- 
 gative with a higher hand, and gave greater encourage- 
 ment to the encroachments of his officials than any of his 
 predecessors had done. Wherefore, all the suffragans of 
 the province concurred in a synodical complaint against 
 
 (u) Reynolds, 64. 
 
 (c) Ibid., 64, 
 
 (b) Ibid. 
 
 {d) Ibid. 
 
 
 c 2
 
 20 TESTAMENTAIJY ,1 U Rl S Dl CTI O NS. 
 
 him in 1512; and upon his refusing to comply with 
 the sense of the Synod, applied to the Pope. 
 
 The following items are from the synodical com- 
 plaint of the Suffragan Bishops (a). 
 
 '* In the first place the suffragans asserted, as a fun- 
 damental point, and were ready to prove, that by the 
 custom of the kingdom of England, the probate of 
 testaments is of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, as well from 
 the constitutions of the province of Canterbury, as of 
 Octobon, formerly the Legate of the Apostolical See ; 
 and, in each diocese of the province, the probate of wills 
 and administration of goods of persons dying belonged 
 to the ordinaries of the places where they died ; from 
 which it followed that the Archbishop, pretending a 
 right of proving the testaments of persons dying within 
 the dioceses of the Suffragan Bishops, and leaving 
 goods in divers dioceses, could not establish his claims 
 upon a prerogative or privilege, unless he could 
 found it upon some special right. They, therefore, 
 besought the Archbishop that he would deign to 
 declare the nature and description of sucli prerogative, 
 if any such there were. To which petition the Arch- 
 bishop refused to assent, desiring rather that his pre- 
 tended prerogative should remain in doubt, that he 
 might at pleasure usurp the rights of his suffragans." 
 
 ** The suffragans also complained that the othcials and 
 ofl&cers of the Archbishop pretended that persons dying 
 had goods in divers dioceses, when, in fact, they had 
 not ; and under colour thereof proved the testaments of 
 deceased persons, when they had no right of proving 
 them, and when the right belonged to some of the 
 suffragans or their Archdeacons. 
 
 (a) 3 Wilkins's Concilia, 653. See also Appendix, No. 2.
 
 TESTAMENTARY JURISDICTIONS. 21 
 
 " And that a writing, in a style not before in use is 
 issued from the Court of this pretended Prerogative, 
 during the present times, in the following terms, viz. : 
 * Proved and approved the present testament of A. B. 
 who had, whilst he lived, and at the time of his death, 
 goods moveable or immoveable, spiritual or temporal, 
 rights or debts in divers dioceses, and peculiar juris- 
 diction of the Province of Canterbury,' &c., which 
 style no Archbishop of Canterbury ever used, nor did 
 any Archbishop of Canterbury, before the time of 
 Archbishop John Morton, usurp the probate of the 
 testaments of persons belonging to the dioceses of their 
 suffragans ; unless in that case only, when the person 
 so dying, left, at the time of his death, bona notabilia in 
 another diocese, than that in which he died ; although 
 it is altogether unknown to the suffragans by what 
 right he pretended that this belonged to him." 
 
 " Nor can the suffragans sufficiently express their 
 wonder from whence this prerogative derived its origin, 
 unless only from a violent and clandestine usurpation ; 
 when it evidently appears, that, during the time of Oc- 
 tobon, formerly the Legate of the Apostolical See in this 
 kingdom, this prerogative was altogether unknown. For 
 in the time of the aforesaid Legate, a controversy arose 
 amongst the Bishops of the Province of Canterbury, to 
 which should belong the probate of the will of a bene- 
 ficed clergyman having benefices in divers dioceses, 
 and dying in one of them ; and the doubt was referred 
 to the decision of the Legate ; who decided that the 
 probate should belong to the Bishop, in whose diocese 
 the beneficed clergyman should die." 
 
 ** Besides, in the time of John Stratford, formerly
 
 22 TESTAMENTARY .1 U RISDICTION S. 
 
 Archbishop of Canterbury, such prerogative was un- 
 heard of; when, in a Provincial Council of Canter- 
 bury, over which he presided, as its head, and with 
 the consent of the Bishops and Prelates, and Clergy of 
 the said province, he declared that the approbation and 
 insinuation of testaments, and the distribution of the 
 goods, as well of the clergy as laity, dying within the 
 Province of Canterbury, belonged to the ordinaries of 
 the places in which they died. After which council 
 many others have followed, over which the Archbishop of 
 Canterbury for the time being always presided, and he 
 had power from time to time to convoke such a council. 
 Nor has any Archbishop of Canterbury moved or pro- 
 posed for the retraction or revocation of the said consti- 
 tution, in which the premises are declared to belong to 
 the ordinaries of the places, nor attempted to agitate 
 any question concerning the right of the Bishops to 
 the possession of this authority, nor in any council 
 procured to be passed any order or new constitution 
 concerning the probate of testaments and adminis- 
 tration of goods, upon the aforesaid constitution, which 
 the said John Stratford, one of the Archbishops them- 
 selves, made and promulgated, and which his suc- 
 cessors by not revoking, knowingly and prudently 
 approved, and supported the Bishops in persevering in 
 the possession of, according to the tenor of the afore- 
 said constitution, until the time of John Morton, who, 
 within the last fourteen years, died whilst prelate of the 
 archbishoprick of Canterbury." 
 
 " And it is moreover to be noticed, that when the 
 most Reverend Father, the present Archbishop (Ware- 
 ham) was Bishop of London, he commonly proved the
 
 TESTAMENTARY J U K ISDICTION S. 23 
 
 testaments of all persons dying within his diocese, 
 having goods in divers dioceses of the Province of 
 Canterbury, even to the sum of five pounds, and some- 
 thing more, and something less, as evidently appears 
 from the registers of the Church of London, made 
 during the time of his presiding over that diocese." 
 
 This complaint, therefore, on the part of the suf- 
 fragans, was supported by the acts of the then Arch- 
 bishop of Canterbury, whilst he was Bishop of London, 
 thus uniting the testimony of the whole Province of 
 Canterbury to the authenticity of their representations. 
 
 The year after this complaint, Henry VIII., dis- 
 pleased with the disorders occasioned by the long con- 
 tinuance of this controversy, in synod and at Rome, (for 
 it had been in litigation two centuries,) interposed, 
 and brought things to temper. His letter, upon this 
 occasion, to the Archbishops and Bishops, shows the 
 importance of the controversy. 
 
 'Right reverend Fadres in God, right trusty and 
 wel-beloved, we grete you wele (a). Not doubting but 
 that you have in your good remembrance, that wher 
 we have knowlege that ther was a plee and processe 
 commenced and hangyng in the Court of Rome, by- 
 twixt you on the oon party, and the most reverend 
 Fadre in God, Tharchbishopp of Canterbury, on the 
 other partie, for the jurisdiction, power, and auctoritie 
 that he pretendeth to have in certayn cases, to and for 
 the approbation of testaments within your dioceses, 
 not only to your and his manifold inquietations, costes, 
 and troubles ; but also in a great party, to the manifest 
 division and dissension of the universal Church of this 
 
 (n) Reynolds, 66.
 
 24 TESTAMENTARY JURISDICTIONS. 
 
 our Royme, for so moche as the said matter coiicerneth 
 and toucheth the same." 
 
 Then follow his directions as to the Archbishop's 
 claim, and the letter concludes, — 
 
 " This, our commandment and ordinance, to endur 
 oonly by the space of thre yeyrs next coinming, after 
 the date of these our letters. And if, during the same 
 tyme, ther shall fortun any doubte or difficultye to rise 
 betwixt you and the said most Reverend Fadre in God, 
 in, of, or upon any matter, word, or sentence con- 
 teyned in our said ordinances, or any part of the same, 
 we wol that the interpretation and construction thereof 
 be referred oonly to us, and such of our counseyll as 
 we heretofore deputed to be arbitratours." 
 
 This letter of the King brought the Archbishop and 
 Bishops to terms, and they entered into a composition 
 to the following effect ; that the prerogative should 
 not attach to any other goods of a deceased, than those 
 which are called by the ancient English name of chattels, 
 if those goods may be known by the denomination of 
 chattels, which a person may dispose of by his will (a). 
 And that the sum upon which the prerogative may be 
 exercised, should be ten pounds out of the diocese 
 in which the deceased may have died. And, lastly, 
 although the goods of the deceased to that sum may 
 be divided in divers peculiar parishes, unless, how- 
 ever, those goods shall be situated in the peculiar 
 parishes that are reserved to the Church of Canter- 
 bury throughout the divers dioceses of the province 
 of Canterbury, the prerogative shall not be used. 
 
 The act of 23 Henry VIII., c. 9, was passed to re- 
 
 (n) Antiu. Bricaii. Eccksiic, 308. See also Ajipendix, N'o. 3.
 
 TESTAMENTARY JURISDICTIONS. 25 
 
 gulate the Ecclesiastical Jurisdictions, and more parti- 
 cularly those of the Archbishop of Canterbury, as ap- 
 pears by the preamble of the act. And it enacts that 
 " no manner of person shall henceforth be cited or 
 summoned, or otherwise called to appear by himself, 
 or herself, or by any procurator, before any ordinary, 
 Archdeacon, commissary, official or any other judge 
 spiritual, out of the diocese or peculiar jurisdiction 
 where the person which shall be cited, summoned, 
 or otherwise (as is aforesaid) called, shall be inhabiting 
 or dwelling at the time of awarding or going forth of 
 the same citation or summons, except that it shall be 
 for, in, or upon any of the cases or causes hereafter 
 written ; that is to say, for any spiritual offence or 
 cause committed, or done, or omitted, foreslewed or 
 neglected to be done, contrary to right or duty, by the 
 Bishop, Archdeacon, commissary, official or other 
 persons having spiritual jurisdiction or being a spiritual 
 judge, or by any other person or persons within the 
 diocese or other jurisdiction whereunto he or she shall 
 be cited, or otherwise lawfully called to appear or 
 answer." And the reservation in favour of the Arch- 
 bishop is as follows ; — '' Provided, also, this act shall 
 not extend in anywise to the Prerogative of the most 
 reverend Father in God, the Archbishop of Canterbury, 
 or any of his successors, of or from calling any person 
 or persons out of the diocese where he or they be inha- 
 biting, dweUing, or resident for probate of any testa- 
 ment or testaments, any thing in this act contained to 
 the contrary notwithstanding." 
 
 This act, prohibiting the citation of all persons out of 
 their own dioceses or peculiar jurisdictions, but reserv- 
 ing to the Archbishop, in respect of his prerogative, 
 the right of citing out of a diocese only foi' probates
 
 26 TESTAMKNTAllY JURISDICTIONS. 
 
 of testaments, leaves him no power, in respect of such 
 prerop^ative, of citing any one, for probate of testament, 
 out of any pecuhar jurisdiction, but his own. The 
 Archbishop's prerogative was defined by the composi- 
 tion of 1513 ; that fixed the prerogative right to the 
 probate of wills, &c., of persons leaving goods in divers 
 dioceses of the province of Canterbury, or divers peculiar 
 jurisdictions belonging to the Archbishop of Canterbury : 
 the Archbishop wanted only the reservation of a right 
 to cite out of a diocese, having an original right to cite 
 out of his own peculiars ; and no right to cite out of any 
 other peculiars was reserved to him, because such right 
 did not belong to him. 
 
 The authenticity of the statement, contained in the 
 Antiquitates BritatnnccB Ecclesm, of the Composition of 
 1513, must be indisputable from the circumstance, that 
 the book containing it was written by Dr. Parker, who 
 was Archbishop of Canterbury from 1559 to 1573, and 
 was published about the latter year. And the sentence, 
 immediately following the description of the composi- 
 tion, is worthy of particular notice, as stating that '' the 
 controversy, so often excited between the Archbishop of 
 Canterbury and the suftragans of his province was set at 
 rest for ever;" and conveys the strongest assurance, that 
 the composition was always acted upon in his time, and 
 must have continued to be so, until the establishment of 
 the Canons in 1603, into which it was embodied. 
 
 The act of 25 Henry VIII. c. 19, authorises the 
 King to nominate thirty-two Commissioners who were 
 to have authority to view, search, and examine the 
 canons, constitutions, and ordinances theretofore made 
 by the clergy of the realm ; " and such of them as the 
 King's Highness, and the said two and thirty, or the 
 more part of them, should deem worthy to be continued,
 
 TESTAMENTARY JURISDICTIONS. Zi 
 
 kopt, and obeyed, should be from thenceforth kept, 
 obeyed, and executed, within the realm, so that the 
 King's most royal assent under his great seal be fur- 
 nished to the same; and the residue of the said canons, 
 constitutions, and ordinances provincial, which the 
 King's Highness and the said two and thirty persons, 
 and the more part of them should not approve and 
 judge, or deem worthy to be abolite, abrogate, and 
 made frustrate, should from thenceforth be void and of 
 none effect, and never be put in execution within this 
 realm." 
 
 ** Provided, also, that such canons, constitutions, 
 ordinances, and synodals provincial, already made, 
 which be not contravenant or repugnant to the laws, 
 statutes, and customs of this realm, nor to the damage 
 or hurt of the King's prerogative royal, shall now still 
 be used and executed as they were upon the making of 
 this act, till such time as they be viewed, searched, or 
 otherwise ordered and determined, by the said two and 
 thirty persons, or the more part of them, according to 
 the tenor, form, and effect of this present act." 
 
 It is true a review was appointed, but such difficul- 
 ties were found in it, as to the shaking of the founda- 
 tion of the ecclesiastical laws here, that nothing was ever 
 legally established in it ; and, therefore, this Proviso 
 is still in force {(i). 
 
 In the statute of 25 Henry VIII. c. 21, it is said, 
 " that this realm, recognizing no superior under God 
 but the King, hath been and is free from subjection to 
 any man's laws, but only to such as have been devised, 
 made, and observed within this realm for the wealth of 
 
 {a) Stillingfleet's Ecclesiastical Cases, 69.
 
 28 TESTAMENTARY JURISDICTIONS. 
 
 the same ; or to such other as by the sufferance of the 
 King and his progenitors, the people of this reahn have 
 taken of their free liberty, by their own consent, to be 
 used amongst them, and have bound themselves by 
 long use and custom to observance of the same, not 
 as to the observance of the laws of any foreign prince, 
 potentate, or prelate, but as to the customs and ancient 
 laws of this realm, originally established, as laws of 
 the same, by the said sufferance, consent, custom, and 
 none otherwise." 
 
 This statute of 25 Henry VIII. c. 21, is a full con- 
 firmation of all canons, constitutions, ordinances, and 
 synodals provincial, that had been theretofore made 
 by the clergy, and although there is not any canon, 
 constitution, ordinance, or synodal provincial, for the 
 establishment of the Prerogative Court, yet inasmuch 
 as the composition of 1513 was entered into between 
 the Archbishop and suffragans, in consequence of a 
 recommendatory letter from King Henry VIll., and as 
 the prerogative right of the Archbishop to the probate 
 of wills is recognized by 23 Henry VIII. c. 9, the 
 constitution of the Prerogative Court, as it then existed, 
 must be deemed to have been fully established. 
 
 The only Canons relating to testamentary jurisdiction, 
 are the 92d, 93d, and 94th, and they were intended, 
 no doubt, to render the jurisdiction of the Preroga- 
 tive and diocesan, and inferior Courts, so distinct, 
 that no question should, for the future, arise, as to their 
 respective rights ; but they expressly relate to the 
 Archbishop's Courts. 
 
 The summary of the 92d Canon is, that if any person 
 shall die, having, at the time of his death, goods or 
 good debts, in any other diocese or dioceses, or peculiar
 
 TESTAMENTARY JURISDICTIONS. 29 
 
 jurisdiction than in that wherein he died, amounting to 
 the value of 5/. the probate of his will or the adminis- 
 tration to his effects, shall be granted by the Preroga- 
 tive Court: and any probate or administration, in such 
 case granted by any other Court, is declared to be 
 frustrate and void. The following proviso is contained 
 in the Canon: — ''Provided always that this present 
 constitution, or any thing contained in it, shall not be 
 prejudicial to any composition that has been made 
 between an Archbishop or any Bishop or other ordinary : 
 nor to any inferior judge, who shall grant a probate of a 
 testament or administration of effects to any person, 
 spontaneously and of his own accord, requiring a 
 probate or administration, as well from the inferior 
 Court as from the Prerogative Court." 
 
 This Canon, therefore, declares all probates and 
 administrations granted by a Bishop, or other ordi- 
 nary, to be void in cases of bona notabilia, unless 
 the party to whom the probate or administration 
 shall be granted, shall voluntarily require a probate 
 or administration from the inferior as well as from 
 the Prerogative Court. Therefore, until the wish of 
 the person proving the will, or requiring the ad- 
 ministration, is expressed, it would be premature 
 to declare to be void any probate or adminis- 
 tration, that may have been granted by an inferior 
 Court, where ihere are bona notabilia in another diocese. 
 
 The 93d Canon decrees and ordains that no judge 
 of the Archbishop's Prerogative, should thenceforth 
 cite or cause to be cited ex officio, any person what- 
 soever to any of the aforesaid intents, unless it should 
 previously appear to the same judge, that the deceased 
 had during his life, and at the time of his death.
 
 30 TESTAMENTARY JURISDICTIONS. 
 
 goods or chattels to the vahie of 5/. in any other 
 diocese, or dioceses, or peculiar jurisdiction, situated 
 within the same province, than that wherein he died, 
 to the value of 5/. And it was by the same Canon 
 declared and pronounced, that he, who had a less sum 
 in such a case, had not bona notabilia. 
 
 The following is the 94th Canon — " No Dean of 
 the Arches, nor official of the Archbishop's Con- 
 sistory, nor any Judge of the Audience, shall hence- 
 forward, in his own name, or in the name of the 
 Archbishop, either ex officio, or at the instance of 
 any party originally, cite, summon, or any way com- 
 pel, or procure to be cited, summoned, or in any 
 way compelled, any person which dwelleth not within 
 the particular diocese or peculiar of the said Arch- 
 bishop, to appear before him, or any of them, for 
 any cause or matter whatsoever, belonging to eccle- 
 siastical cognizance, without the licence of the dio- 
 cesan first had and obtained in that behalf, other 
 than in such particular cases only, as are expressly 
 excepted and reserved in and by a statute, Aimo 
 23 Hen. VIII. ch. 9." 
 
 These three Canons conjointly regulate the testamen- 
 tary jurisdiction, and being so intimately connected, an 
 ambiguity in any one of them should be explained by 
 the other. Blackstone, in his 2d vol. of Com., p. 89, 
 lays down as a rule in the construction of deeds, that 
 the construction be made upon the entire deed, and not 
 merely upon disjointed parts of it. " For the best inter- 
 pretation is to be collected from the antecedent and sub- 
 sequent parts." There is an ambiguity in the 9Cd and 
 93d Canons, as to the meaning and extent of the words 
 peculiar jurisdictions; for to the peculiars belonging to
 
 TESTAMENTARY JURISDICTIONS. ' 31 
 
 the King and to those formerly belonging to monas- 
 teries, they cannot apply. The ambiguity may be 
 most reasonably explained, by considering the peculiar 
 jurisdiction of the 9'2d and 93d Canons, and those of 
 the 94th Canon to be the same. And this construction 
 is established by the re-enactment of the statute of 23 
 Henry VIII., c. 9, in this last Canon, which statute, 
 whilst it prohibits the citation of any person whatsoever 
 out of the diocese or peculiar jurisdiction, in which he 
 dwells, reserves to the prerogative of the Archbishop 
 the right of citing any person out of a diocese for pro- 
 bate of a testament, and reserves no right to the Arch- 
 bishop to cite out of any peculiar jurisdiction, thus 
 proving that the prerogative extended not over any 
 other peculiar jurisdiction, than those belonging to 
 the Archbishop. And when, in addition thereto, it 
 is considered that in the dispute of 1319, the Arch- 
 bishop claimed the right to probate when goods were 
 left in divers dioceses or other places, belonging to the 
 Church of Canterbury, (the present peculiars of the 
 Archbishop,) and further, that in the composition of 
 1513, the prerogative was limited to the Archbishop's 
 peculiars, no other can have been contemplated by, 
 or included in, the 92d and 93d Canons, of 1603, than 
 the Archbishop's peculiars. And, in that case, the 
 statute 0^23 Henry VIII., c. 9, and these Canons are 
 consistent with each other ; but, if these Canons should 
 be deemed to include other peculiars than those of the 
 Archbishop, they allow to the Archbishop an interfe- 
 rence with peculiar jurisdictions, which that statute pro- 
 hibited : and, as Canons not confirmed by act of Parlia- 
 ment, cannot, according to the following case, alter the 
 statute law, the 9Sd and 93d Canons cannot be con-
 
 32 ' TESTAMENTARY JURISDICTIONS. 
 
 strued to allow to the Prerogative Court any right over 
 peculiar jurisdictions, which that statute of 23 Hen. 
 VIII., c. 9, prohibited. 
 
 Lord Chief Justice Vaughan, in the case of Grove 
 and Dr. Elliott, Chancellor of Sarum, 2 Ventris' 
 Reports, 44, adjudged that " the Canons 3 Jacobi, cer- 
 tainly are of force, though never confirmed by act of 
 Parliament. Indeed, no Canons of England stand 
 confirmed by act of Parliament ; yet they are the laws 
 which bind and govern in Ecclesiastical affairs. The 
 Convocation, with the licence and assent of the King, 
 under the great seal, may make Canons for regulation 
 of the Church, and that as well concerning Laicks as 
 Ecclesiasticks, and so in Linwood. Indeed, they can- 
 not alter or infringe the common law, statute law, or 
 King's prerogative." 
 
 The Canons of 1603 were confirmed by King J^mes, 
 and as far as they relate to testamentary matters, re- 
 ceived a further confirmation from the statute of 29th 
 Charles II. c. 3, s. 24, which is as follows : " And it is 
 hereby declared, that nothing in this act shall extend 
 to alter or change the jurisdiction or right of probate 
 of wills concerning personal estates, but that the Pre- 
 rogative Court of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and 
 other Ecclesiastical Courts, and other Courts having 
 right to the probate of such wills, shall retain the same 
 right and power as they had before in every respect, 
 subject, nevertheless, to the rules and direction of the 
 act."
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 PREROGATIVE COURT. 
 
 " The prerogative of the Archbishop (a) is grounded 
 upon this reasonable foundation, that as the Bishops were 
 themselves originally the administrators to all intestates 
 in their own dioceses, and the present administrators 
 are in effect no other than their officers or substitutes, 
 it was impossible for the Bishops, or those who acted 
 under them, to collect any goods of the deceased, other 
 than such as lay within their own dioceses, beyond 
 which their episcopal authority extends not. But it 
 would be extremely troublesome, if as many adminis- 
 trations were to be granted, as there are dioceses 
 within which the deceased had bona notahilia, besides 
 the uncertainty which creditors and legatees would be 
 at, in case different administrators were appointed, to 
 ascertain the fund out of which their demands are to 
 be paid. A prerogative is therefore very prudently 
 vested in the Metropolitan of each province, to make 
 in such cases, one administration serve for all. This 
 accounts satisfactorily for the reason of taking out ad- 
 ministration to intestates, that have large and diffusive 
 property, in the Prerogative Courts : and the probate 
 of wills naturally follows, as was before observed, the 
 
 (rt) 2 Bl. Com. 509. 
 D
 
 34 PREROGATIVE COURT. 
 
 power of granting administration, in order to satisfy the 
 ordinary, that the deceased had in a legal manner, by 
 appointing his own executors, excluded him and his 
 officers from the privilege of administering to the 
 effects." 
 
 It is clear that all the original jurisdiction as to the 
 probate of wills, &.C., belonged to the Bishops of the 
 respective dioceses in which the persons died, and it is 
 equally clear that the jurisdiction of the Prerogative 
 Court was comparatively a new one, and ingrafted 
 upon that of the Bishops, and to answer a particular 
 purpose ; it follows therefore, that the Prerogative 
 Court can have no power but in the particular cases in 
 which the special authority is given ; and that when 
 no such special authority is granted, the jurisdiction 
 belongs to the Bishop, or his inferior ordinary , except 
 only in those cases when the Archbishop and Bishops 
 have no jurisdiction, as in Royal peculiars, &c. 
 
 " It is to be known, that the Archbishops of this 
 realm, before the act of 23 Hen. VIII., c 9, had 
 power legatine from the Pope, by which they pretended 
 to have not only superior authority over all, but con- 
 current authority with every ordinary in his diocese, 
 not as Archbishop of Canterbuiy, &c., but by his 
 power and authority legatine. So as before that act the 
 Archbishop of Canterbury was legatiis natus, and by 
 force of his authority legatine, usurped against the 
 canons, upon all ordinaries in his precinct, and by 
 colour thereof claimed concurrent authority with them ; 
 which although they held in the Courts of the Archbi- 
 shop, the same was remedied by the act of 23 Hen. 
 VHI. chap. 9 ; and all that which he usurped before, 
 was not as he was Archbishop, for as to that he was
 
 PREROGATIVE COURT. 35 
 
 restrained by the canons, but as he was lego t us tialiis, 
 which authority is now taken away, and abohshed 
 utterly." — Forters and Rochester s case. 13 Coke's 
 Reports, 7. 
 
 The only circumstance that can have given rise to the 
 opinion, that the x4rchbishop has any other authority in 
 granting probates and administrations, than where there 
 are bona notahU'ta in two dioceses, or peculiar jurisdic- 
 tion, is the question, whether a probate or administra- 
 tion, where there are not such bona notabuia is actually 
 void, or voidable only by sentence. Now this very cir- 
 cumstance is of itself the strongest evidence, that no 
 other authority exists ; for if on proof before the proper 
 court, that the deceased had not bona notabilia, a pro- 
 bate or administration granted by the Prerogative 
 Court, shall, as in Sir John Nedham's case (a), be pro- 
 nounced and declared pro nulla et invalida ad omnem 
 juris effectum, it is clear that the only ground for sup- 
 porting such a probate or administration, must be the 
 fact that there are bona notabilia. But upon this ques- 
 tion the various decisions are collected in a subsequent 
 section, and in a review of these decisions, the weight of 
 authority, the reason and justice of the matter, concur 
 in the determination, that probates or administrations 
 granted by the Prerogative Court, where there are not 
 bona notabilia in other dioceses, or peculiar jurisdictions, 
 than those wherein the parties died, are actually void ; 
 and when this determination is aided and enforced by the 
 canon, all doubt upon the subject must be altogether 
 overcome. 
 
 In all dioceses, therefore, the Prerogative Court 
 
 («) B Reports, 269.
 
 36 VRRROGATIVK COURT. 
 
 derives its authority from the statute of 23 Hen. VIII., 
 chap. 9, and the canons, and must be bound and re- 
 stricted to the jurisdiction thus given to it; and its 
 jurisdiction can extend only to probates and adminis- 
 trations, where the testators or intestates had during their 
 hves, or at the time of their deaths, goods or good debts 
 to the value of 5/. in any other diocese or dioceses, or 
 peculiar jurisdiction, than that wherein they died. 
 
 Whatever deviation may of late years have been made 
 by the Prerogative Court, from the regulations contained 
 in the canons, it is presumed, that no usage can have 
 conferred upon that Court any prescriptive right to the 
 practice thus obtained. " For to custom and prescrip- 
 tion, possession and time are inseparably incident. 
 Possession must be long, continual, peaceable. Time, 
 (as hath been said,) by Common Law, must be 
 beyond the memory of man. But if there is sufficient 
 proof by record, or writing to the contrary, then it is 
 within the memory of man. No one can prescribe 
 against an act of parliament." — Wood's Institute, 187. 
 
 Two questions arise as to the practice consequent 
 upon the Canons. First, as to the description of the 
 peculiar jurisdictions comprised in them ; and, secondly, 
 whether the probates, or administrations, must in all 
 cases be granted solely by the Prerogative Court ; or 
 whether they may not, in certain cases, be granted by 
 an inferior court, as well as by the Prerogative Court. 
 
 1st. If any doubt exist whether the peculiar jurisdic- 
 tions of the 92d and 93d Canons, do comprise other 
 than those belonging to the Archbishop, reference must 
 be had to the subsequent inquiry (a) into the nature of 
 
 (a) See pnst, p. 70.
 
 PREROGATIVE COURT. 37 
 
 peculiar jurisdictions, to ascertain to what other pecuhar 
 jurisdictions these canons can extend. 
 
 2ndly. These Canons were made for the benefit of 
 the pubhc, and the object of the 92d Canon, was to 
 prevent parties from being unnecessarily compelled by 
 citation, to obtain from divers courts, divers probates, or 
 administrations, for the will or effects of the same person ; 
 but it reserves to the parties themselves, the option of 
 taking them either from the Prerogative Court only, or 
 from the inferior Courts, and also from the Prerogative. 
 Therefore, any person having, or without having know- 
 ledge that the deceased had goods to the value of 5/. in 
 any other diocese or dioceses, or peculiar jurisdiction 
 than that wherein he died, may obtain from the 
 inferior court, a probate or administration for the 
 amount of the effects within its jurisdiction, and 
 another probate or administration from the Prerogative 
 Court, for the amount of goods not within such juris- 
 diction ; the jurisdiction of the inferior court attaching 
 by reason of the deceased having died within its juris- 
 diction, and the Prerogative Court founding its juris- 
 diction on the circumstance, that the deceased left 
 goods to the value of 5/. in another diocese or jurisdic- 
 tion, than in that wherein he died.
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 BONA NOTABILIA(«). 
 
 Cases in which^ Probates and Administrations are to be 
 granted by the Prerogative Court. 
 
 Ira man die in one diocese or peculiar jurisdiction, 
 without any goods there, but hath bona notabilia in 
 another diocese, in such case the right to grant admi- 
 nistration is in the Archbishop. — Nelson's Abrid. 159. 
 
 If any person was, at the time of his death, possessed 
 of goods and chattels in some other diocese, or dioceses, 
 or peculiar jurisdiction than in that wherein he died, 
 amounting to the value of 5L at the least. — 93d 
 Canon. 
 
 If there be bona notabilia in a diocese under the 
 ordinary jurisdiction of the Bishop, and also in a 
 peculiar in that diocese, or in two peculiars situated 
 in the same diocese, in such case the probate belongs 
 to the Archbishop. It is expressly so laid down by 
 Gibson, Swinburne, and in a case in Siderfin ; and it 
 is declared by those authorities, that in such case pro- 
 bate shall be granted, not by the diocesan, but by the 
 Archbishop, because such peculiars are exempt from 
 
 (a") Bona notabilia are noticeable tlieless deemed a poor man, and a 
 
 goods. According to the note on man having in goods less than lOO.s. 
 
 Linwood " Laicis," p. 174, those is called a poor man. See also note, 
 
 goods cannot be deemed notabilia, p. 43. 
 in possession whereof a man is never-
 
 BONA NOTABILIA. 39 
 
 the jurisdiction of the diocescan. — Sir John Nk/ioll, in 
 Parker v. Templar, 3 Phillimore's Reports, 247. 
 
 If a man have goods of the value of 5/. in one 
 diocese, and a lease for years of the same value in 
 another diocese, they are bona notabilia, for which the 
 Archbishop shall grant administration. — 1 Roll's Abrid. 
 909. 
 
 lir a man have goods of the value of 5/. in one 
 diocese, and an obligation of greater value in another 
 diocese, and the obligation shall be there, these shall 
 be bona notabilia for the Archbishop to grant admini- 
 stration.—! Roll's Abrid. 909. 
 
 To make bona notabilia, a debt without specialty 
 shall be accounted to be bona notabilia, where the 
 debtor resides, (Hill, 37 Eliz. (B) ), but not where the 
 testator lived. ~1 Roll's, 909. 
 
 If a man die intestate, having divers debts in obli- 
 p-ations in several dioceses, the debts are called bona 
 notabilia where the obligations are, and not where the 
 debtor or creditor resides. — Hill, 37 Eliz. ( B), Trin. ; 
 17 Jas. (B), inter Trowbridge ^ Taylor, per Curiam, 
 3 Dyer, 305 ; 1 Roll's Abrid. 909.— Loddington S)- 
 Draper, 3 Keb. 433 ; Daniel v. Luken, 3 Dyer, 305. 
 
 If a man have bona notabilia in Ireland and Eng- 
 land, and die intestate, there shall be several admini- 
 strations granted ; that is to say, by the Archbishop 
 of Dublin for the whole within his province ; and by 
 the Archbishop of Canterbury for the whole within 
 his province. But it is to be understood, that he 
 had bona notabilia in divers dioceses within either 
 province, or goods within the diocese of the Arch- 
 bishop ; for otherwise, the grant ought to be by the
 
 40 BONA NOTABILIA. 
 
 ordinary where the goods are, and not by the metro- 
 politan.— D. 14 Eliz. 305 ; 1 Roll's Abrid. 908. 
 
 But if" a man had buna notahilia of 100s. in divers 
 dioceses, besides that in which he died, the metropo- 
 litan shall grant the administration. — 10 H. 7, 166; 1 
 Roll's Abrid. 908. 
 
 If a man die in one diocese, or in a peculiar juris- 
 diction exempt from the control of the Bishop of the 
 diocese in which it is situated, having goods to the 
 value of 5/. in any other diocese or peculiar jurisdic- 
 tion, there must be a prerogative grant. 
 
 If the intestate leaves goods in several peculiars, the 
 Archbishop of the province hath the right to grant the 
 administration. — 2 Lev. 86 ; Shaw v. Stoughton. 
 
 If one leaves bona notahilia in two dioceses of Can- 
 terbury, and two dioceses of the province of York, there 
 must be two Prerooative administrations. — Burston v. 
 Ridley, 1 Salkeld, 39. 
 
 Scire facias, on a judgment in Banco Regis, as ad- 
 ministrator of J. S., and in his profert, shews an admi- 
 nistration granted by the Archdeacon of Dorset. The 
 plaintiff having made this administration his title, the 
 Court could not admit that to be a title which was in 
 title. (Paschse, 1 Ann. — Adams v. Tertenants of Savage. 
 1 Salkeld, 40). J. S. having died in Dorset, the judg- 
 ment, at Westminster, would be bona notahilia at 
 Westminster. — Vide Keg v. Hirton. 2 Lutw. 399. 
 
 If a man die in one diocese and have a mortgage in 
 fee, or for a term of years, in another diocese, and the 
 deeds shall be in some other diocese than that in which 
 he died, the mortgage shall be bona notabilia, and a 
 prerogative probate or administration shall be granted.
 
 BONA NOTABILIA. 41 
 
 To obtain an order for any payment of money out of 
 the Com"t of Chancery, to the representatives of cre- 
 ditors, where such money is paid into Court previous to 
 the deaths of the creditors, and where such creditors die 
 or leave bona notabiHa in another diocese, a prerogative 
 probate is indispensable (a). 7 Vesey, J. 409 ; 12 Id. 417. 
 
 It is not necessary that the deceased should have to 
 the value of 5/. in each of the several dioceses (6) where 
 his goods are dispersed, but if he had goods to the value 
 of 5/. in any one diocese besides that in which he died, 
 they should constitute bona notabilia, subject to the supe- 
 rior jurisdictions. — 3 Bacon's Abrid. 37; Godolphin, 69. 
 
 If a man die in itinere, leaving goods to the value of 
 5/. in any other diocese than that in which he had his 
 last usual place of residence, and besides the goods he 
 had on his journey, there shall be a prerogative grant. 
 
 Cases in ivhich the Probates and Administrations are 
 not to be granted by the Prerogative Court. 
 
 If a man hath goods in one of the provinces in Eng- 
 land, and some goods in France, or in the East Indies, 
 
 (a) It is said to be the practice in in anotiier diocese than that in which 
 
 the Court of Chancery to refuse pay- he died. 
 
 ment of money, unless under a pre- (6) It seems clear that there must 
 
 TOgative probate, even when the be goods to the value of bl. in one 
 
 Testator did not leave goods in any diocese, besides that in which the 
 
 other diocese than in that wherein deceased died, and 5/. must have 
 
 he died ; and when the money has been fixed upon as the lowest sum 
 
 been paid into Chancery, after the upon which a prerogative probate or 
 
 Testator's death, upon suits insti- administration should be granted, 
 
 tuted by or against the executors. from the understanding that neither 
 
 This is an extraordinary construction a probate nor administration by the 
 
 upon the 92d and 93d canons, for prerogative oi ordinary could be ne- 
 
 the canons make goods bona iwlabilia cessary for any effects under that 
 
 if they are ni the time of his death sum.
 
 42 BONA NOTABILIA. 
 
 then one administration shall serve the turn, because 
 there is no jurisdiction we take notice of. — Shaio v. 
 Stortun. Freeman, 102. 
 
 If a man dieth in France, and hath goods in the 
 diocese of Norwich, and the question was, whether the 
 Bishop of Norwich should grant administration or the 
 Archbishop? per North, Ch. J. the Bishop of Norwich 
 shall grant administration, unless he hath bona nota- 
 bilia; and his dying in France is no more than if he 
 had died at Norwich. — Cecil v. Darkin. Freeman's 
 Reports, 256. 
 
 J. S. died possessed of goods valoris 51. in the 
 diocese of London, and also in Durham ; lessor of the 
 plaintiff took out administration in Durham, and also 
 in London, the dioceses being in the two provinces. 
 Per Curiam, the administrations in the one diocese and 
 the other were held good. — Mich. 1 Ann. Burstoji 
 V. Ridleif. 1 Salkeld, 39. 
 
 Wilson died intestate, at Lincoln, having in his pos- 
 session there an obligation from one York, who resided 
 in London. Administration was granted at Lincoln ; 
 prohibition prayed to the Prerogative Court in suit to 
 repeal the administration : prohibition granted, and per 
 Curiam, bona notabilia is where the obhgation is. — 
 Hilary, 26 Car. H. — Lodinglon & Draper, 3 Keble 
 433, 438 ; and vide Daniel v. Luken, Dyer, 305 ; and 
 Troivbridge 8^ Tat/lor, Dyer, 305. 
 
 If a man die in one diocese, having a mortgage, 
 either in fee, or for a term of years, of an estate in 
 another diocese, but having the deeds in his possession 
 in the diocese in which he died, the mortgage being 
 a debt by specialty, shall be assets where the person 
 died, and the probate or administration shall be granted
 
 BONA NOTABILIA. 
 
 43 
 
 by the Bishop or other ordinary of the place where 
 the person died, and not by the Prerogative (a). 
 
 (a) By a Canon established in 
 1328, it was decreed that nothing 
 should be charged for a probate or 
 administration, when the deceased 
 should not have goods to the value 
 of 5/. The words of the Canon are, 
 '' We decree, that for the insinua- 
 tion and approbation of the testa- 
 ment of a poor man, the inventory 
 of whose goods shall not exceed 
 100s. sterling, or for the commission 
 of administration of his goods to be 
 made to his executors, nothing at 
 all be charged." — Constitutions in 
 Appendix to Linwood, p. 42. And, 
 according to Linwood, a man was 
 deemed a poor man, unless he had 
 goods to the value of 51. : in the 
 Note " Laicis," p. 147, " For those 
 goods cannot be deemed nota- 
 bilia, in the possession of which a 
 man can nevertheless be called a 
 poor man ; and any man having less 
 in goods than to the value of lOOs. 
 sterling, is called a poor man." 
 The Act of 21 Hen. VIIL, c. 5, 
 s. 2, enacts, that nothing shall be 
 charged by any Bishop, Archdeacon, 
 Chancellor, Commissary, Official, 
 &;c., for the probate of any testa- 
 .ment or the commission of admini- 
 stration of him whose goods should 
 not exceed the value of 100s. ; and 
 that, nevertheless, the Bishop, Or- 
 dinary, &c., " refuse not to approve 
 any such testament, being lawfully 
 tendered or offered to them to be 
 proved or approved, whereof the 
 goods of the testator, or person so 
 dying, amount not to above the 
 value of 100s. sterling, so that the 
 
 said testament be exhibited to him or 
 them in writing, with wax there- 
 unto affixed, ready to be sealed." 
 And in the following section, the 
 Ordinary, on the refusal of the exe- 
 cutor to prove the will, when the 
 goods shall exceed 100s., is em- 
 powered to grant administration to 
 the widow or next of kin of the de- 
 ceased. Now, as no such provision 
 is made respecting the person dying, 
 whose effects should not exceed 
 100s., it must have been intended 
 to leave to the executor the option 
 of proving or not proving the will, 
 where the effects should not exceed 
 that sum. These causes must have 
 led to the omission to prove wills, 
 where the effects did not exceed 
 100s. ; and such must have been 
 the case on the passing of the 
 Canons of 1603. And the Prero- 
 gative Court having been estab- 
 lished for the express purpose of 
 rendering unnecessary two probates 
 or administrations for the effects of 
 the same person, the amount of 
 bmia notabilia to be left by the de- 
 ceased in any other diocese besides 
 that in which he died, was fixed at 
 5/. as the lowest sum upon which 
 a Prerogative probate should be 
 granted, because no probate oradmi- 
 nistration of any sort under that sum 
 was deemed necessary ; for if other- 
 wise, the object of the establishment 
 of the Prerogative Court would be 
 avoided, inasmuch as that Court 
 has no authority when the effects 
 are under 5/. ; and on a person 
 dying m one diocese, and having
 
 44 BONA NOTABILIA. 
 
 If a man be occasionally commerant in a house of 
 his own in another diocese, though it is for ever so 
 short a period, and dieth there, not having bona nota- 
 bilia in that where he was usually resident, probate 
 shall be granted in the diocese where he died, for he 
 cannot then be considered as dying in itinere.—A 
 Burns' Eccl. Law, 191 ; 1 Salk. 37. 
 
 If a man die in itinere, and have not bona notabilia 
 in any other diocese than in his usual place of resi- 
 dence, the goods he had with him on his journey shall 
 not be bona notabilia, and probate or administration 
 shall be granted in the diocese of his last usual place 
 of residence. — 92d Canon. 
 
 If a man die in one diocese and have in his lifetime, 
 and at the time of his decease, goods or chattels less 
 than the sum of bl. in any other diocese, or dioceses, 
 or peculiar jurisdiction (a) than in that in which he died, 
 he shall not be deemed to have bona notabilia, and 
 shall not be liable to the Prerogative Court. — 93d 
 Canon. 
 
 effects under bl. in another, a pro- 
 bate or administration must be 
 granted where the person should 
 die, and another where the effects 
 under 5/. should be. 
 
 If, therefore, a person dies in one 
 diocese, having a mortgage for a 
 term of years of lands in another 
 diocese, and having the deeds in 
 his possession in the diocese in 
 which he died, wlien the executor 
 has proved the will in the diocese 
 in which the testator died, he has 
 
 done all that the law requires of 
 him. 
 
 (a) The 93d Canon is not correctly 
 translated, as it ought to state that 
 whoso hath not goods, in such case, to 
 the said sum or value, shall not be ac- 
 counted to have bona notabilia. The 
 words in the original Canon are, 
 " Nam qui minurem aliquam summam 
 hoc casu hahet eundem bona nota- 
 bilia non habere "per prasentes decer- 
 niiiius et declarumus."
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 WHETHER PROBATES BY THE PREROGATIVE 
 COURT, ARE VOIDABLE ONLY BY 
 SENTENCE, OR VOID. 
 
 Cases having received contrary decisions on this 
 subject, it will be necessary to make a general in- 
 quiry into them, and for that purpose w^ill be given — 
 
 1st. The Cases, by which it has been decided, 
 that the probate of the Archbishop, where 
 there were not bona notahilia, in another 
 diocese besides that in which he died, is 
 voidable. 
 
 2dly. The Cases, by which it was decided, that 
 the probate of the Archbishop is void, 
 where there are not bona notabUia. 
 
 3dly. The conclusions to be drawn from these 
 cases. 
 
 1st. The cases, by which it has been decided, that 
 the probate of the Archbishop, where there were 
 not bona notabilia, is voidable. 
 
 The first case determined upon the subject is that 
 of Vere. v. Jefferies, cited in Prince's case, in 5 Coke's
 
 46 PROTJATES VOID, OR VOIDABLE. 
 
 Reports, 30. It was decided in 22 Eliz., but is cited 
 in Coke's Reports, in Prince's case, in 42 Eliz. 
 
 '' And in this case, it was said, that judgment was 
 given in the King's Bench, Paschas, 22 Eliz., between 
 Vere v. Jefferies ; that where one hath goods only in 
 an inferior diocese, yet the metropolitan of the same 
 province, pretending that he had bona notahilia in 
 divers dioceses, committed administration, this ad- 
 ministration is not void, but voidable by sentence, 
 because the metropolitan hath jurisdiction over all 
 the dioceses of his province ; therefore it cannot be 
 void, but voidable, by sentence. But if an ordinary 
 of a diocese commits administration of goods where 
 the party hath bona notabilia in sundry dioceses, such 
 administration is merely void, as well as to goods 
 within his diocese, or elsewhere, because he can by 
 no means have jurisdiction of the cause; a)id true it 
 is that such judgment was given." 
 
 Here it must be observed that the case was decided 
 at least twenty-two years before the Canons of 1603, 
 and that it was specially referred to in the hereinafter 
 cited case of Binghatn &. Smeathivick, which was 
 decided in the Exchequer Chamber, and quite in 
 contradiction to it. 
 
 In Sir John Nedham's case, 8 Jas. I., 8 Coke, 135, 
 Sir E. Coke refers to the foregoing case of Vere v. 
 Jefferies, as to the administration granted by the 
 Prerogative Court, where there are not bona notabilia 
 in another diocese, being voidable only. 
 
 In the case of Grange against Denny, 14 Jas. 3 : 
 Bulstrode, 176, Lord Coke refers to the foregoing- 
 case, and says, in Vere &, Jefferies' case, part 5, 
 fol. 30, ^' I did first move this matter when one
 
 PROBATES VOID, OK VOIDABLE. 47 
 
 had goods only in one diocese, and the metropolitan 
 of the same province, pretending that he had bona 
 notabilia in divers dioceses, commits administration, 
 this is not void, but voidable by sentence, because 
 he hath jurisdiction throughout the whole diocese ; 
 within his province he hath the first cathedral church, 
 and is the ordinary, and all other Bishops within 
 his province are derived from him ; otherwise it is, 
 where the ordinary of a diocese doth commit the 
 administration of goods, when as the party hath bona 
 notabilia in divers dioceses, this is void for all." 
 
 There was no decision of the Court in Hobart, 
 185, but only the statement of Counsel, that formerly 
 there was only one Bishop (the Archbishop of Can- 
 terbury), and he granted authority to the Bishops 
 in their respective dioceses, and retained a jurisdiction 
 over his whole province ; and therefore a probate or 
 administration granted by him where there were not 
 goods in divers dioceses, was voidable and not void. 
 
 The like doctrine, as in the case of Vere & Jefferies, 
 was held also in the case of Rex v. Lo^^en & Froorn, 
 1 Strange's Reports, 73 ; and upon the authority of 
 that case, " Dr. Loggen the Chancellor, and Froom the 
 Register of the Bishop of Salisbury, were indicted for 
 extortion, in forcing Thomas Hollier, the executor of 
 the will of Mary Alston, to prove the said will in 
 the said Bishop's Court, where they well knew that the 
 said will had been before proved in the Prerogative 
 Court of Canterbury, and by reason thereof, they 
 exacted of the said Thomas Hollier 40s. on not guilty 
 being pleaded, there was a verdict for the King. 
 It was moved in arrest of judgment, that it not ap- 
 pearing there were any bona notabilia, the Prerogative 
 probate was ipse facto void, and consequently the wil^
 
 48 PKOHATES VOID, OR VOIDABLE. 
 
 ought to be proved before the defendant Loggen ; the 
 testator dying in the diocese of Sarum : 2dly, Admitting 
 not void, but only voidable, yet the Prerogative Court 
 having proceeded in a matter where they had no juris- 
 diction, that should not hinder the Court of Sarum 
 from proceeding in a matter within their jurisdiction. 
 As to the first, before the Counsel had gone far in their 
 argument, the Judge stopped them, and declared, that 
 it was not now to be contested, having been often 
 settled, that such Prerogative probate is not void, but 
 only voidable ; to which the rest of the Court agreed. 
 3dly. They held, that this voidable probate, being the 
 act of the superior, had so far taken away the power 
 of the inferior, that he could not exercise his jurisdic- 
 tion, till that voidable probate was avoided." The 
 case was adjourned upon another point, nor does it 
 appear, that the defendants were ever brought up for 
 judgment. This case is, therefore, in opposition to the 
 decision in Sir John Nedham's case, which decreed 
 that the administration, which had been granted by the 
 inferior court before the revocation of the Prero- 
 gative administration, was, after the revocation of such 
 Prerogative, good and valid. 
 
 In Robinson v. Wohley, 29 Car. 2- ; Sir W. Jones, 
 78; Pargan v. Selbi/, 14 Jas. I. 1 Roll's, 143, and in 
 Gold V. Strode, 2 W. III. Carthew, 148, Counsel 
 held that administration granted by the Prerogative 
 Court, where there were not bona notabilia, was 
 voidable by sentence, and not void. 
 
 2dly, The Cases by which it was decided that 
 the probate of the Archbishop is void, 
 when there are not bona notabilia. 
 
 In Mich. 26 Eliz. 4 Leonard 211, the case was in the
 
 PROBATES VOID, OK VOIDAULE. 
 
 49 
 
 King's Bench, in debt ; (^0 '* it was found by special ver- 
 dict that the testator being possessed of divers goods in 
 London, where he died, and also at the time of his death, 
 the Queen being indebted to him in the sum of 4/, lOs., 
 she then residing at Whitehall ; the Archbishop ' as 
 Metropolitan granted licence of administration to the 
 Queen ; and the Bishop of London afterwards granted 
 licence of administration to J. S. The court sent to the 
 civilians to appear in court, and to deliver their opinions 
 in this case. And thereupon Lloyd, Doctor of Laws, 
 appeared and argued to this effect ; viz. that in ancient 
 times in such cases, the several ordinaries committed 
 several administrations for the goods in their diocese 
 respective ; in which case, the mischief was very great, 
 for the administrator was driven to bring several actions 
 of the administrators of the several ordinaries : vide 
 
 (a) Although this case is anony- 
 mous, and did not receive the decision 
 of the Court, yet the exposition of the 
 law by the Counsel for the Plalntiif, 
 is so in unison with the decision of 
 Lord Coke, in the hereinafter cited 
 case of Porter & Rochester, that it 
 must be deemed most important. 
 Here it is stated, " that the Arch- 
 bishop had not to intermeddle with 
 the diocese of another, but as legatus 
 PapiE. AndinthetimeofHen.il., 
 Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, 
 was styled legatus natiis, but now 
 their power legatine is determined, 
 and therefore the authority to com- 
 mit licences of administration except 
 in cases of bona notabilia, is deter- 
 mined." In Porter & Pochester's 
 case, Lord Coke says, " so as before, 
 the Act of 2.T Hen. VIII. the Arch- 
 bishop of Canterbury was legatus 
 
 natus, and by force of his authority 
 legatine usurped against the Canons, 
 upon all the ordinaries in his pre- 
 cinct, and by colour thereof claimed 
 concurrent authority with them, 
 which although they held in the 
 Couj-ts of the Archbishop, the same 
 was remedied by the Act of 23 Hen. 
 VIII. ch. 9, and all that which he 
 usurped before, was not as he was 
 Archbishop, for as to that he was 
 restrained by the Canons, but as he 
 was legatus natus, which authority 
 is now taken away and abolished 
 utterly." In the case in Leonard, 
 the conclusion drawn from the pre- 
 mises is, that the administration of 
 the Archbishop, where there are not 
 bona notabilia, is actually void, and 
 from Poiter & Rochester's case, 
 the same conclusion is inevitable,
 
 50 PK015ATES VOID, OR VOIDAKLE. 
 
 H. VII. 13 R. 2, administrators 21. But afterwards upon 
 a decree, upon a composition in such cases, the metro- 
 politan committed the administration : and he said that 
 the administration granted by the Archbishop was void, 
 for as Archbishop he had not to intern)eddle within the 
 diocese of another, but as legatus Papce : and in the 
 time of Hen. II., Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, 
 was styled legatus natus, but now that power legatine 
 is determined, and therefore the authority to commit 
 licenses of administration in another diocese, but in 
 case ofbotia notabi/ia, is determined. Atvhrey, Doctor, 
 argued to the contrary ; and he confessed that in an- 
 cient times every ordinary in such cases committed 
 licenses of administration ; but he denied that the pre- 
 rogative, which is now practised in such cases by the 
 metropolitan, was given upon any composition, but 
 that it began by prescription ; but he said that posito 
 bona noiabilia are not in this case ; yet the administra- 
 tion granted by the metropolitan is not void until it is 
 revoked ; for although that the metropolitan in the right 
 of his bishoprick hath not to intermeddle in another 
 diocese, yet in this case because the Archbishop of 
 Canterbury is a Patriarch, (for in Christendom there 
 are four great Patriarchs, and eight lesser Patriarchs, 
 whereof the Archbishop of Canterbury is one,) and by 
 reason thereof, he hath general jurisdiction through all 
 England, Ireland, &.c. But now by the statute his 
 authority is restrained, for he cannot cite any other out 
 of other diocese by any process ; but notwithstanding he 
 may do many great acts by himself, or his chancellor, in 
 every diocese. And he argued very much upon the 
 prerogative of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The jus- 
 tices did not then deliver any opinion in this case."
 
 PROBATES VOID, OR VOTUAHLK. 51 
 
 In Bingham 6) Sineathwkk, in the Exchequer 
 Chamber, 37 EHz. Croke's Ehz. 455, the plaintiff had 
 claimed title under an administration granted by the 
 Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Court held that the 
 pleading of such administration is not good, unless it is 
 averred that the deceased had assets in divers dioceses, 
 or within the diocese of Canterbury, or that the Arch- 
 bishop was loci illius ordinarius. " But it was moved by 
 Coke, the Queen's attorney, that the committing of 
 administration being by the Archbishop, although he 
 had not goods in divers dioceses, because it is in 
 his province wherein he hath jurisdiction, is not void, 
 but only voidable by sentence ; and it is not like to an 
 administration committed by another Bishop, of the 
 goods of the man who died in another diocese, or who 
 had goods in divers dioceses ; and this difference had 
 been taken and agreed in the Queen's Bench, and 
 therefore, it was agreed that the plea was well enough ; 
 but the justices said that it was all one, and that the 
 administration is void in both cases, and not voidable 
 only." 
 
 In Si}' John Nedham's case, 8 Coke, 135, " Arthur 
 Post and Catherine his wife, administratrix of Ehzabeth 
 Weldish, brought an action of debt against Sir John 
 Nedham (which plea began Mich. 7 James) in bond 
 of 200/, made to the said Ehzabeth : to which Cathe- 
 rine, the administration of all and singular the goods 
 which the said Elizabeth had at the time of her death, 
 was, after the death of the same Elizabeth, committed 
 by William, by divine permission. Bishop of Rochester, 
 at Rochester, on 5th Februaiy, 1605. The defendant 
 pleaded, that after the death of the said Elizabeth, 
 and before the commission of the aforesaid adminis- 
 e2
 
 52 PROBATES VOID, OR VOIDABLE. 
 
 tration, that is to say, on the 13th May, 1604, the 
 Dean and Chapter of Canterbury being guardians of 
 the spiritualties, sede vacante, of the Archbishop of 
 Canterbury, committed administration of the goods, &c. 
 of Elizabeth Weldish, to the defendant, because the 
 said Elizabeth had bona notabilia in divers dioceses 
 of the province of Canterbury, which administration 
 committed by the said Dean, doth yet remain in force. 
 The plaintiff replied, that after the said administration 
 granted by the said Dean, &,c. to the defendant, and 
 before the purchase of this original writ, sc. 4th Nov. 
 1607, before Dr. Bennet, Commissary of the Prero- 
 gative Court of Canterbury, at the suit of the said 
 Catherine, against the said defendant, the adminis- 
 tration granted to the defendant was pronounced and 
 declared null and void in every effect in law ; upon 
 which the defendant demurred in law. And in this 
 case these points were resolved. " Forasmuch as the 
 defendant had not shewn in his bar that the intestate 
 had bona notabilia in certain, for this cause it shall be 
 taken that the administration was granted where the 
 intestate had not bona notabilia in several dioceses ; 
 but yet it was agreed that such administration was not 
 void but voidable, as it was adjudged in Hugh Vere's 
 case, as it appears in the fifth part of my Reports for 29 
 and 30. 2dly. It was objected, that forasmuch as the 
 administration granted to the defendant was not void, 
 but voidable, so long as it was in force, the inferior 
 ordinary ought not to have committed administration, 
 for the Prerogative administration granted by the Arch- 
 bishop, and the administration granted by the inferior 
 ordinary, cannot stand and be of effect together, and 
 tlierefure confusion will ensue: and therefore the admi-
 
 PROBATES VOID, OR VOIDABLE. 53 
 
 nistration granted by the inferior ordinary was utterly 
 void ; and although the said Prerogative administration 
 be afterwards revoked, that shall not make the other 
 administration of any better effect, than it was at the 
 time it was granted, because what is void in the begin- 
 ning, cannot become good by process of time. But it 
 was answered and resolved, that now inasmuch as the 
 ecclesiastical judge has pronounced and declared the 
 letters of administration granted to the defendant null 
 and void to every effect in law, we must give credit to 
 them that it was for causes not appearing to us void from 
 the first. Vide 17 Eliz. Dyer, 339, the like judgment 
 upon the same reason. Also, the administration is but 
 an authority («), because he has nothing to his own use, 
 but all to the use of another, and an authority may ex- 
 pect and commence in futuro, and therefore it shall be 
 suspended until the other be repealed or declared void." 
 The case of Porte?- Sf lioc/iester (6), which was decided 
 in 6 James, and five years after the establishment of the 
 Canons of 1603, 13 Coke's Reports, p. 7, relates to the 
 citation of a person out of Essex, which is in the dio- 
 cese of London, into the Court of Arches, which was 
 held in a peculiar belonging to the Archbishop of 
 Canterbury, but situate within the diocese of Lon- 
 don; it was decided that, under the provisions of 
 the act of 23 Hen. VIIL, c. 9, the citation could not 
 be supported : the case is reported at great length, 
 and the following forms part of the decision. ''There 
 is a saving for the Archbishop calling any person out 
 of a diocese, where he shall be dwelling, to the probate 
 of any testament; which proviso would be in vain, if 
 
 (a) See Dyer, 339. (ftj Mich. Term, 6 Jas. I.
 
 54 PllOIJATKS VOID, Oil VOlOATiLE. 
 
 the Archbishop, notwitlistanding that act, should have 
 concurrent authority with every ordinary through his 
 whole province ; wherefore it was concluded, that the 
 Archbishop, out of his diocese, is prohibited by the 
 Act of 23 Hen. VIII., unless, in the cases excepted, 
 to cite any man out of any other diocese. And whereas 
 it is said, in the preamble of the act, in the Arches 
 Audience and other high courts of the Archbishops of 
 this realm : it is to be known that the Archbishops of 
 this realm, before that act, had power legatine from 
 the Pope, by which they pretended to have not only 
 supereminent authority over all, but concurrent autho- 
 rity with every ordinary in his diocese, not as Arch- 
 bishop of Canterbury, &c., but by his power and 
 authority legatine, so as before that Act, the Arch- 
 bishop of Canterbury was legatus natus, and by force 
 of his authority legatine, usurped against the Canons 
 upon all ordiaaries in his precinct, and by colour 
 thereof claimed concurrent authority with them, which 
 although they held in the Courts of the Archbishop, 
 the same was remedied by the act of 23 Hen. VIII., 
 c. 9; and all that which he usurped before was not as 
 he was Archbishop, for as to that he was restrained 
 by the Canons, but as he was legatus natus, which 
 authority is now taken away and abolished utterly." 
 
 In Turner S^ Vansdal, 25 Car. II. 3 Keble, 262, 
 Serjeant Hardy prayed prohibition for the administra- 
 tion in a Canterbury peculiar, in suit by the defendant 
 in prerogative, supposing a will and bona notabiUa, 
 which the plaintiff said were none, sed non allocatur ; per 
 Curiam, if there be no bona notahilia, the administration 
 m the prerogative is void ((S Cr. 457) and the first admi- 
 nistration stands ; and the prohibition was denied.
 
 OBSERVATIONS ON THE CASES. 
 
 O N a review of the cases that have been determined 
 on the subject of the probate or administration of the 
 Archbishop being voidable, or void, when there are not 
 bona notabilia, some will be found to have decided them 
 to be voidable, and others void. " If an administration 
 committed to a creditor be afterwards repealed at the 
 suit of the next of kin («), the creditor shall retain against 
 the rightful administrator, and all dispositions of goods 
 by him, pending the citation, shall stand ; for this is 
 not like the case of an administration granted by a 
 bishop of an inferior diocese, where the intestate had 
 bona notabilia, in divers dioceses, because there such 
 administration is actually void." An administration is 
 void when granted by a wrong ordinary, and voidable 
 when granted to a wrong person ; that is to say, when 
 an administration is granted by a Court, not having 
 jurisdiction, it is actually void. There is no doubt of 
 the application of this rule to the Courts of the Bishops 
 and other inferior ordinaries. In what respect, then, 
 does the Prerogative Court differ from them? It is 
 universally allowed that all the original jurisdiction 
 belonged to the Bishops {b), and " that they committed 
 several administrations for the goods in their respective 
 dioceses, when the deceased left goods in divers dioceses, 
 
 (a) Per Sir John Holt, Black- Ravenscroft v. Bavenscroft, 1 Lev. 
 
 orrugh\. Davis, I P.Williams, 43. 305. 
 
 Vide 1 Salk. 28. S. C. G Coke, 18. {!>) 4 Leonard, 2U. 2 Bl. 609. 
 Coke's Eliz. 460. Moore, 396.
 
 56 OBSRRVA'l IONS ON THE CASES. 
 
 in which case the niischief was very j^reat, for the 
 creditor was driven to bring several actions of" the 
 administrators of the several ordinaries : but after- 
 wards upon a decree upon a composition in such cases, 
 the metropolitan committed the administration." The 
 ordinary had, therefore, the original right to prove 
 wills, and grant administrations of all persons dying 
 within his diocese, and it was only by reason of the 
 goods out of such diocese, that the Prerogative Court 
 became entitled to the probate or administration («). 
 If, therefore, the probate or administration of the 
 ordinary can be considered as actually void, when he 
 is only deprived of his jurisdiction, by the fact that 
 the deceased had goods in another diocese ; the reason 
 is more forcible for considering a Prerogative admi- 
 nistration void, where there are not bona ■notahUia in 
 another diocese ; for the jurisdiction of the preroga- 
 tive Court is solely dependent upon the fact of there 
 being bona notabilia in another diocese. But the rea- 
 sons assigned, why the probate granted by the Pre- 
 rogative Court should be voidable only by sentence, 
 are, that the Archbishop has jurisdiction over the 
 whole province (6), that he was the first Bishop and 
 divided his province amongst his suffragans (c), and that 
 he was one of the Patriarchs (rf) ; meaning, thereby, that 
 he had concurrent jurisdiction throughout the whole 
 province. But all such concurrency of jurisdiction, 
 if, in truth, he ever had such, was prohibited or re- 
 pealed by the Statute of Citarions, 23 Hen. VIII., 
 c. 9, and is altogether overthrown by the decision in 
 
 (a) Canons 92 and 93. (c) 3 Bulstrode, 176. Hobart, 
 
 {!>) 5 Coke, 30. 185. 
 
 (d) 4 Leonard, 211. 13 Coke, 5.
 
 OBSERVATIONS ON THE CASES. 57 
 
 the case of Smeathwkk v. Bingham ; it being there 
 decided, that, to support any pleadings by execu- 
 tors or administrators, acting under probates or ad- 
 ministrations granted by the Archbishop of Canter- 
 bury, such probates or administrations must be stated 
 to have been granted by the Archbishop where there 
 were bona notabilia, or where all the goods were in 
 the diocese of Canterbury, or as ordinary of the place ; 
 for that othei'wise the pleadings would be set aside. 
 And it must be observed, that the principle of the case 
 of Vere and Jeff'eries, upon which the doctrine, that 
 the prerogative probate or administration, when there 
 are not bona notabilia, is only voidable by sentence, 
 depends, was overruled in the Exchequer Chamber in 
 the case of Smeathivick v. Bingham ; Sir Edward Coke, 
 (then Attorney General), having as counsel cited it, 
 when the Court declared such a probate or administra- 
 tion to be void. 
 
 The first legal acknowledgment of the Prerogative 
 Court, was by the statute 23 Hen. VIII., c. 9, the 
 proviso in that statute reserving to the Archbishop the 
 power of citing any person out of a diocese only, in 
 respect of his prerogative ; now this prerogative had 
 been previously defined by the composition of 1513, 
 and this composition was embodied into the canons of 
 1603, and the 93d Canon expressly declares that no 
 judge of the Archbishop's prerogative should thencefor- 
 ward cite, or cause to be cited, ex officio, any person 
 whatsoever to any of the aforesaid intents, (for probate 
 of will, 8ic.,) unless it should first appear to him, (''nisi 
 prills constiterit" in the original Canon,) that the party 
 deceased, was, at the time of his death, possessed of goods 
 and chattels m some other diocese or dioceses, or peculiar
 
 58 OBSERVATIONS ON THE CASES. 
 
 jurisdiction witliiu that province, than in that wherein 
 he died, amounting to the value of 5/., at the least; de- 
 cz'eeing and declaring that whoso hath not goods in 
 such case ("m hoc casu" in the original Canon,) to the 
 said sum or value, should not be accounted to have 
 bo7ia notabilia. Provided always, that if any judge of 
 theprerogative,or any his surrogate, register, or apparitor, 
 should cite, or cause any person to be cited into his 
 Court, contrary to the tenor of the premises, he should 
 restore to the party so cited, all his costs and charges; 
 and we do pronounce the acts of the same to be held 
 ipso jure, void and of no effect ( " et acta ejusdem ipso 
 jure vacua et pro niiUis habenda pronuuciamus," in the 
 original Canon). If it is assumed that the Canons do 
 not take away from the Prerogative Court, the right of 
 granting probates and administrations when the par- 
 ties voluntarily require them, it is answered that if a 
 voluntary jurisdiction had been intended, it would have 
 been reserved to the Archbishop in this Canon, in the 
 same manner as the voluntary jurisdiction, in cases of 
 bona notabilia in another diocese, is reserved to the 
 inferior Courts by the 92d Canon. No such reservation 
 could however have been in contemplation, for the juris- 
 diction of the Archbishop extends only to those cases 
 where there are bona notabilia in some other diocese 
 or peculiar jurisdiction than that wherein the party 
 died ; and the jurisdiction in all cases, where there are 
 not bona notabilia, belongs to the Bishop and inferior 
 ordinaries, as it is secured to them by the ancient 
 canons, which are not only sanctioned and confirmed by 
 time and practice, but more especially by the statute 
 of 25 Henry VIII., c. 19. 
 
 The conclusion, therefore, is, that if the Prerogative
 
 OBSERVATIONS ON THE CASES. 59 
 
 Court grants a probate or administration where there 
 are not bona notahilia, it makes a grant where it has no 
 jurisdiction, and where the jurisdiction belongs to 
 another Court, and such a grant in this, as in ail similar 
 cases, cannot be otherwise than coram noii judke, and 
 consequently actually void {a). 
 
 Should the decisions in the Courts of Common Law, 
 be relied upon as sanctioning the practice of considering 
 the Archbishop's probate voidable only, where there 
 are not bona notabilia in another diocese, it will be seen 
 on a careful examination, that those, which decide 
 the probate or administration to be void, have a 
 great preponderance, both as regards the cases them- 
 selves, and the correctness of the principle upon 
 which they are decided ; whilst those which declare 
 the probate or administration to be voidable only by 
 sentence, were founded on the ground, that the Arch- 
 bishop had a concurrent jurisdiction ; which, whatever 
 it might have been previous to the statute of 23 
 Hen. VIII. , certainly did not exist at the time of the 
 decision of these cases. When, therefore, it is con- 
 sidered that those cases, which make the probate or 
 administration void, coincide with the provisions of 
 the Canons, and that consequently those cases, which 
 make them voidable only, are in direct opposition to 
 the intent and effect of the Canons, there cannot be 
 any reason, either from the force of the cases decided, 
 or from the principle on which they are decided, 
 or otherwise, for deeming a probate or administration 
 granted by the Prerogative Court, where there are not 
 bona notabilia in another diocese, otherwise than void. 
 
 (a) Hob. 53.
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE BISHOP'S DIOCESAN COURT. 
 
 " DiocEsis dicitur distinctio, vel divisio sive guber- 
 riatio, qucB divisa et diversa est ah ecclesia alterius 
 episcopatus, et commissa est gubernationi unius: dio- 
 cese signifies the jurisdiction of one ordinary sepa- 
 rated and divided from others." — 13 Coke's Reports, 5. 
 
 " Ordinary, according to the acceptation of the 
 Common Law with us, is usually taken for him, that 
 hath ordinary jurisdiction in causes ecclesiastical 
 immediate to the King. He is in common under- 
 standing the Bishop of the diocese, and for most 
 part visitor of all his churches within his diocese, 
 and hath ordinary jurisdiction in all causes for the 
 doing of justice within his diocese, in jure proprio et 
 lion per deputationem. Ordinarius habet locum prin- 
 cipaliter in Episcopo et aliis superioribiis, qui soli 
 sunt universales in suisjurisdictionibus, sed sunt sub eo 
 alii ordinarii, hi videlicit, quibus competit jurisdictio 
 ordinaria de jure, privilegio, vel consuetudine." — Go- 
 dolphin's Ecclesiastical Law, 32. 
 
 " Though the probate of wills does of common right 
 belong to the Bishops, according to the Canon
 
 bishop's diocesan court. 61 
 
 Law, yet according to John de Athon, in a legatine 
 constitution, this power may accrue to inferior ordi- 
 naries , and hence it is that Archdeacons, Deans of 
 Churches, and Abbots, sometimes have the probate 
 of wills, &c. ; and even Lords of Manors, in right 
 of Abbots." — 2 Ayliffe's Parergon Juris., 534. 
 
 *' The insinuation or registering of wills is the pub- 
 lication of wills as the Acts of Court, and according 
 to the custom of England, this belongs to the Eccle- 
 siastical Courts ; that is to say, to the Bishops and 
 their officials, and by the like custom, so does the 
 approbation of them too." — 2 AylitFe, 534. 
 
 " The person, before whom the testament is to be 
 proved, is the Bishop of the diocese, to whom, by 
 the ancient custom observed these many hundred years, 
 together with the Royal consent of Kings and Princes 
 of this land, the probation and approbation of testa- 
 ments hath appertained" (a). 2 Swinburne on Wills, 771. 
 
 " If all the goods of the deceased lie within the same 
 jurisdiction, a probate before the ordinary, or an 
 administration granted by him, are the only proper 
 ones."— 3 Black. Com. 309. 
 
 The ancient constitutions and documents, as before set 
 forth, respecting the jurisdiction in probates and admi- 
 nistrations, and particularly the composition between 
 Walter, Archbishop of Canterbury, and John Dalderby, 
 Bishop of Lincoln, afford incontrovertible evidence, that 
 the whole of the testamentary jurisdiction in the Diocese 
 of Lincoln, originally belonged to the Bishop of the 
 Diocese, and more particularly so at the date of the com- 
 position. 
 
 (a) Swinburne was first published in 1590.
 
 G2 bishop's dio< ksan coirt. 
 
 The dispute between the Archbishop of Canterbury, 
 and the Bishop of Lincoln, related to the right of 
 granting probates and administrations, where the par- 
 ties dying left goods in some other diocese than the 
 diocese of Lincoln, and the composition of 1319, is 
 an acknowledgment by the Archbishop of Canterbury, 
 that such right belonged to the Bishop of Lincoln ; 
 and the Bishop of Lincoln regularly proved the wills 
 of all persons dying within the diocese, even when they, 
 at the time of their death, had goods in divers dioceses, 
 of which there are very numerous instances from the date 
 of the composition. In divers appointments of com- 
 missaries of Archdeaconries, special power was given to 
 the commissaries to prove the wills of all persons dying 
 in the diocese of Lincoln, and having goods in divers 
 dioceses ; and it is remarkable, that on the Metropolitan 
 Visitation of the diocese of Lincoln, by Archbishop 
 Cranmer, the Bishop of Lincoln granted the probate 
 &c., of all the wills proved during that Visitation. 
 
 Comparing these circumstances with the reservation 
 in the 92d Canon, of all compositions between the 
 Archbishop and any Bishops, from the operation 
 of the same Canon, this composition relating to the 
 diocese of Lincoln, must be one of those referred 
 to by this Canon : and as the Prerogative Court is a 
 new jurisdiction, when compared with that of the 
 Bishops, and as it was established by the Canons of 
 1603, it must derive its authority from those Canons; 
 and as its authority must be supported by these Canons, 
 they ought to be equally effective in supporting the 
 jurisdiction of the Bishop. At all events, the compo- 
 sition, and the practice under it, abundantly prove tliat 
 the Archbishop had no concurrent jurisdiction with the
 
 bishop's diocksan counr. 63 
 
 Bishop of Lincoln in testamentary matters, and conse- 
 quently his Prerogative Court must, as to the diocese of 
 Lincoln, be guided strictly by the Canons. 
 
 The Bishop of Lincoln therefore is still entitled to 
 exercise testamentary jurisdiction, throughout the whole 
 diocese, except in Royal Archiepiscopal and Manorial 
 .Peculiars ; and although several other Courts, such 
 as those of the Dean and Chapter, Prebendaries, and 
 Archdeacons, by composition or usage, and of the Com- 
 missaries by their appointment, may have right of pro- 
 bate, &c., yet in all cases to which their jurisdictions 
 do not extend, as when a person dies in one such juris- 
 diction, and has goods in another, within the diocese, 
 the Bishop has a right to the probate or administration.
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 JURISDICTION OF DEAN AND CHAPTER AND 
 PREBENDARIES. 
 
 There are twenty-four parishes in the county of 
 Lincoln, over which the Dean and Chapter of Lincohi 
 exercise jurisdiction ; and there are several other sepa- 
 rate parishes, over which the respective Prebendaries who 
 derive the name of their prebends from those parishes, 
 separately exercise jurisdiction. The jurisdictions of 
 the Dean and Chapter and Prebendaries were origi- 
 nally granted to them by Robert, Bishop of Lincoln, 
 about the year 1 1 60 (a), to exempt them from Archidiaco- 
 nal jurisdiction ; and their appeal is, by the statutes of 
 the church of Lincoln, reserved to the Bishop. The 
 present practice is in accordance with the original grant, 
 and their jurisdictions are inhibited for three months 
 once in every three years, at the time of the Bishop's 
 primary and triennial visitations, and all jurisdiction in 
 them is, during the inhibition, exercised by the Bishop 
 and his Chancellor; but during the remainder of the 
 three years, the Dean and Chapter and Prebendaries 
 exercise jurisdiction in their respective parishes. Accord- 
 
 («) See Appendix I., No. 5.
 
 DEAN AND CHAPTER'S JURISDICTION. G5 
 
 ing to the case of Beare Ss Biles v. Jacob, Hilary Term, 
 1829, 2 Haggard's Reports, 263, these jurisdictions 
 are not peculiar and exempt jurisdictions, but subordi- 
 nate to the Bishop, and in relation to the jurisdiction 
 of the Prerogative Court, in cases of bona notabilia, can 
 be considered only as a part of the diocese of Lincoln ; 
 and when persons die or leave bona notabilia within 
 such jurisdictions, their wills or administrations cannot 
 be subject to the Prerogative Court, except where such 
 person shall leave bona notabilia, or die within some 
 peculiar belonging to the Archbishop of Canterbury, or 
 within some peculiar belonging to some other diocese, 
 or within some other diocese than the diocese of Lin- 
 coln. See, however, the subsequent enquiry into the 
 nature of peculiar and exempt jurisdictions. 
 
 In case of a person dying within one such juris- 
 diction, or within any Commissaryship or Archdeaconry, 
 and having goods to the value of 5/. in any other such 
 jurisdiction, Commissaryship, or Archdeaconry, the 
 probate of his will, or the administration to his effects 
 should be granted by the Bishop, or his Chancellor ; 
 for a probate or administration so granted will be effec- 
 tual throughout the diocese ; but a probate or adminis- 
 tration granted by the official or judge of any such 
 jurisdiction, Commissaryship, or Archdeaconry, will be 
 of no avail beyond the jurisdiction, within which it is 
 granted.
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 COURTS OF THE COMMISSARIES FOR THE 
 ARCHDEACONRIES. 
 
 The Bishop, by patent, appoints a Commissary for 
 each Archdeaconry in his diocese, and such Commissary 
 is the Bishop's representative within the Archdeaconry, 
 and amongst other things, exercises testamentary juris- 
 diction. At the passing of the act of 24 Hen. VIII. 
 the Commissaries were appointed during the pleasure 
 of the Bishop, but they now receive their appointments 
 for their lives. But although the Commissary repre- 
 sents the Bishop, yet as the jurisdictions of the Dean 
 and Chapter and Prebendaries, are exempt from the 
 Archdeacon, and consequently do not form part of 
 the Archdeaconry within which they are situated, 
 the jurisdiction of the Commissary cannot extend over 
 them, for it only extends over the same parishes 
 and places as the jurisdiction of the Archdeacon. 
 In the case of The King against W. Yoiinge, D.D. the 
 Court decided that " the appointment of the Bishop, 
 as it regards the power of the Commissary to prove 
 wills, arms him with episcopal authority for that pur- 
 pose. The grant of the power attracts to it all the 
 means by which that power can be exercised. The 
 Commissary is Bishop for the purpose of proving such 
 wills, as he is authorised by the grant to prove." It is
 
 COVfMISS ARlES' COURTS, G7 
 
 difficult to understand the case, but as the authority oC 
 the Commissary extends only over the Archdeaconry, 
 it can only have been decided, that he had Episcopal 
 authority over such Archdeaconry ; and the return to 
 the mandamus issued in this Case having stated that 
 the probate was as valid in law, as if it liad been 
 granted by the Vicar-General, in the said Consistorial 
 or Episcopal Court, and that the Court of the Arch- 
 deaconry of Sudbury had possession of the original 
 will, and denied that the defendant had authority to 
 issue a monition, the confirmation of the return by the 
 Court, could be considered only as deciding that the 
 probate was valid, and that the defendants had no right 
 to issue a monition. 
 
 The Commissary is inhibited from exercising juris- 
 diction, for three months, once in three years, at the 
 time of the Bishop's primary and triennial visitations, 
 and his jurisdiction is, consequently, subordinate to 
 the Bishop. See Beare &f Biles v, Jacob, 2 Haggard's 
 Reports, 263. 
 
 The Commissary, mentioned in the statute of 24 H. 
 VIII. c. 5, must have been intended for the Bishop's vicar- 
 general and official principal, or chancellor, and not 
 for his Commissaries in the archdeaconries ; for the 
 vicar-general and official-principal was formerly ap- 
 pointed by the Bishop, to supply his place in his 
 diocesan Court (a), when urgent business required his 
 absence from his diocese ; and consequently the acts 
 speeded in the diocesan Court must have had the same 
 effect, whether the Bishop himself or his vicar-general 
 and official-principal presided. If the appeal be from 
 the Bishop to the Archbishop, the appeal from the vicar- 
 
 (<0 Smith'sMemoianaums, 2aiid 118, untih 149,3, 1499. 
 F 2
 
 68 COM MISS ARIKS' COURTS. 
 
 general and official-principal must necessarily be the 
 same ; and this must have been the view taken by the 
 framers of the statute, for it speaks of the Bishop or his 
 Commissary, as of persons, that, at dift'erent times, pre- 
 sided over the same Court : in the same manner as it 
 mentions the Archdeacon or his official. If the statute 
 had intended the word Commissary to comprehend the 
 Commissaries of the Archdeaconries, the conjunction 
 would have been copulative, as comprehending the 
 Courts of the Commissaries as well as that of the 
 Bishop, and not disjunctive ; for the Commissaries of 
 the Archeaconries were appointed to hold their Courts 
 within those Archdeaconries, because the Bishop 
 himself could not conveniently hold his diocesan Court 
 there. It is laid down by Sir John Nicholl, in the 
 case of Parham &; Templar (a), that the visitation and 
 appeal necessarily go together. Now, as the Com- 
 missaries of the Archdeaconries are the mere delegates of 
 the Bishop, as their jurisdictions are periodically in- 
 hibited by him for three months once in three years, 
 and as during such inhibition the Bishop not only visits 
 all the districts comprised within the jurisdiction of the 
 Commissaries, but his chancellor exercises all ecclesi- 
 astical jurisdiction within such districts during the 
 inhibition, the jurisdiction of the Commissaries must 
 be subordinate to the Bishop, and being so, the 
 appeal from the Commissaries must be to the Bishop, 
 as to their immediate superior (/>). If the word Com- 
 missary in the statute, is considered as applicable 
 only to the Bishop's chancellor, all the jurisdictions 
 are clear and intelligible ; but if it is construed to 
 comprise the Commissaries of the Archdeaconries, 
 
 (a) 3 Phillimore's Reports, 246. 186 ; J Oughton, 404, title, 274. 
 (/>) 6 Mod. Rep. 308 ; I lob. 16,
 
 commissaries' courts. 69 
 
 then the various jurisdictions of the diocese become 
 confused, and irreconcileable with the principles laid 
 down as regulating them. And that the Commis- 
 sary mentioned in the statute must have been the 
 chancellor of the Bishop, is to be collected from the 
 ancient practice as laid down in Linwood (a), where, 
 after mentioning the vicar-general and official principal 
 of the Bishop, it is said, " I estimate differently the 
 officials for foreign parts {officiales foranci episcoponim). 
 Nor does it make any difference if they say that they 
 have jurisdiction in all causes; inasmuch as they have 
 not general jurisdiction with the Bishop, but particu- 
 larly in a certain district, or in a certain place belonging 
 to the jurisdiction of the Bishop, and such officials have 
 not the same consistory with the Bishop, but the appeal 
 is from them to the Bishop." And it is fuitlter said in 
 Linwood (b), " I ask in what these official principals 
 differ from other judges deputed by the Bishops. First, 
 they have the same Court of Audience with the Bishops, 
 nor is the appeal from them to the Bishops, but to those to 
 whom the appeal is made from the Bishops themselves. 
 Nor yet is it so in others, who are not olffcial principals ; 
 such as officials for foreign parts, who are deputed even 
 for the decision of causes of all descriptions, in a certain 
 part of a diocese. But from these others the appeal 
 must be to the Bishop himself. And they differ also in 
 this, that the official principals are ordinaries, but the 
 others are delegates." The same principles are laid 
 down by Ayliffe (c). 
 
 If it is said that the appeal from the Commissaries of 
 the Archdeaconries has, according to the practice of 
 late years, been to the Archbishop, and not to the 
 
 (a) Linwood, 80, note. (c) Ayliffe, Par. 76, 163; 1 
 
 {!)) Ibid, 106, note. Oughton, 404, title, 274.
 
 70 commissaries' courts. 
 
 Bishop ; such practice has so obtained a footing in 
 violation of the ancient laws and ancient practice regu- 
 lating such appeals, and in opposition to the principles 
 at present laid down for ascertaining to whom an appeal 
 should be made ; for if the visitation and appeal go 
 together, the appeal from the Commissaries of the 
 Archdeaconries in the diocese of Lincoln must be to 
 the Bishop, it being incontrovertibly clear that the 
 Bishop has always exercised, and still exercises his 
 right of visitation in the Commissaryships. 
 
 The observations which, entreating of the jurisdiction 
 of the Dean and Chapter and Prebendaries, were made 
 in respect of tlie jurisdiction of the Prerogative Court, 
 are applicable to the jurisdiction of the Commissaries ; 
 with this addition, that there can be no pretence for 
 giving to the jurisdictions of the Commissaries, either 
 the name or title of peculiars and exempt jurisdictions, 
 or, consequently, for considering them to be subject to 
 the jurisdiction of the Prerogative Court, except as part 
 of the diocese. For if on a person's dying, or leaving 
 bona notabilia in any such jurisdiction, and leaving 
 bona notabilia or dying in another part of the same 
 diocese, the probate or administration should be deemed 
 to belong to the Prerogative Court, these jurisdictions 
 must be considered to be distinct from the diocese, 
 and exempt from the jurisdiction of the Bishop. 
 Where then would be the diocese, if all the Com- 
 missaryships were to be so considered ? And it would 
 lead to this absurdity, that the Commissaryships of the 
 Archdeaconries would be exempt from the Bishop, 
 whilst the jurisdictions of the Archdeacons, which 
 extend over the same parishes and places, as the juris- 
 dictions of the Commissaries, would not be exempt 
 from the Bishop.
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 THE COURTS OF THE ARCHDEACONS. 
 
 The Archdeacons are collated to their Archdeaconries 
 by the Bishop, and installed by the Dean and Chapter. 
 They exercise testamentary jurisdiction, but it is not 
 known whether they have derived it by composition, or 
 usage only. It is, however, inhibited for three months 
 once in three years, in the same manner as that of the 
 Commissaries, and is subordinate to the Bishop. See 
 Beare and Biles v. Jacob, 2 Haggard's Reports, 263. 
 
 With respect to the jurisdiction of the Prerogative 
 Court, in relation to the Archdeaconries, reference must 
 be had to the observations on the jurisdictions of the 
 Dean and Chapter, Prebendaries, and Commissaries.
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 PECULIAR JURISDICTIONS. 
 
 If any doubt should be entertained whether the 92d 
 and 93d Canons are applicable only to the peculiars 
 belonging to the Archbishop of Canterbury, or whether 
 they may extend over other peculiars, it will be neces- 
 sary to enquire into the nature of Peculiar Jurisdic- 
 tions ; and, 
 
 I. What is a peculiar and exempt jurisdiction ? 
 II. What j urisdictions come under the denomi- 
 nation of a peculiar and exempt jurisdiction. 
 
 III. What jurisdictions are not exempt from, but 
 subordinate to, the Bishop of the diocese. 
 
 IV. What peculiars are subject to the Prerogative 
 Court, by reason of a person having, at the 
 time of his death, goods or good debts to the 
 value of 5/. in another peculiar or diocese 
 than in that wherein he died. 
 
 I. What is a peculiar and exempt jurisdiction ^ 
 Ayliffe, in his Parergon Juris Carionici Angiicani, 
 gives the following description of peculiars, in p. 417.
 
 PECULIAR JURISDICTIONS. 
 
 73 
 
 "There are many peculiar or exempt jurisdictions in 
 England, to the great inconvenience and hardship of 
 the subject: but these are not called exempt jurisdic- 
 tions, because they are under no ordinary, but because 
 they are not under the ordinary of the diocese, but have 
 one of their own." 
 
 In p. 419 of the same work, he adds : — " All such 
 parishes and places which we call peculiars, are ex- 
 empted from the jurisdiction of the proper ordinary of 
 the diocese where they lie, not only in respect to the 
 probates of wills, and granting letters of administration 
 which are matters of voluntary jurisdiction, and the 
 like ; but also exempt from the cognizance of ^11 mat- 
 ters of contentious jurisdiction : and whenever they 
 have reason to appeal a cause from their own ordinary, 
 it is to the King in his High Court of Chancery, and 
 not to the Bishop of the diocese, or the provincial Arch- 
 bishop." 
 
 *' A peculiar prima facie is to be understood of him 
 that has jurisdiction co-ordinate with the Bishop." — 
 6 Mod. Rep. 308. 
 
 In the case of Parharn v. Templar, 3 Phillimore's 
 Reports, 248, Sir John Nicholl, after taking a general 
 review of the nature of peculiars, says — " the general 
 result of this, is, that a peculiar is not subordinate to, 
 but co-ordinate with the jurisdiction of the Bishop." 
 
 From these authorities, it is to be collected that a 
 peculiar and exempt jurisdiction is not subordinate to, 
 but co-ordinate with the jurisdiction of the Bishop of 
 the diocese in which it is situated; and that the Eccle- 
 siastical jurisdiction there is exercised solely by the 
 Dean and Chapter, Prebendary, &.C., or their respective 
 officers, without being subject to the controul and
 
 74 PECULIAR JURISDICTIONS. 
 
 visitation of the Bishop, and without having their 
 appeal to him. 
 
 II. What jurisdictions come under the denomina- 
 tion of a pecuhar and exempt jurisdiction. 
 
 1st. " Of these pecuhar and exempt jurisdictions, there 
 are several sorts, viz., Royal peculiars, which are the 
 King's free chapels, and those are exempt from any 
 jurisdiction but the King's : and, therefore, such may be 
 resigned into the King's hands as their proper ordinary, 
 either by ancient privilege or inherent right. But how 
 far resignation may be made into the King's hands, as 
 supreme ordinary, as in Goodman's case, it is not here 
 a place to examine. 2d, Archbishops had, and have 
 still, their peculiars, which are not only in the neigh- 
 bouring dioceses, but dispersed up and down in remoter 
 places ; for it appears by Eadmerus, that wherever the 
 Archbishop had an estate belonging to him, he had the 
 sole jurisdiction as ordinary. 3d, Deans and Chapters 
 had likewise their peculiars ; which are places wherein, 
 by ancient composition, the Bishops have parted with 
 their jurisdiction as ordinaries to those societies, whose 
 right was not original, but derived from the Bishop ; 
 and when the composition is lost it depends upon pre- 
 scription, as in the Deans and Chapters of St. Paul 
 and Litchfield, which are mentioned in the Year Books. 
 And lastly, monasteries had also their peculiars belong- 
 ing to them." — AylitFe's Parergon, 418, 
 
 " I have said before, that Deans and Chapters have 
 their peculiars by ancient composition from the Bishops, 
 as ordinaries to those bodies of men. But where these 
 compositions are lost, and there has been a constant 
 usage, time out of mind, for these societies to grant
 
 PECULIAR JURISDICTIONS. 75 
 
 institutions, they may in such cases maintain their right 
 by prescription, and this is done by the Dean and 
 Chapter of St. Paul's in London, and by the Dean and 
 Chapters of York and Litchfield."— Ayhffe, 418. 
 
 " There are Royal peculiars and Archbishop's pecu- 
 liars ; the King's Chapel is a Royal peculiar, exempted 
 from all spiritual jurisdiction, and referred to the im- 
 mediate government of the King ; there are also some 
 peculiar ecclesiastical jurisdictions belonging to the 
 King, which formerly appertained to monasteries and 
 religious houses. It is an ancient privilege of the See 
 of Canterbury, that wherever any manors or advowsons 
 belong to it, they forthwith become exempt from the 
 ordinary, and are reputed peculiars of that See ; not 
 because they are under no ordinary, but because they 
 are not under the ordinq,ry of the diocese, &c. ; for the 
 jurisdiction thereof is annexed to the Court of Arches, 
 and the Judge thereof may originally cite to these 
 peculiars of the Archbishop." — Wood's Institute, 530. 
 
 The several peculiars which are also exempt juris- 
 dictions are, 1st, The King's peculiars ; 2d, The Arch- 
 bishop's peculiars ; 3d, The pecuhars of some Deans 
 and Chapters, as of St. Paul's, of the Dean and Chapter 
 of Salisbury, of the Dean and Chapter of Lichfield, 
 8cc. ; 4th, Peculiars of Monasteries ; but as the exemption 
 of each Dean and Chapter from the jurisdiction of the or- 
 dinary must depend upon the compositions entered into 
 with their respective Bishops, or in cases where such 
 compositions have been lost, upon the usage, as proof of 
 the composition, it is presumed that no general rule can be 
 laid down upon the subject, either that the j urisdictions of 
 Deans and Chapters are, or are not, peculiars and exempt 
 from the ordinary of their respective dioceses ; but that
 
 76 PECULIAR JURISDICTIONS. 
 
 some Deans and Chapters exercise jurisdictions subor- 
 dinate to the Bishop will appear by the third division 
 of the subject. 
 
 III. What jurisdictions are not exempt from, but 
 subordinate to, the Bishop of the diocese. 
 
 " There are some peculiars which belong to Deans 
 and Chapters, or a Prebendary, exempted from the 
 Archdeacon only ; they are derived from the Bishop, 
 of ancient composition, ■ and may be visited by the 
 Bishop in his primary or triennial visitations ; in the 
 meantime the official of the Dean and Chapter, or 
 Prebendary, is the Judge ; and from hence the appeal 
 lies to the Bishop of the diocese. — Wood, 530. Ap- 
 peal lieth from other peculiar Courts to the King in 
 Chancery.— Stat. 25 Hen. VIII. c. 19. The Dean 
 and Chapter of St. Paul's have a peculiar jurisdiction ; 
 and the Dean and Chapter of Salisbury have a large 
 peculiar within that diocese ; so have the Dean and 
 Chapter of Lichfield," Sec— 2 Nelson's Abridg. 1240, 
 1241. 
 
 " If a peculiar be subordinate to the Bishop, then 
 he cannot refer a cause to the Archbishop, but to the 
 immediate ordinary, as an Archdeacon or Commissary 
 must do ; otherwise it is, if the peculiar have his im- 
 mediate resort to the Archbishop." — Hob. 186. 
 
 Holt, C. J., says, "There are three sets of peculiars ; 
 the first is when Archdeacons, &c., have a peculiar 
 within the diocese, and subject to the jurisdiction of 
 the ordinary; second, when one has a peculiar not 
 subject to the ordinary, but to the Archbishop; and 
 the third is when one has a peculiar, subject neither to 
 the ordinary nor to the Archbishop, as there are some.
 
 PECULIAR JURISDICTIONS. 77 
 
 And though the Dean of Sarum is to some purposes 
 subject to the jurisdiction of the Bishop, yet as to this 
 pecuhar, it is all one, as if it was a stranger ; and it is 
 not under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Sarutn, more 
 than of the Bishop of London." — Skinner's Reports, 
 589. 
 
 " All peculiars are not inferior to the ordinary of the 
 diocese in which they are ; and such as are not cannot 
 transmit any cause to the ordinary, and such transmit- 
 ting must always be to the immediate superior; the 
 Dean and Chapter of Salisbury have a large peculiar 
 within the limits of the Diocese, but as much out of the 
 jurisdiction of the diocese of Sarum as the diocese of 
 London is. The peculiar jurisdiction of an Archdeacon 
 is not properly a peculiar, but a subordinate jurisdic- 
 tion."— Pe;- Lord Ch. J. Holt, 6 Mod. Rep. 308.— 
 Vide Rob. 185, 186. 
 
 From the introductory words in the case last cited, it 
 may be presumed, that it was the opinion of Lord Holt, 
 that the majority of peculiars are subject to the juris- 
 diction of the diocesan. 
 
 In Parham &; Templar, 3 Phill. 246, ** There is a 
 third description of peculiars, which are still subject to 
 the Bishop's visitation, and being so, are still liable to 
 his superintendence and jurisdiction. Wood in his 
 Institute mentions these. He says, " These the Bishop 
 visits at his first and triennial visitations. Here the 
 appeal lies from the peculiar to tlie diocesan, but the 
 right of appeal and the right of visitation seem almost 
 necessarily to go together." Per Sir John Nicholl. 
 
 In the case of Beare and Biles v. Jacob, Hilary 
 Term, 1829, 2 Haggard's Reports, 257, the main ques- 
 tion related to the jurisdiction of the Subdean of
 
 78 PKCULTAR Jl'RlSDICTIONS. 
 
 Sarum. Sir John Nkholl says, " The first point which 
 hardly admits of any question, either of fact or law, has 
 been but little pressed in argument. The instrument 
 of appointment of the Subdean has been exhibited, and 
 is merely subordinate and archidiaconal : the Bishop 
 visits and inhibits : during his visitation the Subdean 's 
 jurisdictiQn is wholly suspended, and is merged in and 
 exercised by the Bishop as in ordinary archdeaconries. 
 This jurisdiction of the Subdean of Sarum is well ascer- 
 tained, and has been made more public by the return 
 to Parliament, in the last Session, of courts exercising 
 ecclesiastical jurisdiction, ' In the diocese of Sarum,' it 
 is stated, ' the Bishop of Sarum, by his chancellor, 
 exercises the authority of granting probates and admi- 
 nistrations in the subdeanery of Sarum, during the 
 Bishop's triennial visitarion for six months, only con- 
 taining five parishes. The Subdean of Sarum exercises 
 the (above) authority, except for six months every third 
 year as aforesaid.' This return confirms what appears 
 from the instruments of appeal, and from the appoint- 
 ment of the Subdean, that he is appointed by the 
 diocesan, and has a mere subordinate jurisdiction; and 
 his jurisdiction being subordinate, and not peculiar and 
 exempt, no doubt in common cases the appeal lies to 
 the diocesan, and not per saltiim to the Archbishop." 
 
 Although Lord Holt, in the case of Johnson &f Ley, 
 called the jurisdiction of archdeacons, &c. peculiars, 
 within the diocese, and subject to the jurisdiction of 
 the ordinary; yet in the case, in 6 Mod. Reports, 
 his Lordship stated that the jurisdiction of an arch- 
 deacon is not properly a peculiar, but a subordinate 
 jurisdiction. The case of Beare and Biles v. Jacob, 
 was determined upon the same principle, and has ren-
 
 PECULIAR JURISDICTIONS. 79 
 
 dered clear the distinction, that those jurisdictions only 
 are peculiars which are exempt from the Bishop of the 
 diocese in which they lie, and that the jurisdictions of 
 deans and chapters, prebendaries and archdeacons, 
 which are subject to the visitation of the Bishop, are 
 inhibited from exercising jurisdiction during such visi- 
 tation, and have their appeal to his consistorial court, 
 are subordinate jurisdictions, and not peculiars. 
 
 IV. What peculiars are subject to the jurisdiction 
 of the Prerogative Court, by reason of a 
 person having at the time of his death goods, 
 or good debts, to the value of 51. in another 
 such peculiar, or in another diocese. 
 It is laid down in the case of Parham ^ Templar, 
 " that in the cases of wills and administrations, where 
 there are bona notahilia, peculiars are considered as 
 separate jurisdictions, and not as being part of the 
 diocese ; for if there are bona notabilia in a diocese 
 under the ordinary jurisdiction of the Bishop, and also 
 in a pecuhar in that diocese, or in two peculiars situated 
 within the same diocese, in such case the probate 
 belongs to the Archbishop. It is so expressly laid 
 down by Gibson (a), Swinburne (6), and in a case in 
 Siderfin (c); and it is declared by those authorities, that 
 in such case probate shall be granted, not by the dio- 
 cesan, but by the Archbishop, because such peculiars are 
 exempt from the jurisdiction, of the diocesan. The dis- 
 tinguishing feature, therefore, by which peculiars may 
 be known to be subject to the Prerogative Court, by 
 
 (a) Gibson's Codex, 565. (c) Tull v. Osbenm, 1 Sid. 90. I 
 
 (6) Swinburne, 772. Keble, 367.
 
 80 PECULIAR JURTSDICTTONS. 
 
 reason of there being buna notabilia, is that such juris- 
 dictions are exempt from the controul and superinten- 
 dence of the Bishop of the diocese, in which they are 
 situated, or to which they belong ; and the evidence of 
 their exemption consists in the fact of their not being 
 subject to the Bishop's visitation, and by their not 
 having their appeal to him. On the other hand, 
 wherever ecclesiastical jurisdictions are periodically in- 
 hibited by the Bishop, and are subject to his visitation, 
 and have their appeal to him, they are not peculiar 
 jurisdictions, but subordinate to the Bishop, and not 
 being peculiars, are not subject to the jurisdiction of 
 the Prerogative Court, either in cases of persons dying 
 in them, and having at their deaths goods in any 
 similar jurisdiction or in tlie diocese in which such 
 jurisdictions are situated ; or in cases where the parties 
 die in the diocese, in which these jurisdictions are 
 situate, and have, at the time of their deaths, goods 
 to the value of 5/. in any such jurisdiction or juris- 
 dictions.
 
 APPENDIX I. 
 
 No. I. 
 
 Copy of the Composition entered into between 
 Walter, Archbishop of Ccuiterbun/, and John 
 Dniderby, Bishop of Linco/n, in 1319. 
 
 NovERiNT universi prsesentes litcras inspecturi quod cum 
 inter pie memoriae Dominum Robertum Cantuariensem Ar- 
 chipiscopum totius Anglise primatem ex parte una, et Domi- 
 num Johannem Dei gratia Lincolniensem episcopum ex altera, 
 occasione probationum sive insinuationum et eommissionum 
 administrationum bonorum necnon redditionum ratiocinii 
 executorum testamentorum eorum qui dum vixerint plura bona 
 spiritualia sive temporalia in civitate et dioecesi Lincolniensi 
 necnon et in aliis dioecesibus vel dioecesi provincise Cantua- 
 riensis aut in locis aliis ecclesiee Cantuariensi immediate sub- 
 jectis hactenus habueruntubicunque obierint quas probationes 
 insinuationes commissiones ratiocinii redditiones cognitionesque 
 causanmi quae per creditores et legatarios vel quoscunque alios 
 querulantes contra executores testamentorum hujumodi pro 
 bonis praecipue hujusmodi decedentium in sua civitate vel 
 dioecesi existentibus ad se et ecclesiam suam Lincolniensem 
 
 * This composition is registered in Daldeiby's Memorandums, fol. 409, 
 and other books of registry, in the Registry of the Lord Bishop of Lincoln, 
 at Lincoln ; in the Registry of the Dean and Chapter of Lincoln ; in the 
 Registry at Lambeth Palace, Lib. 585, p. 32L See Index of tlie Docu- 
 ments at Lambeth Palace, p. 85.
 
 82 APPENDIX. 
 
 pertinere debere constanter asseruit tam de jure quam de 
 hactenus approbata pacifice obscrvata ct obtenta consuetudiue 
 ac prsescripta. Prsefato domino Archiepiscopo contrariurii 
 asserente orta fuisset materia questionis cujusmodi occasione 
 inter dictum Episcopum Lincolniensem partem appellantem 
 et preefatum Archiepiscopum partem appellatam in Romana 
 curia lis penderet et pendeat in prsesenti. Demum hujus 
 qusestionis et litis materia inter reverendum patrem dominum 
 Walterum Dei gratia Canturarienseni Archiepiscopum totius 
 Angliee primatem qui nunc est et dictum dominum Johannem 
 episcopum Lincolniensem in forma quae sequitur perpetuo 
 valitura amicabiliter conquievit. Videlicet quod dictusepiscopus 
 Lincolniensis et successores sui episcopi jure ordinario per- 
 petuis temporibus in futurum habeant probationes insinua- 
 tiones commissiones administrationum bonorum auditiones 
 redditionum ratiocinii executorum testamentorum deceden- 
 tium quorumcunque parochianorum suorum qui plura bona 
 in diversis dioecesibus provincise Cantuariensis dum vixerint 
 habuerant pro bonis illis quae iidem decedentes in civitate vel 
 dioecesi Lincolniensi tempore mortis suae habuerunt necnon 
 expeditiones earum ac cognitiones causarum praedictas quae 
 occasione bonorum hujusmodi inter partes quascunque qua- 
 tenus ad forum ecclesiasticum pertinent in Lincolniensi dioecesi 
 suscitari contingent. Reservata dicto domino Archiepiscopo et 
 suis successoribus post redditiones calculationes sive expedi- 
 tiones alias ratiocinii administrationum executorum hujusmodi 
 testamentorum, summa et ultima inspectione hujusmodi ac 
 ab administratione executorum absolutione finali ratiociniorum 
 calculationum et expeditionum si eas ut metropolitanus ea 
 occasione quod decedentes prsedicti obtinuerunt in diversis 
 dioecesibus suae provinciae plura bona inspicere voluerit. Ita 
 tamen quod idem dominus Archiepiscopus et successores sui 
 Archiepiscopi ipsas redditiones calculationes et expeditiones 
 per proedictum episcopum factas absque aliquali calumnia et 
 sine difficultate approbare teneantur. Renunciarunt insuper
 
 APPENDIX. 83 
 
 partes prsoclictse appellationibus hinc inde occasione praedicta 
 interpositio. Omnibusque prosecutionibus eariim ac juris, 
 processibus pendentibus sibi competentibus hinc vel inde. 
 In quorum testimonium sigilla dictorum patrum prsesentibus 
 Uteris perviam indenturae confectis hinc inde mutuo sunt 
 appensa. Actum et datum quoad nos Walterum Archiepisco- 
 pum preedictum 6 Id. Januarii, anno domini, 1319, in 
 prioratu Huntingdoni. 
 
 No. II. 
 
 Copy of the StatemetU of the Snfragfni Bishops 
 of the Province of Canteihury, in the Contro- 
 versy moved in Convocation, respecting the Pro- 
 hate of Wilis.* 
 
 Sequitur breve compendium illorum, qupp sufFraganei 
 Cant, provinciae pro bono pacis inter dominum Archiepisco- 
 pum Cant, et ipsos quoad jurisdictionisexercitium, etprsecipue 
 circa testamentorum in dioecesibussuffraganeorum decedentium 
 examinatione, et approbatione, taliumque decedentium ulti- 
 marum voluntatum executionem, quee omnia de consue- 
 tudine regni Anglise jurisdictionis ecclesiasticse sunt, et ad 
 forum spectant ecclesiasticum, habendum summo studio ex- 
 cogitarunt ; et in quibus iidem sufFraganei cum domino Ar- 
 chiepiscopo, sedandse litis causa, tractatum habuerunt, quseque 
 sibi, licet non sine juris eorum et ecclesiarum suarum aliquali 
 diminutione, fovendae tamen sanctse pacis prsetextu obtule- 
 runt. 
 
 Imprimis ponunt sufFraganei pro fundamento, et, si 
 necesse fuerit, probare volunt, quod de consuetudine regni 
 Angliee testamentorum approbatio, sive insinuatio estjuris- 
 
 * 3 Wilkins's Concilia, 653 ; see also amonp;st the Records at Lambeth, 
 Lib. 582, p. 22. 
 
 G 2
 
 84 APPENDIX. 
 
 dictionis ecclesiasticse, et ad forum eoclesiasticum spectat, 
 quodque constitutionibus tarn provincine Cantuariensis quam 
 Octoboni, olim in dicto regno Anglioe sedis apostolicce legati, 
 ac de consuetudine predict, testamentorum hujusmodi appro- 
 batio, in singulisque dioecesibus dictse provinciae ad viam in- 
 testator. decedentium. bonorum administratio, et ipsius com- 
 missio, cseteraque voluntatum ultimarum hujusmodi deceden- 
 tium executores concernent. ad locorum ordinaries spectantet 
 pertinent, prout ex inspectione constitutionum prsedictarum 
 dicteeque consuetudinis notorietate liquet evidenter ; ex qui- 
 bus sequitur dictum dominum Archiepiscopum prsetendent 
 jus approbandi testamenta subdit. suffraganeorum suorum 
 cseteraque prsemiss. casu quo dictorum sufFraganeorum subditi 
 sic, ut preemittitur, decedentes, mortis suae tempore bona in 
 diversis dioec. provincise Cant, habuerint, sibi ex quadam 
 prserogativa sive quod am privilegio competere suam non 
 posse in hac parte intentionem, nisi aliquo jure speciali fun- 
 dare. Eapropter eidem Archiepiscopo supplicarunt dicti 
 sufFraganei, quatenus ipse declarare dignaretur eisdem hujus- 
 modi praerogativae, si quae tahs esset, naturam atque certitudi- 
 nem, an viz. praetendat hujusmodi subdit. sufFraganeorum in 
 eorum dicEc. decedentium, ac bona tempore suae mortis in 
 diversis dioecesibus ejusdem provinciae pro relinquentium testa- 
 mentorum approbatione, ac caetera pra^missa ad se pertinere, 
 casu quod decedentes ipsi tempore praedicto bona in diversis 
 hujusmodi dioecesibus obtineant notabiha, et non aliter? Et si 
 sic, tunc utdeclararet,quid,sivequantum ejus opinione bonorum 
 notabihum appellatione comprehendatur, sen ad quam sum- 
 mam extendere debeat ad efFectum, ut notabiha dici possint ; 
 et si praetenderet, se praefatam habere praerogativam etiam 
 quoad bona, quae non possunt dici notabiha, tunc instarunt 
 ipsi sufFraganei, hcet certum fuerit ipsum hoc non posse justifi- 
 care, ut per eundem Archiepiscopum dilucidaretur, ultra 
 quam bonorum summam, quantitatem sive quem valorem, 
 hujusmodi praerogativae locus esset, et a qua summa, seu 
 bonorum quantitate, vel supra quam summam sive quantita- 
 tem praerogativa praedicta sortiri cupit efFectum. Ipsis turn 
 petitionibus Archiepiscopus annuere renuebat, cupiens hujus-
 
 A P P K N i) 1 X . 85 
 
 modi praeroj^ativam prsctensam sub dubio remanere, ut ad 
 libitum ipsius suorum jura suftVaganeorum usurpare posset, 
 in tantum ut saepenumero nunc vi, nunc clam hujusmodi 
 sufFraganeorum subditorum,ut praefertur, decedentium, ac bona 
 in diversis dioecesibus usque ad minimam quantitatem, inter- 
 dum vero tantum in dioecesi, qua decedunt, habentium testa- 
 menta duntaxat usurpand. insinuat, bonorumque administra- 
 tiones committit, quod nuUus unquam praedecessorum suo- 
 rum usurpavit ; ac cum aliquando affirmaret se contentari 
 velle subdit. hujusmodi testamentorum approbat. ac csetera 
 prsemissa sibi nou competere, nisi quando bona in altera dicec. 
 existent, ad summam sive quantitatem quinque librarum 
 sterling, se extendant, interpellatus, quo jure quave ratione 
 hoc ad se pertinere vendicet, seu qua ratione magis de hac quin- 
 que librarum summa, quam alia se fundet, subticuit, nullam 
 prsetensam juris sui in hac parte tamen saltern rationabiiem 
 ostendere dignabatur. 
 
 Item cum dicti Archiepiscopi officiales et ministri stepius fin- 
 gant decendentes bona in diversis dicec. habuisse cum non 
 habuerunt, et eo sub colore testamenta sic decedeatium per 
 fas et nefas de facto approbant, ubi jus approbandi nullum 
 habent, sed ad aliquem de sufFraganeis aut eorum archidia- 
 conis spectare deberet, sicuti ex praemissis dilucide apparet ; 
 humiliter petierunt iidem suffraganei, ut invenirentur media, 
 per quae fraudibus hujusmodi via prsecluderetur ; ex quo 
 priusquam ipse Archiepiscopus ad hujusmodi testamentorum 
 insinuationem procederet, vocat. de jure vocand. certitudine 
 constare possit, utrum ipsi decedentes aliqua in diversis 
 dioecesibus ac quanta bona tempore mortis habuerunt. 
 Quibus petitionibus licet justissimis praefatus Archiepiscopus 
 nullum saltem rationabile dare voluit responsum. 
 
 Item, cum tam de jure et consuetudine regni Anglise, quam 
 de constitutionibus praedictis, jus personarum quarumlibet in 
 dioecesibus sufFraganeorum ab intestato decedentium bona 
 administrandi, administrationemque bonorum ipsorum com- 
 mittendi ad eosdem suffraganeos locorum ordinarios notorie 
 pertineat, novumque sit ac (attenta consuetudine praedicta) 
 juri contrarium, ut Archiepiscopus Cantuaricnsis bonorum
 
 86 APPENDIX. 
 
 hujusmodi administrationi seu administrationis ipsius com- 
 missioni se immisceret ; humiliter ex parte episcoporum extitit 
 supplicatum, ut id ni archiepiscopus de hoc inposterum 
 minime impediret; sed suffraganeos suos uti jure suo in hac 
 parte sineret ac permitterct ; sed voluntati suse inhserendo 
 respondit, se prserogativa sua in intestat. uti in testatis 
 uti velle, cum revera nullam talem habeat praerogativam, 
 de qua rationabiliter decerni posset. Insuper ubi decedens 
 aliquis in una dicecesi terras habet tempore mortis, aut 
 haereditamenta in alia, nititur Archiepiscopus in hoc casu de- 
 cedentium hujusmodi testamentorum approbationem usurpare, 
 hcet de jure et consuetudine dicti regni prohibeatur ecclesias- 
 ticus judex sub magnis poenis de terris et hsereditamentis 
 hujusmodi, vel de voluntatibus ultimis ea concernen. intromit- 
 tere, hocque sit novum et inauditum, cum nullus unquam 
 Archiepiscoporum Cant., ipso moderno duntaxat excepto, 
 testamentorum approbationem in hoc casu usurpare sohtus 
 sit ; simih modo usurpat quando moriens in sua dicecesi 
 debitores habet in alia, quanquam hujusmodi debitum nuUo 
 certo loco circumscribi aut contineri diu valeat, hocque 
 omnino novum fuerit et inusitatum. Emanavit quoque nunc 
 dierum abhujusmodi suae prasrogativa prsetensae curia inusitato 
 stilo rescriptum sub hoc viz. tenore. Probatum et approba- 
 tum fuit prsesens testamentum A. B. habentis, dum vixit, ac 
 mortis suse tempore bona mobilia vel immobilia, spiritualia 
 vel temporalia, jura seu debit, indiversis dicEcesibus aut juris- 
 dictionibus peculiaribus provincise Cantuariensis, &c. Quo 
 stilo nunquam usus est aliquis Archiepiscopus Cantuariensis 
 ante, dum nee quisquam Archiepiscopus Cantuariensis ante 
 tempora domini Johannis Morton usurpavit approbationem 
 testamentorum subdit. sufFraganeorum ; nisi tunc duntaxat, 
 cum subditus hujusmodi decedens, mortis suse tempore bona 
 reliquerit notabilia in alia dicecesi extra illam, in qua obierit; 
 licet et hoc tamen, quo jure ad se id pertinere prsetendebat, 
 sufFraganeis penitus sit ignotum. Nee satis mirari possunt ipsi 
 sufFraganei, unde dicta prserogativa duceret originem, nisi dun- 
 taxat per usurpationem violentam aut clandestinam ; cum 
 liqueat evidenter Octoboni olim in regno Angliae sedis
 
 APPENDrX. 87 
 
 apostolicEe legati, teniporibus luijusmodi praerogativam pror- 
 sus incognitam fuisse. Nam tempore dicti Icgati inter epis- 
 copos Cantuariensis provincise controversia fuit in casu, f|uo 
 clericus beneficiatius, habeas beneficia in diversis dioecesibus, 
 decederet in earum una, ad quern episcoporum spectaret ipsius 
 clerici testamenti approbatio, ad ipsumque legatum ejusdem 
 dubii processit decisio, quod viz. ad episcopum spectaret, in cu- 
 j us dioecesi talis obierit beneficiatus,prout in constitutione dicti 
 legati incipiente " libertatem" clare liquere poterit. Intuenti 
 praeterea de tali prterogativa tempore bontB memorise domini 
 Joannis Stratford, olim Archiepiscopi Cantuariensis inauditum 
 erat, cum id ni dominus Johannes in quodam concilio pro- 
 vinciali Cant, cui prseerat, tanquam caput de consensu 
 episcoporum et aliorum praelatorum clerique dictse provinciae 
 declaraverit, approbationem et insinuationem testamentorum 
 bonorumque distributionem et commissionem tarn clerico- 
 rum quam laicorum infra dictam provinciam Cant, dece- 
 dentium, ad ordinarios locorum ; in quibus obierunt, pertinere. 
 Post quod quidem concilium nonnulla alia secuta sunt, qui- 
 bus semper prsesidebat Archiepiscopus Cantuariensis pro 
 tempore existens, qui poterat de termino in terminum hujus- 
 modi concilium convocare. Nee de retractione seu revoca- 
 tione dictae constitutionis qua praemissa ad locorum ordinarios 
 spectare declarantur, hujusque tractavit aut egit quisquam 
 Archiepiscopus, neque de jure aut de possessione episcoporum 
 in ea parte qusestionem movere attemptavit, aut ordinationem 
 aliquam, constitutionemve novam super hujusmodi testamen- 
 torum approbation ibus, ac bonorum administrationis commis- 
 sionibus in aliquo concihorum hujusmodi fieri procuravit super 
 constitutionem prsedictam, quam dominus Johannes Stratford, 
 ipsorura Archiepiscoporum unus, edidit et promulgavit, alii ejus 
 successores non revocando scienter prudenterque approbarunt, 
 •etc episcopos in possessionem pr8emissorum,juxta constitutionis 
 praedictse tenorem perseverare sustinuernnt, usque ad tempus 
 domini Johannis Morton, qui nuper, viz. citra XIV. annos ult. 
 praeteritos, ecclesiae incumbens obiit, qui crebris suspensionibus, 
 et excommunicationibus censurarumque fulminationibus, quas 
 in personas sibi non parentes rigorose de facto fcrcbat, sufFra-
 
 88 APPENDIX. 
 
 ganeorum suorum subditos ita terrebat, quod ipsi censurarum 
 hujtismodi metu ad curiam hujusmodi Aichiepiscopi,quam idem 
 dominus Johannes Morion, tunc Cardinalis et Cancellarius 
 Angliae,primus omnium prserogativae curiam vocari fecit pro tes- 
 tauientorum approbationibus, ac aliis prsemissis, accedere sunt 
 coacti cum maximo sufFraganeorum ipsorum et eorum Archi- 
 diaconorum tumultu ; qui cum dictos eorum subditos ad curias 
 suas in casibus preeniissis, qui ad suam jurisdictionem perti- 
 nere dignoscuntur, vocarent, ac eorum juri et possessioni in 
 hac parte inniterentur, idem Archiepiscopus se judicem in hac 
 causa faciens, ac jus sibi dicens, suis crebris inhibitionibus 
 injuriosis eosdem episcopos jurisdictionem suam exercere con- 
 tra justitiam impedivit ; quandoque vero suffraganeis ipsis, et 
 eorum Archidiaconis id minime scientibus, sed prorsus igno- 
 rantibus, eorum jurisdictionem in casibus prsedictis usurpavit 
 adeo vehementer, ut bonse memorise dominus Richardus Hill, 
 tunc episcopus London, per supplicationem felicis recor- 
 dationis domino Alexandre, tunc Romano Pontifici, contra 
 dictum tunc Archiepiscopum factam super quibusdam juris et 
 jurisdictionis ipsius London, episcopi et ecclesiae suae pertur- 
 bationibus et molestationibus praemissis concernen. causam et 
 causas pra?dictas citari obtinuerit : in qua lite dominus Cant- 
 uariensis Archiepiscopus, qui nunc est,licet antea curiae Cantu- 
 ariensis advocatus extiterat,prgefato domino Richardo Hill,tunc 
 Episcopo London, contra dictum dominum J ohannem Morton, 
 tunc Archiepiscopum, praetensam praerogativam fovebat et 
 eidem consilium impendebat. Et si dictus dominus Johannes 
 Morton Archiepiscopus aliquam praetensam, in praemissis tem- 
 pore suo, vel Archiepiscopus modernus, quidictasinjuriascon- 
 tinuavit, et longe majores adjecit, saltem facti possessionem 
 adeptus fuerit, aut si ilia proculdubio pra^tensa possessio fuit 
 aut est vio'enta, aut clandestina, in tantum ut idem dominus 
 Archiepiscopus Cantuariensis, qui ante Archiepiscopatus ipsius 
 assecutionem curiae Cantuariensis advocatus extiterat, advoca- 
 tique officium in eadem per non modicum tempus exercuerat, 
 dum stetit Archidiaconus Huntingdon, in ecclesia Lincoln, et 
 postmodum in episcopum London, consecratus, et eidem eccle- 
 siae London. incumbens,dictam praerogativam praetensam caeteris
 
 APPENDIX. 89 
 
 coepiscopis ecclesise Cant, suffraganeis, multo vehementius im- 
 pugnare, eidemque adversari conabatur, et ad suscitandam 
 litem per se et nomine suo, contra et adversus Archiepiscopum 
 Cant, qui tunc erat, sen saltem contra dictum Archiepiscopi 
 in eadem preetensa praerogativa tunc commissarium, pro certis 
 gravaminibus jurisdictionis suce, et ecclesise London, circa 
 praemissa perturbationem et molestationem concernen. sibi 
 per dictum tunc Archiepiscopum, seu ejus prsefatum com- 
 missarium illat. et inferri comminat. dominum Johannem 
 Yong, LL.D. cancellarium suum, adhuc superstitem, Romam 
 misit, idemque dominus Johannes Yong, cancellarius, ad man- 
 datum domini sui in hac parte complendum, suum ad sedem 
 sanctam apostohcam iter arripuit; super idem dominus suus in 
 brevi post ad Archiepiseopatum Cant, assumptus est. Et cum 
 in cleri dictae provincise Cant, convocatione nuper London 
 exercita reformationis gravaminum praedict. etaliorum nonnul- 
 lorumexcessuum, inipsaprovincia pullulantiura, fiendae gratia, 
 quatuor de gravioribus patrum sive praelatorum in ipso concilio 
 congregatorum, cum uno archidiacouo ad excessus hujusmodi 
 perscrutandos,etsanct-c8synododetegendos, reverendiviz. patres 
 Richardus, Norwicensis, et Johannes, Roffensis episcopi, prior 
 ecclesise metropohticse Cant, et Johannes, ecclesiae cathedr. 
 S. Pauli London, decanus, inter aha reformationedigna, quee, 
 fama pubhca referente, eorum auribus insonuerunt, excessus 
 quidam ipsius archiepiscopi suorumque officiahum per eos in 
 medium adducti, ac ipsi archipraesiiH patribusque in eadem 
 sancta synodo coadunatis, ut in statum debitum reducerentur 
 charitative denunciati : retulerunt etenim ipsos in emittendo 
 inhibitiones a curiis ipsius archiepiscopi nimium excedere cum 
 sufFraganeis et eorum officiaHbus, ac ministris administrand. 
 justitiam inter subditos eorum in causis ad forum ecclesiasti- 
 cum spectantibus, ac phires in causis peccati correctionum, se 
 parentibus etiam ante ahqualem poenitentiae injunctionem aH- 
 umve processum per eos fact, citatione duntaxat excepta, 
 praefatus archiepiscopus, et ipsius officiales, inhibitiones, 
 etiam priusquam de veritate causae appeUationis aut querelae 
 cognoscere incipiant, dimittunt ; per quas hujusmodi suftra- 
 ganei a ministratione justitiae peccatique correctione nequiter
 
 90 A I' !' I". N D I X . 
 
 impediuntur, ipsique circa suae jurisdictionis exercitium per- 
 turbantur et molestantur. Denunciarunt insuper graveni 
 excessum archiepiscopi suorumque officialium circa testamen- 
 torum approbationes, quas usurpat idem archiepiscopus contra 
 constitutionem domini Johannis Stratford, quondam archiepi- 
 scopi Cant, de qua supra fit mentio ; quae quidem testamen- 
 torum approbationes juxta dictse constitutionis tenorem ad 
 sufFraganeos pertinere deberent. Et quod idem archiepiscopus 
 et officiales in dictis testamentorum approbationibus, et circa 
 eas, necnon ipsius apparitores sive appretiatores, quos in sin- 
 guUs dioec. provinciae, in ahqua tres, aut quatuor, et in qui- 
 busdam quinque, aut sex, vel plures contra juris dispositionem 
 constituit, circa bonorum sestimationem seu appretiationem, 
 et inventariorum confectionem, quae non ad eos, sed ad de- 
 functorum executores pertinere, neque per dictos apparitores, 
 sed per ipsos executores, fieri deberent sufFraganeorum subdit. 
 contra diet, constitut. prohibitionem concussionibus et extor- 
 tionibus immensis fatigand. perturbant et onerant, super quae 
 concussiones et extortiones consimiles fiunt per ejusdem 
 archiepiscopi oflRciales, cum ecclesiae cathedr. et earum dioec. 
 tempore vacationis earundem per ipsos visitantur. Gravamina 
 insuper sequentia sufFraganeis per archiepiscopum, et officiales 
 suos quotidie inferuntur, et fiunt : 
 
 Inprimis, in casibus coeptis coram inferioribus, statim ad 
 alterius partis querelam, etiam nulla appellatione interposita, 
 aut praetensa, nee uUo legitimae devolutionis modo interve- 
 niente, dant citationes cum inhibitionibus, etc. sine causae 
 cognitione, et evocant causas ad curias suas, etsi praeventus 
 fuerit archiepiscopus ab inferiori ordinario. 
 
 2. Item, cum appellatur ab ordinario, immediate sive me- 
 diate, utputa archidiacono vel ejus officiali ad archiepisco- 
 pum, statim inhibent judici, a quo etiam, nulla causae cogni- 
 tione praecedente, quanquam frivola, fit appellatio. 
 
 3. Item interdum sufFraganeorum subditos in causis animae 
 correctionem concernentibus, nulla appellatione vel querela 
 praecedente, et in casu a jurecommuni non concesso, ad suum 
 examen faciunt evocari, ex eorum officio praetenso mero. 
 
 4. Item, subditos suffraganeorum per eosdem suftraganeos,
 
 AVPF.NDIX. 91 
 
 aut eoriitn officiales censuris eclesiasticis legitime ligatos sine 
 difficiiltute absolvunt, licet remitti deberent absolvendi, 
 
 5. Item, si inferiores ordinarii, per inhibitiones hujusmodi 
 temerarias de facto inhibiti, cognoscant ulterius in causis prae- 
 dictis, statim citantur ad respondendum articulis sive inter- 
 rogatoriis ipsius archiepiscopi, et suae jurisdictionis con- 
 teraptum concernent. et personaliter, si non sint episcopi. 
 
 6. Item, cum tractatur de jure approbandi testamenta, sive 
 de jurisdictione inter archiepiscopum et suff'raganeos, citantur 
 nihilominus episcopi, et eorum officiales, ad curam archiepis- 
 copi, ex officio etiam raero, ubi archiepiscopus est judex, et 
 pars in causis propriis. 
 
 7. Item in omnibus causis tam appellationum quam que- 
 relse dictus archiepiscopus emittit citationes sine expressione 
 loci certi,sub hujusmodi forma : Ad comparendum coram no- 
 bis aut nostro in hac parte audien. causarum et negotiorum 
 auditore, sive commissario tali die, ubicunque nos, aut audi- 
 torem, seu commissarium nostrum hujusmodi tunc sedere con. 
 tigerit. 
 
 8. Item, cum quis a sufFraganeo, seu alio inferiori judice 
 ad sedem apostolicam appellat, etiam frustratur, statim dictus 
 archiepiscopus, vel ejus official, sine uUa causae cognitione, 
 sive ilia appellatio sit admissa apud eandam sedem, sive non, 
 dat inhibitiones contra judicem a quo in negotio tuitorio. 
 
 9. Item eodem modo per modum tuitionis prtetensae dat 
 inhibitiones contra judicem specialiter delegatum a sede apos- 
 tolica, sive contra executores apostolicae sedis. 
 
 10. Item dictus dominus archiepiscopus, et officiales sui 
 subditos suffi-aganeorum ssepius, et quasi continue in casibus 
 a jure non perraissis ad comparendum coram se, et ultra sep- 
 tem et octo dietas evocari faciunt,in ipsos, quasi non paruerint, 
 ubi parere minime tenentur, excommunicationis, vel suspen- 
 sionis ferunt sententias, ac cos indebite fatigant et molestant. 
 
 11. Item ratione juramenti advocatorum et procuratorum 
 diet'* curiae saepenumero contingit impedimentum devolutionis 
 plurium causarum ad sedem apostolicam, cum iidem advocat 
 et procuratores ubicunque, cum tangit ipsum archiepiscopum,
 
 92 A P 1' E N D I X . 
 
 aut ejus praerogalivam preetensam, appellare non audeant, nee 
 in devolutionem hujusmodi causarum consentire. 
 
 12. Item hii, qui advocati aut procuratoris officium in dicta 
 curia aliquando exercuerunt, licet hujusmodi officium depo- 
 suerint, aut prorsus dimiserint sive reliquerint, ab eadam curia 
 per dictum archiepiscopum expulsi fuerint, si cum postea 
 patrocinium alicui ex sufFraganeis prsestiterint in aliqua causa, 
 quae dictam prserogativam prsetensam tangere videatur, prae- 
 tendit archiepiscopus eos in perjurium incidere, et eo sub 
 prsetextu eosdem sub hujusmodi prsetenso perjurio quandoque 
 coram se, et officiaUbus suis, quandoque vero per literas 
 apostoUcas in causam trahit, ipsosque suffraganeos consiliaros 
 habere non patitur. 
 
 13. Item preeter et ultra extortiones, concussiones, et de- 
 prsedationes officialium et apparitorum dicti archiepiscopi, 
 de quibus supra fit mentio, ssepe contingit, quod defunctorum 
 execntores, pro testamentorum approbationibus, ab ultimis 
 provinciae finibus redeundo, diu ibi stando, et impensas graves 
 et quasi importabiles compulsi faciend. defunctorum substan- 
 tias, per quas supremae eorum voluntates debitum sortirentur 
 efFectum, et quae in pios usus pro animarum eorum quiete con- 
 verterentur, consumunt et exinaniunt, in tantaque distantia 
 morantur iidem executores, ut per archiepiscopum, aut ejus 
 officiates, pro decedentium hujusmodi ultimarum voluntatiim 
 executione nulla fiat, aut vix fieri valeat provisio, sed ex ali- 
 qua causarum praemissarum hujusmodi voluntates debito 
 frustrantur efFectu, cum aut a sufFraganeis idem archiepisco- 
 pus pro diet, et aliorum excessuum reformatione, nedum in 
 sacra synodo, sed ilia dimissa non tantum semel sed pluries 
 humiliter interpellatus, et earn prorsus neglexisset, ipsum ad 
 aliquam compositionem rationabilem inter eos fiend, cum pro 
 Concordia communi praelatorum dictae provinciae, scandaloque 
 in hac parte vitando, turn pro subditorum quiete movere 
 coeper\xnt, seque consentire velle dixerunt, ut de communi 
 auctoritate et consensu dicti archiepiscopi, et suft>aganeorum 
 ac archidiaconorum communi in quolibet archidiaconatu 
 ipsius provinciae deputaretur unus commissarius juratus, qui
 
 A pp FN nix. 93 
 
 testamenta quaniniciinque personarum infra ipsutn archidia- 
 conatum decedentium, et bona in diversis dioecesibus obtinen- 
 tium approbaret, ac de proven, eorandem dicto archiepiscopo, 
 et sufFraganeis, et arcliidiaconis interesse, ut prsefertnr, haben- 
 tibus, reddita ratione responderet juxta et secundum tales 
 quotas, sive portiones inter eosdividendas, quae et rationabiles 
 fore viderentur, et de quibus rationabiliter convenire possent, 
 vel hoc si non placeat, quod tunc singuli suffraganeorum et 
 archidiaconorum prsedict. testamenta quarumlibet personarum 
 infra suas dicec et archidiaconat. morientium, et bona in 
 diversis diceces. habentium approbarent, ac aliquam annuam 
 pensionem, de qua rationabiliter concordare valerent, archie- 
 piscopo solvere tenerentur, quarum oblationum utramque 
 dictus archiepiscopus refutavit. SufFraganei vero perspicientes 
 archiepiscopum diet, motionibus licet multum rationabilibus 
 acquiescere noluisse, malentesque juri eorum aliquid detrahi, 
 quam litium aggredi longa certamina, novis paucis persuasio- 
 nibus eundem archiepiscopum adierunt, offerentes ei id, quod 
 nee ipse, nee unquam prsedecessorum suorum quisquam aliquo 
 jure sibi vendicare potuit, quod videlicet idem archiepiscopus ha- 
 berettestamentorum approbationem ipsius suffraganeorum, sub- 
 ditorum quorumcunque in eorum dioec. decendentium, ac bona 
 mobilia aut debit, saltem certa et sperata debitoribus solvend. 
 extendent. usque ad summam, quantitatem, sive valorem quin- 
 que librarum sterling, inclusive in alia dioec. seu aliis dioec. 
 extra illam, in qua obierunt tempore suae mortis habentium : ita 
 nt archiepiscopus tertiam partem commodi exinde provenien- 
 tern episcopo, in cujus dioec. talis decederet, solvere teneretur, 
 suffraganeique et archidiaconi praedicti, quoad omnia alia 
 testamenta jurisdictionem suam libere exercerent; quibus 
 archiepiscopus assevitiri renuebat, suadens illis ad con- 
 sentiendum quod idem archiepiscopus omnium proventuum 
 de approbationibus testamentorum pertotamprovinciam Cant, 
 contingent, reciperet, et haberet duas partes, suffraganeique 
 et eorum archidiac. duntaxat tertiam. Cui suasioni, cjuia 
 illis enormiter damnosa, eorumque jus quasi in totum absor- 
 bere videbatur, inclinare non merito recusarunt : cum iidem 
 suffraganei, et eorum ministri, nuUam prorsus habeant noti-
 
 y4 AHPKNDIX. 
 
 tiani, neque sciant, quo jure, quo titulo dictus archiepiscopus 
 praerogativara aliquam hujusmodi sibi vendicaret, prout eorum 
 singuli, si congruum videatnr, (juodcunque juramentum facere 
 sunt parati, se quadragesima aut quinquagesiraa gravium ac 
 probatissimorum prselatorum ejusdem provincise manu, qui 
 juri Cant, ecelesiije in prsemissis aut quibusvis aliis derogare 
 nunquam intenderunt, purgari, atque firraiter credere omnia 
 et singula in eorum querela sanctissirao domino nostro papse 
 in hac parte facta, et in ejus sacro auditorio pendente, decla- 
 rata et expressa vera esse ; jurique ac sanse conscientias et 
 rationi consona. Pro quorum omnium et singulorum refor- 
 matione penes prsefatum archiepiscopum iidem sufFraganei 
 plures fecerunt instantias, semper tamen absque spe cujusvis 
 reformationis ab eo redierunt ; cumque se omni remedio peni- 
 tus saltem in partibus destitutos, seque prsemissa absque 
 juramentorum suorum, quibus ad ecclesiarum suarum 
 jura defendenda sunt astricti, ofFensione amplius dissi- 
 mulare non posse, ad sedem sanctam apostolicam, 
 unicum oppressorum prsesidium confugient. pro se suisque 
 ministris, ac adhserentibus sanctissimo domino nostro papse 
 de prsemissis querelam justissimam interposuerunt, ac super 
 eisdem causam et causas in sacro auditorio praedict. rite com- 
 mitti obtinuerunt; quibus non obstantibus, si per quosvis 
 sanctee pacis zelatores aliqua via sedandae litis in ea parte 
 rationabilis excogitari valeat, ad banc mutandam dicti sufFra- 
 ganei, et eorum archidiaconi praedict. semper erunt paratissimi, 
 nee bonorum virorum in hac parte subire judicium recusabunt. 
 Et praeterea advertendum, quod cum reverendissimus pater 
 archiepiscopus modernus fuerit London, episcopus, ille passim 
 approbavit testamenta quorumcunque decedentium suae dicec. 
 habentium bona in diversis dioec Cantuar. provinciae, etiam 
 ad centum libr. summam, et aliquod magis, et aliquod minus, 
 ut evidenter liquet ex registris London, ecclesiae suo tempore 
 factis. 
 
 Papae Rom. Julii II. 10. Anno Christi, 1512. 
 
 Archiep. Cant Guliel. War- Reg. Angliae, Hen. VIII. 4. 
 
 liam, 10.
 
 APPr.NDix. 95 
 
 No. III. 
 
 Statement of the Coiic/iision of the Controversif 
 between the Archbishop of Canterbiaj/ and his 
 Suffragan Bishops, in 1513, extracted from the 
 Antiqidtates Britannicoe. Ecclesicc bif Archbishop 
 Barker, p, 307. 
 
 Sequent! autem anno exorta est gravis inter Archiepiscopnm 
 ac ejus suftraganeos de prgerogativae Cant, jure altercatio. 
 EjusRomse instituendse author fuit,RichardusFox,Wintonien- 
 sis Episcopus, qui cum opibus & authoritate atque gratia cum 
 Rege summa valeret, tantce potentiae animi magnitudinem 
 adjungens ferre non potuit Archiepiscopi prserogativam. Itaque 
 cum, antequam de ea re lis ulla moveretur, inter se primo 
 communicarent, suaraque prserogativam & potentiam trecentis 
 amplius annis longaeva consuetudine confirmatam Archiepis- 
 copus ostenderet, nee se laturum ut Wintoniensis Episcopi 
 pertinacia Ecclesiae Cant, jura violarentur, fervidius affir- 
 maret, Wintoniensis incensus fertur respondisse, quamvis 
 Archiepiscopus in altiori solio sedisset, se tamen in pinguiori 
 collocatum. Et ab ea contumelia statim transit ad deferen- 
 dam Papse contra Archchiepiscopum querelam. Wintoniensi 
 Episcopo, Londinensis, Lincolniensis, & Exoniensis Regii 
 (ut idem Rex postea affirmavit) consiliarii tanquam duci 
 adhaeserunt. Instituta autem litis capita fuerunt, quod cum 
 (ut ssepe antea diximus) si quis de vita decedens bona nota- 
 bilia in diversis diocsesibus possideat, ejus testamentum ab 
 Archiepiscopo insinuaretur, aut si intestatus decesserit, bono- 
 rum suorum administratio ab eodem peteretur : primo ne 
 hujusmodi bonorum appellatione praediorum atque proven- 
 tuumhcEreditates, nee debita nisi sperata censeantur. Deinde 
 nisi decedentium bona quae quis extra eam diocaesin possidct 
 in qua moritur, summam decem librarum attingant notabilia 
 non dicantur, nee Archiepiscopali praerogativae locus fiat. 
 Turn ut bonorum icstimatores ab Archiepiscopo in suffra-
 
 96 APPENDIX. 
 
 ganeorum dioctiesibus non constiluantur, sed executorum 
 aut administrantium jiiramentis de bonorum iestimatione ac 
 valore fides habeatur. Postrem^ ne peculiares jurisdictiones 
 diversae instar diocaesium diversarum reputentur. Papa banc 
 litem quam sibi lucrosam fore putabat avid^ suscepit, & suf- 
 fraganeis contra metropolitanum litigaturis decrevit edictum 
 quo Archiepiscopnm in jus Romam vocarent. Richardus 
 Wintoniensis cum hoc edictum accepisset, virum generosum 
 ac solertem Willihelmum Paullet nuper summum Anglise 
 thesaurarium praediorum suorum Episcopalium Seneschallum 
 accersivit, eique in mandatis dedit ut eo edicto Archiepis- 
 copum citaret. Is mandatum peregit. Citatus itaque Archi- 
 episcopus & acris controversia Romse de sua praerogativa 
 consectata est. Cumque causa multis dilationibus procrasti- 
 naretur, Wintoniensis Episcopus & SufFraganei procuraverunt 
 k Papa, ut eis banc a se causam ablegaret, & Henrici Octavi 
 Regis arbitrio referret. Is datis arbitris qui de lite cognos- 
 cerent, tandem ad Archiepiscopum scripsit. Et sibi, & 
 regno Angliae magnam infamiam partam quod si sui Regni 
 Episcopi de hujusmodi jurisdictionis controversia Romae, ubi 
 omnium pene gentium nuncii atque legati convenirent, tanta 
 inter se acerbitate contenderent. Proinde statuere se ne Romae 
 deinceps litigarent, tum ut si decedentium bona minoris 
 quam decern libris aestimentur, ut ab Archiepiscopali praero- 
 gativa non disponatur, prasterea ne praedio, proventus & bona 
 immobilia, quae jure Regni legari atque sub testamenti fac- 
 tione cadere non possunt, ad praerogativam suam exercen- 
 dam praestarent authoritatem. 
 
 Ad extremum ut neque ab Archiepiscopo neque ab epis- 
 copis ulterius constituantur aestimandis defunctorum bonis 
 judices, nisi ab executoribus aut administratoribus requi- 
 rantur. Quod suum arbitrium Rex triennio proximo obser- 
 vari praecepit, eo verb transacto si quae litigantium pars se 
 gravari sentiat, jure contra alteram experiri eodem decreto 
 permisit. At vero Archiepiscopus rescripsit. Et si arbitrio ac 
 decreto Regio obsequi atque parere paratus sit, salva tamen sua 
 in Regem observantia, existimare se tam bona immobilia quam 
 caetera, et si summam quadraginta solidorum Anglicanorum
 
 APPENDIX. 97 
 
 non excedant, caetera, si tamen extra eani dioca^sin & juris- 
 dictionem, in qua defunctus moriatur, suam prcerogativam 
 fundare. Cujus rei longeevam ac probatam consuetudinem ex 
 veteribus & antiquissimis Cantuariensiiim Archiepiscoporjim 
 monumentis produxit. De appaiitoribus item bonorumqiie 
 atque rerum hsereditariarum fcstimatoribus si ab Archiepiscopo 
 et Episcopis non designentur, verendum esse ne si oestimandi 
 potestas soils executoribus & administratoribus committatur, 
 ex defunctorum bonis viliiis aestimatis atque pensis, executo- 
 rumque atque administratorum fraude non modo Archiepis- 
 copo & suis suffraganeis, verum etiam quod multo gravius est, 
 ipsis defunctorum creditoribus, saepe etiam illorum liberis cum 
 mortuis parentibus in tutela atque curatione hujusmodi exe- 
 cutorum aut administrantium fuerint injuria summa iiat. 
 Quae vitari nulla ratione commodius possit, quam si bona ab 
 Archiep. vel Episcopis eorumve commissariis eeqna lance 
 aestimata administranda committantur. Tandem Archiepisc. 
 ut iniret cum suis suftraganeis concordiam, quod facere 
 boni viri solent, cum agere summo jure potuisset, de suo jure 
 multum remisit & suffraganeis concessit. 
 
 Namque poUicitus est in aliis defunctorum bonis, quam quae 
 Anglicano veteri nomine Catalla dicerentur, praerogativam 
 nullam vendicaturum, si raodo Catallorum appellatione ea 
 bona censerentur de quibus defunctus testari poterat. Tunt 
 de apparitoribus & aestimatoribus ut in bonis aestimandis & 
 feudis exigendis sint deinceps moderatiores aequius statuen- 
 dum. Praeterea executorum atque administratorum juramen- 
 tis de bonorum aestimatione iidem habiturum, si contrarii 
 probatio elici ac investigari non possit. Summam etiam 
 decem librarum ad suam exercendam praerogativam extra 
 eam diocaesin in qua defunctus moritur, satis aequam decla- 
 ravit. Postremo etsi in diversis peculiaribus parochiis defunc- 
 torum bona ad eam summam divisa sint, nisi tamen, ea bona 
 in peculiaribus parochiis quae in diversis suae provinciae dio- 
 caesibus Cantuariensi Ecclesiae reservantur sita sint, interposi- 
 ttirum non esse suam praerogativam, Atque haec inter Can- 
 
 H
 
 98 APPKNDIX. 
 
 tuariensem Archiepiscopum ac provincise suse sufFiaganeos 
 toties excitata de prserogativa controversia hac sequabili atque 
 temperata Warhami moderatione in perpetuum tandem sopita 
 est. 
 
 No. IV. 
 
 ('aii(»is relating to the Ecclesiastical Courts belonging 
 to the Archbishop' s Jurisdiction. 
 
 XCII. 
 
 NONE TO BE CITED INTO DIVERS COURTS FOR PROBATE 
 OF THE SAME WILL. 
 
 Forasmuch as many heretofore have been by apparitors, 
 both of inferior courts and of the courts of the archbishop's 
 prerogative, much distracted and diversely called and sum- 
 moned for probate of wills, or to take administrations of the 
 goods of persons dying intestate, and are thereby vexed and 
 grieved with many causeless and unnecessary troubles, moles- 
 tations, and expenses : we constitute and appoint, that all 
 chancellors, commissaries, or officials, or any other exercising 
 ecclesiastical jurisdiction whatsoever, shall, at the first, charge, 
 with an oath, all persons called, or voluntarily appearing 
 before them, for the probate of any will, or the administration 
 of any goods, whether they know, or (moved by any special 
 inducement) do firmly believe, that the party deceased (whose 
 testament or goods depend now in question) had, at the time 
 of his or her death, any goods or good debts in any other 
 diocese or dioceses, or pecidiar jurisdiction, within that pro- 
 vince than in that wherein the said party died, amounting to 
 the value of five pounds; and if the said persons, cited or 
 voluntarily appearing before, shall, upon his oath, affirm, that 
 he knoweth, or (as aforesaid) firmly believeth, that the said 
 party aforesaid, had goods or good debts, in any other diocese 
 or dioceses, or peculiar jurisdiction, within the said province,
 
 APPENDIX. My 
 
 to the value aforesaid, and particularly specify and declare 
 the same then shall he presently dismiss him, not presumino- 
 to intermeddle with the probate of the said will, or to grant 
 administrations of the goods of the party so dying intestate ; 
 neither shall he require nor exact any other charges of the said 
 parties, more than such only as are due for the citation and 
 other process, had and used against the said parties, upon 
 their further contumacy, but shall openly and plainly declare 
 and profess, that the said cause belongeth to the prerogative 
 of the Archbishop of that province, willing and admonishing 
 the party to prove the said will, or require administration of 
 the said goods in the Court of the said Prerogative, and to 
 exhibit before him the said judge the probate or administra- 
 tion, under the seal of the prerogative, within forty days next 
 following : and if any chancellor, commissary, official, or other 
 exercising ecclesiastical jurisdiction whatsoever, or any other 
 register, shall offend herein, let him be, ipso facto, suspended 
 from the execution of his office, not to be absolved or released, 
 until he have restored to the party all expenses by him laid 
 out contrary to the tenor of the premises, and every such pro- 
 bate of any testament or administration of goods so granted, 
 shall be held void and frustrate to all effects of the law what- 
 soever. Furthermore, we charge and enjoin that the register 
 of every superior judge do (without all difficulty or delay) 
 certify and inform the apparitor of the Prerogative Court, re- 
 pairing unto him once a month and no oftener, what execu- 
 cutors or administrators have been, by his said judge for the 
 incompetency of his own jurisdiction, dismissed to the said 
 Prerogative Court within the month next before, under pain 
 of a month's suspension from the exercise of his office for 
 every default therein. Provided that this Canon, or any thing 
 therein corxtained, be not prejudicial to any composition be- 
 tween the Archbishop and any Bishop or other ordinary, nor 
 to any inferior judge that shall grant any probate of testament 
 or administration of goods to any party that shall voluntarily 
 desire it, but out of the said inferior court and also out of the 
 Prerogative. Provided, likewise, that if any man die, in 
 
 n 2
 
 100 APPENDIX. 
 
 itinere, the goods that he hath about him at that present, 
 sliall not cause his testament or administration to be hable to 
 the Prerogative Court. 
 
 XCIII. 
 
 THE RATE OF BONA NOTABILIA LIABLE TO THE 
 PREROGATIVE COURT. 
 
 Furthermore, we decree and ordain that no judge of the 
 Archbishop's Prerogative shall henceforward cite, or cause to 
 be cited, ex officio, any person whatsoever to any of the afore- 
 said intents, unless he have knowledge that the party de- 
 ceased was, at the time of his death, possessed of goods and 
 chattels in some other diocese, or dioceses, or peculiar juris- 
 diction within that province, than in that wherein he died, 
 amounting to the value of five pounds, at the least ; decreeing 
 and declaring, that whoso hath not goods in divers dioceses 
 to the said sum or value, shall not be accounted to have bona 
 notabilia. Always provided that this clause here, and in 
 the former constitution mentioned, shall not prejudice those 
 dioceses where, by composition or custom, bona notabilia, are 
 rated at a greater sum. And if any judge of the Prerogative 
 Court, or any his surrogate, or his register, or apparitor 
 shall cite, or cause any person to be cited, into his Court, 
 contrary to the tenor of the premises, he shall restore to the 
 party, so cited, all his costs and charges ; and the acts and 
 proceedings in that behalf shall be held void and frustrate. 
 Which expenses, if the said judge, or register, or apparitoi, 
 shall refuse accordingly to pay, he shall be suspended from 
 the exercise of his office until he yield to the performance 
 thereof.
 
 ai'pi:n Dix. 101 
 
 No. V. 
 
 GRANT OF JURISDICTION to the Dean and 
 
 Chapter and Prebendaries of Linco/n, about the 
 Year 1 160, tviih the Bishop's Mandate, to the 
 Archdeacon, to abstain from exercising Jurisdic- 
 tion in the Prebends. 
 
 RoBERTUs Dei gratia Lincolniensis Episcopus omnibus fide- 
 libus Dei salutem. Noverit Universitas vestra nos remisisse 
 omnibus prebendis Lincolniensis ecclesise in perpetuum omnia 
 jura episcopalia et omnes exactiones. Et volumus quod 
 omnes Canonici Lincolniensis perpetuam in preebendis suis et 
 omnibus possessionibus quae ad prsebendas pertinent libertatem 
 habeant. Ita quod de cetero nullo liceat Archidiacono vel 
 Archidiaconorum officiali de preebendis vel de ecclesiis quae 
 ad communionem Lincolniensis ecclesise pertinent aliquid 
 exigere, vel homines eorum in placitum ponere ; sed eandem 
 omnino habeant libertatem, quam habent Canonici Salisbi- 
 riensis ecclesia; in suis. Preefatam vero libertatem Subde- 
 canatium et ecclesioe Kertuniee quae ad subdecanatum pertinere 
 dignoscitur necnon et ecclesiae omnium sanctorum in ballio 
 quae de cancellaria est nostrae ecclesiae perpetuo concedimus, 
 et preesentis sigilii nostri attestatione communimus et corro- 
 boramus. Testibus Martino thesaurario, Radulpho subdecano, 
 Galfrido capellano domini Regis, Willielmo de Bugden ca- 
 pellano, Fulco de Chaisun canonico, magistro Radulpho me- 
 dico, Laureutio Giberto de Seperlingham, Willielmo Clement 
 priore de Heliesham, Thoma canonico de Griniesby. 
 
 Robertus Dei gratia Lincolniensis episcopus onniibus Archi- 
 diaconis per episcopatum Lincolniensem constitutis, salutem.
 
 102 APPENDIX. 
 
 Noverit universitas vestra nos. imperpetuum absolvisse omnes 
 Canonicos Lincolniensis ecclesiee a subjectione qiiam de prae- 
 bendis eorum et earum pertinenciis tarn in prsebendis quam 
 hominibLs, et omnibus ad eas pertinentibus exigere quondam 
 consuevistis. Testibiis MartinoThesaurario, Galfrido capellano 
 Regis, magistro Radulpho, et magistro Henrico Fulco et 
 Willielrao capellano.
 
 APPENDIX II. 
 
 AN ACCOUNT 
 
 THE SEVERAL JURISDICTIONS 
 
 THE DIOCESE OF LINCOLN 
 
 DIRECTIONS WHERE WILLS ARE PROVED AND WHERE THE 
 ORIGINALS ARE DEPOSITED. 
 
 The Diocese of Lincoln is divided into Six Archdeaconries, 
 
 VIZ : — 
 
 Archdeaconry of Lincoln, 
 Archdeaconry of Stow, 
 Archdeaconry of Leicester, 
 Archdeaconry of Buckingham, 
 Archdeaconry of Huntingdon, 
 
 Archdeaconry of Bedford, 
 
 in the County of Lincoln. 
 
 in the County of Leicester, 
 in the County of Buckingham, 
 in the County of Huntingdon, 
 in the County of Hertford, 
 in the County of Bedford. 
 
 N.B. There are Eigiit Peculiar Jurisdictions in tlie Counties of Oxford, 
 Northampton, and Rutland.
 
 104 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 I-] 
 
 
 »-) 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 Cb 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 W 
 H 
 
 1-3 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 05 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 ^ 
 
 Ph 
 
 h-l 
 
 H 
 7; 
 
 Ph 
 
 < 
 
 U 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 H 
 
 p 
 
 >^, 
 
 H 
 
 P 
 
 Q 
 
 
 
 W 
 
 n 
 
 e; 
 
 
 W 
 
 W 
 
 •s 
 
 K 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 Ph 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 M 
 
 p— 1 
 
 £« 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 ej 
 
 
 D 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ ^ 
 
 <U 41 
 
 
 P5 
 
 pi ^ 
 
 
 JO 
 
 - ts 
 
 
 ca 
 
 0) 
 
 ig -^ M c PL, ^a'^o o . S ^ t: o Si 
 
 0) 
 
 '=3^ = ^^^ 55-; 
 
 
 
 £ 1^ .b ^ c! 
 
 15 ;3 bp-^ S"^ £P-i cu ^C'U-S'o 
 
 ; -T- - o 
 
 > '-^ 
 
 . o o 
 
 V 
 
 r: r^ > ^-r- X O 
 
 ^H;-- 
 
 o -o Pw -^ "* 
 
 o o o trf 2 
 
 <D ajf^ w^i— 1-:; 0) 
 
 C3 
 
 C! -5 
 
 ^ t: cu 
 
 ■a - o 
 
 -= o 
 
 5 ^^ p: -.^ ^ g s ^ .s -S s 
 
 !? ts 
 
 "p o 
 
 ]0 A'^-e o 
 
 .0 d 
 
 Ji s -r 5e (V ai Cr- 
 
 - S O) ,2 ^ a^ tS 
 
 
 ■<-c; 
 
 '•^tzi c ^; 
 oj 2 SO 
 
 c js -e bfj o .5 t: p c 
 
 ^^ 
 
 — CD S t: « ■^ 
 t- — S ■" 
 
 - _a; o-c a; ^ 
 g o .2 ^ OJ S 
 
 c ;-; -1 - 
 
 -0 D 
 
 C r-i -rj 
 
 ^V3 
 
 I _c /-Q <" ,--1 V- ^> o s ^^ ' »- = .=5 " 1 
 
 <;o 
 
 o o 
 
 o 
 *-* c 
 
 o '^ 
 
 o -c 
 
 tr. --^ 
 
 •Kpq 
 O o 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ >5 
 
 
 ( 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 -73 
 
 
 S " 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 0-t3 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 j: 
 
 
 
 
 <u P 
 
 
 
 
 •5^ 
 
 
 _C 
 
 "o 
 
 <-. 0) 
 
 ,: 
 
 (», 
 
 
 J= 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 s 
 
 
 >.J 
 
 
 
 U tT 
 
 .^ 
 
 U 
 
 
 SC3 O) 
 
 -a 
 
 S H -^ 
 
 -<1 ■£ 
 
 o i; 
 
 U c>^o
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 105 
 
 w 
 z 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 z 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 w 
 
 
 K'Si 
 
 
 '^ -^ — o 
 
 0.3 
 
 the 
 e Bi 
 anc 
 Line 
 
 In 
 
 of tl 
 Chap 
 
 In 
 of th 
 Dean 
 ter of 
 
 m 2 
 
 a 
 
 c« ^J 
 
 
 J hj a c 
 
 oo 
 
 r^^ s ^'^ 
 
 1:^ >> o 
 
 fe -5 — 
 rt e 3 
 
 '- !i ^ 
 
 3 -3 o 
 
 
 - S c «■' 
 
 Vi t^ O >-> ^ 
 
 .a3->^ 
 
 rf C/5 oj 
 
 
 
 C ri 
 
 S 9^ 
 
 '■Si M ^ 
 
 ■^■^ -^ 
 
 hJ25 
 
 n! .5 
 -3 :2 
 
 1- o o 
 
 3 C § 
 
 n ti ^ 
 
 e u 
 
 -G -^ -::; 
 
 S =^ -T 
 
 ^ -^ 
 
 in ^ 
 
 
 -C r= .-5:^ 7= 
 
 r- H «• 
 
 
 S-TS -3 
 
 ?5C 
 
 O O M 
 
 ■w . ^ g -^ o *^ ■- ■" 
 
 t_ t— ^ •— ^ •— ^ i 
 
 °''^ ®-hr,'5 i; o c 
 
 o t: ■ 
 
 , a, »j ■" *j ^ 
 
 3-^3^5&3§'3 5 
 
 r-1 
 
 £ X 
 
 
 
 ■:i 
 
 -^ . . 
 
 
 C Co 
 
 
 (U o 
 
 
 
 a) 
 
 g^-s . 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ > p-J «s 
 
 
 0) j3 ,, 'S 
 
 
 -j^ 
 
 ■^•-^-^ 
 
 
 S -^.^ 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 ^'^ s =z 
 
 ,._, 
 
 O ^ ° *J o 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 .23 3 St^3 t 
 
 o 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 O^i^^ 3
 
 106 
 
 A P J' K M) I X , 
 
 •J 
 
 
 hJ 
 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 K- 
 
 
 fa 
 
 tf 
 
 u 
 
 w 
 
 c« 
 
 H 
 
 U 
 
 rr 
 
 < 
 
 pa 
 o 
 Pi 
 Pi 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 fii 
 
 Z 
 
 o 
 
 <: 
 
 
 PS 
 
 >^ 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 o 
 
 ^ 
 
 H 
 
 ;::) 
 
 Q 
 
 o 
 
 W 
 
 o 
 
 Pi 
 
 M 
 
 •^ 
 
 X 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 
 ~ i i -^ ^ 
 
 1. 
 
 Ji 
 
 
 u 
 
 -c P5 o „- - 
 
 »s 
 
 15 t: 
 
 0) 
 
 1 
 
 -3^" S^ 
 
 M 
 
 s 
 
 •So 
 
 go 
 
 O 3 oj O O ■ 
 
 2 Sd c 
 
 I'g' 
 
 a 's '" s S 
 
 
 a . 
 
 3 ns 
 
 fZJ be 
 
 K-SdEP^-^ 
 
 a; 
 
 P5 
 
 ■a 
 
 &» 
 
 "o rt 
 
 
 rt 
 
 0) 0) 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ a 
 
 — 
 
 a> 
 
 
 a> 
 
 li 
 
 <1> 
 
 
 
 
 
 Pi ^ 
 
 0) 
 
 0_-K 1 
 
 0^ 
 
 -s 
 
 
 
 -"«? t? 
 
 
 ■u £0^ 
 
 ^«^ 
 
 E5 
 
 r- 'S 
 
 
 
 a g 
 
 ^ 
 
 c 
 
 •ShJ 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 o 
 
 So 
 
 ni (* 
 Co 
 
 .SO 
 o q; 
 
 a; r— 
 
 o 
 
 0) • 
 
 -a 
 c • 
 
 _o 
 'S 
 
 o • 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 0) 
 
 t- a 
 ^= . 
 
 It- 
 
 s i 
 
 •EM 
 - 
 
 e1 • 
 
 S3 
 J3 ^ 
 
 « S . 
 
 >> 
 
 ■5 a 
 
 "^ 4 i tl,^k ■ 
 
 |l?lla5 
 
 43 '^ r 03 03 
 
 oj 2 g a be " '^ 
 
 M cd " 3 s*. 1^ 
 
 ^ t? ° ^ - s 1 • 
 
 a *j oj .05 
 
 >< <!i ^ ^ ^ H a 
 
 ^-" i'S g-2 <S 
 
 s 
 
 OJ ^ 
 
 .^ 
 
 '^^ «,.22 •-'- 
 
 Til 
 
 
 
 S 2 
 "3 a ■ 
 
 3 - 
 
 a 22 *^ >- ^ "^ 
 
 2 
 
 ■^ r-* 
 
 c 
 
 oj a •- ni ^ C 
 
 '^ & "i; P-i 1) cd a-i 
 
 ►-J 
 fa 
 o 
 
 bo C 
 
 P-.S 
 
 5^w 
 
 IS • 
 
 Oi 
 
 ° a>^S:a 
 •E --"^ g-^^H 
 
 H 
 H 
 
 "1° 
 
 
 « a .S 1 g ® cu 
 oj w >->-a *i !/i ■" 
 
 
 .Si g 
 
 f^ a 
 
 
 
 
 0^ 0) 
 
 ■is 1 
 
 2^ 
 
 
 
 a o 
 
 
 oi>ci3a)S'P-ati 
 
 
 ^•-d 
 %% 
 
 -S^ -a 
 
 r^ 1 
 
 -Ph 
 
 
 
 o - 
 
 
 
 
 0) D 0) 
 
 -CO. J= 
 
 l,&^"^ 
 
 j: ?" -5 ns be 3- >. 
 
 
 
 U 
 
 e c/2 
 
 t^ g^'oSO S- 
 
 
 ■5 ^ "3 
 
 
 "o 
 
 ■£ a 
 3 
 
 -s g 
 
 ■e 
 
 .2 b J= 
 
 
 
 
 ~ 
 
 3 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 S S <: 
 
 O rt 
 
 ^>, 
 
 •"".S 
 
 Cj 0) 0^ t- 
 
 2 ** aj "S3 
 
 
 . 
 "oO 5 
 
 5 2 ^ 
 
 o 
 
 0) 
 4-' 
 
 
 -3 (u S n 
 
 rS t: = 
 
 -5 -c 
 
 
 
 3 2 to 3 u. 
 
 3 . 35 
 
 3 tH 
 
 ^ t; -S 
 
 
 §•£ g § o 
 
 
 
 ai^ 
 
 
 o -J o 
 
 "o S 
 
 s^
 
 APPi: N MIX. 
 
 107 
 
 o 
 
 Is 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 o « 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 V2 
 
 ^ X 
 
 ll. 50 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 q3 
 
 aj 
 
 
 
 £ 
 
 jz .22 
 
 
 o 
 1^' 
 
 i 
 
 ■Ji 
 
 
 £ 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 4> 
 
 ^&- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 'no 
 
 0. 
 
 Q 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 p^ 
 
 •a 
 
 JS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 >->t; 
 
 "2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a> - 
 
 0) -yi 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •^■3 
 
 Is 
 
 O05 b 
 
 S 
 
 
 a3 
 
 c3 
 
 0.' 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 2 * 
 
 01 
 
 2 >.i 
 
 r/i 
 
 u: 
 
 Uj 
 
 t/i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 = 3 S 
 
 
 ^ '* "^ tyT ' 
 
 
 
 
 ^ , 
 
 
 
 , 
 
 0) • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 G :t3 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 3 3 S t; 
 — 3 =* o 
 
 
 "o 
 
 a 
 o 
 
 '3 ^ 
 
 
 
 n 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 3 
 
 
 >>'? 
 
 ^o 
 
 o 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 
 2 « 5 £ 
 
 
 o 
 
 3 
 
 ^— 
 
 w 
 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 5 E^ 
 
 C 
 
 3" 
 
 3 
 
 
 z 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 o ? a* 
 
 "3 
 
 c 
 
 •0) 
 
 o 
 
 -3 '^ 
 
 o 
 
 
 ■*s 
 
 C3 
 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 9 S 
 S o 
 
 H^ 2 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 5 
 
 ffl "s .5 -^ - 
 ° = -- ^" i 
 
 
 si 
 
 o 
 
 C3 3 " 
 
 3 
 
 o 
 
 
 -J 
 o 
 
 E- 
 
 Z 
 
 Eh 
 
 § • - 1 2 = 
 
 o „ 5 o « 
 
 ":= 1 = 5 
 
 
 -a -^ 
 
 §1 
 
 o 
 
 3 
 
 III 
 
 1 3 J 
 
 c5u a 
 
 O 
 
 3=2 
 =hO 
 
 3g 
 
 '^< 
 
 O ^ 
 
 o .S 
 
 -^ ci 
 So 
 
 
 ^ 1 oT'^'S 
 
 lllll 
 
 ■^ u a a o 
 
 3 
 
 •If 
 
 3 2 
 
 C 
 O 
 
 -S'2 !-" 
 
 
 •5 3 
 
 
 o 
 
 C2 o 
 o 53 
 
 2 
 
 ■2 ^'B. 
 
 o 
 
 0) a 
 ;2 3 
 
 c 
 
 s s 
 
 o a 
 
 
 a, a; ^-^ < 
 
 c3 
 
 
 Oh 
 
 
 1 
 
 c ■ « 
 
 *4 
 
 
 l3 ^ ^ ■^ 
 
 "3 £^.S 
 
 2 
 
 o 
 
 0) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 -3 OJ 
 
 -T3 V 
 
 ■BJ 
 
 J, o b 
 
 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 CO z^ 
 
 £ S -f 
 
 Oii < _• 
 
 O "i ^ o c 
 
 ■- bcw.':; 
 
 
 •3--S 
 
 4J C 
 
 S ?= ^-5 
 
 o to =— b 
 
 "Sb 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 a. 
 
 — 
 
 2 i 
 
 OJ u c 13 
 
 a -5 
 
 O 3 
 
 3 
 C 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 i i.S 3 i 
 
 3 S 
 
 2 3 5 ri 
 
 1 S 
 
 2 S g s 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 _0 -S -Jfi ^o ^ 
 
 O 2- 
 
 "5 ° —-5 
 
 O G. 
 
 ^l-lf 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 ^-' ^ ^w "^ 
 
 w "^ 
 
 3'-^ 5 3 
 
 ^ 2 
 
 r', 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 U ~ OJ 
 
 
 5 :^ — 
 
 
 
 
 
 "S ^ "o 
 
 ^ 
 
 =. w p. 
 
 ^' 
 
 
 O 
 

 
 108 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 Q 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 cq 
 
 H 
 
 
 t5 
 
 H 
 
 n: 
 
 •^ 
 
 PH 
 
 OS 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 >* 
 
 O 
 
 E— 1 
 
 H 
 
 ^ 
 
 Q 
 
 t3 
 
 W 
 
 o 
 
 
 o 
 
 ^ 
 
 w 
 
 o 
 
 m 
 
 *? 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 
 S E 
 
 ^- ja 
 
 o - 
 3 O 
 
 3 -1 
 
 Ph 3 
 0. ^ 
 
 5 :q 
 
 ^ bo 
 
 Jl &^ 
 
 nJ 
 
 ' 
 
 ■? fl 
 
 <u 
 
 
 C o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 u-^ 
 
 -^ 
 
 C 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 0. o 
 
 • a> 
 
 -a 
 
 ■=<: 
 
 o ■" 
 
 c 
 
 
 "3 t_ 
 
 
 ^1 
 
 bD o 
 
 3 
 
 T, 
 
 
 
 
 = o 
 
 3 = 
 
 
 o 
 
 •T- ° 
 
 
 ^ s • 
 
 4) J- ■« 
 
 •£ CQ ^ 
 
 ^ 5 W 
 
 cj cr'-u d 
 
 6C o 
 
 o _] -r„
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 109 
 
 ;z 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 
 fa 
 
 o 
 w 
 
 a? 
 
 o 
 O 
 
 a 
 
 X 
 
 O 
 
 cc 
 
 W 
 
 <: 
 pa 
 o 
 OS 
 
 Pn 
 
 H 
 
 -j; 
 o 
 o 
 
 O 
 W 
 ci 
 
 W 
 
 o 
 p^ 
 
 w 
 
 OS 
 D 
 O 
 
 a 
 
 CO 
 
 X 
 
 o 
 
 Q 
 
 O 
 
 fa 
 H 
 
 W 
 O 
 
 O 
 O 
 
 C 
 
 H 
 
 < 
 
 H 
 <1 
 53 
 H 
 
 "2 £ o^ 
 
 £• bo -— c fac 
 
 ^ ;> 
 s W 
 
 O J 
 
 s £ 
 
 S .£ "a "5 
 
 S ^ 2 -s^ bi: 
 
 — t/i -Jl V ■-, 
 
 d a, o) _c . 
 
 
 O-J 
 
 
 ^ ^^ .^ ^ r' t^ 
 
 
 
 ^ •£ '^ -2 hJ ^ O 'J 
 
 be > 
 c ^ 
 
 ?"-;b:5P>.° 
 
 ^ o ^ 
 
 
 -r- « 
 
 ^ 2 S^ S 
 
 ^ O ^ OJ 4J _. 
 
 0) ^ 
 
 ^ :2 '-' 
 
 
 <t,-t,<« 
 
 *-' "^ ^3 *— bjc.-- •-! _^ ^ •"- C ir^T^ tfl ^ ♦J i^ . ^ ^ ff C 
 o o^ ^c ctS'S^ > rt £0-^ •-: o t; S .SP =5 <« "* 
 >,>-.* ts 0) (u (u ai QJ o t. >^rtJ=^ = "^,!« — — ' 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 /I ^ 
 
 
 t 
 
 
 
 
 sS 
 
 
 0) 
 
 -a 
 
 § ^ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 o-^ 
 
 
 < a 
 
 
 
 
 (i) ^ 
 
 
 0) -w 
 
 
 gdon 
 of th 
 nting 
 
 
 c 
 
 3 

 
 110 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Q 
 O 
 Q 
 
 « 
 
 P-i 
 O 
 
 >^ 
 H 
 
 ;z 
 
 o 8 
 
 o ^ 
 
 
 
 , 
 
 , 
 
 
 <u 
 
 £^ 1.; 
 
 ~ 
 
 rt 
 
 
 o 
 
 J3 
 
 "S '^ 
 
 
 
 
 'rt i: 
 
 •^ 
 
 '^ i 
 
 
 ?: • 
 
 W .2 
 
 "bo b' 
 
 
 
 !>. 
 
 bD 
 
 .i cs 
 
 
 
 .s| 
 
 
 0) !- 
 
 ^ 1 
 
 
 
 si 
 
 rt >^ 
 
 T3 fan 
 
 5 « 
 
 
 
 
 
 J' 
 
 bo 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 «•- *~t 
 
 f, , *j 
 
 
 .^ 
 
 -'■" -3 
 
 O rt __^ 
 
 O ctf 
 
 
 a, 01 
 
 TO ^ 
 
 
 
 
 0) o 
 
 CJ J-i f^ 
 
 
 
 ■^ « 
 
 o .^ f5 
 
 s ^ c 
 ■^ rt 2 
 
 O Vn a 
 
 
 •SO 
 
 
 .-. o 
 
 
 1> CS 
 
 '3 '-^ 
 
 t/3 ^" 
 
 OJ be -rt 
 *" f^ .S 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 J to 
 
 c i= 
 
 S "he 
 
 c C 
 
 
 S3 
 
 " ^ 
 
 '"' 2 'S 
 
 l-l <D 3 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 CJ 
 
 "S h-J 
 
 _C '— 
 
 
 
 *.»-,— 
 
 
 
 
 
 ° a 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 a '^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 cc 
 
 
 
 
 •r2 (U 
 
 
 
 
 
 p., ^ 
 
 G • 
 
 
 
 
 <u fO 
 
 o 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 >< ^ 
 
 "S) 
 
 
 
 
 <u ^ 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 'So 
 bo . 
 
 
 
 
 — r S 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 £; bc 
 
 
 
 
 
 t2 '^ 
 
 cU 
 
 
 
 
 -d 3 • 
 
 e^ 
 
 
 
 
 0^ .-. 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 pq « 
 
 t3 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 c*- r^ 
 
 Cw 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 ° 2 
 
 >, OD 
 
 13 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 G ■-- 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 5 fajo 
 
 § bO 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 >-! 
 
 0) -a" 
 
 :/i 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 "a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 3 3 
 
 e5 • 
 
 
 
 
 bD c 
 
 § s 
 
 
 is 
 
 
 » 
 
 " J3 
 
 c6 
 
 -2 
 
 
 
 -S Sj° 
 
 - S 
 
 "bJo 
 
 
 
 '3 
 
 -c o 
 
 bo 
 
 
 
 
 rt bo 
 
 M C 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 S ci O) 
 
 n -^ 
 
 .2 
 
 
 
 111 
 
 (U </? « 
 
 4J bo 
 
 
 
 
 — _&>_- 
 W bn g 
 
 .a 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 
 ^^_ 
 
 .-i 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 > >^ a 
 
 
 
 .22 S o 
 So cs 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 
 
 -a 
 
 
 
 go 0) 
 
 C 
 
 a 
 
 
 M 
 
 m 
 
 01 
 
 
 
 .■^ <" ^ 
 
 .n 
 
 Xi 
 
 
 •^ 
 
 CJ-^ 13 
 
 (U 
 
 9 
 
 
 O 
 
 U 
 
 <uH < 
 
 &H "S 
 
 ^ rt 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 •So* 0) 
 
 0) N 
 
 ■5 3 
 
 
 
 t 
 
 
 
 ° 1 
 
 
 S 
 
 S'B 'o 
 
 — O 
 
 O .5." 
 
 5 ^ 
 
 O bfl 
 
 U bo 

 
 A P 1' E N IJ I X . 
 
 Ill 
 
 O 
 
 VI 
 
 W 
 < 
 O 
 
 Ph 
 
 < 
 o 
 o 
 
 w Q 
 
 " Pi: 
 
 s O 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 O ^ 
 
 a: 
 
 H 
 
 O 
 H 
 
 O 
 
 5 
 z 
 o 
 ij 
 w 
 pa 
 
 fw 
 
 H 
 O 
 
 .5 5 
 
 10 3 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 
 J=Q 
 
 is 
 
 
 
 
 
 CS 
 
 
 
 rt 
 
 
 eu 
 
 :d 
 
 
 IS 
 
 ? t: 
 
 
 Pi I 
 
 
 (U 
 
 o 
 
 :^ 
 
 g 
 
 
 -3 
 
 ..^ 
 
 rA) 
 
 cf. 
 
 (LI 
 
 
 K 
 
 ^ 
 
 c« 
 
 
 o 
 
 C 
 
 
 Ui 
 
 d 
 
 
 Tl 
 
 ITJ 
 
 n 
 
 C 
 
 
 
 
 2 O 
 
 
 C3 
 
 c 
 
 
 ci 
 
 
 
 a> 
 
 
 a 
 
 Q 
 
 ^ t^ 
 
 o 
 
 
 O 3 
 
 o 
 
 .^ 
 
 « ^ 
 
 o 
 
 
 -^ cS 
 
 oi 
 
 o 
 
 <-« 5*^ 
 
 >^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t4 
 
 
 
 
 a> ri 
 
 
 o 
 O 
 
 
 
 8-3 
 
 
 
 j= 1^ 
 
 
 
 o &, 
 
 ^ s 
 
 S H 
 
 .22 O 
 
 c ■S 
 
 
 O 
 
 P-i ^
 
 112 
 
 A V P R N 1) I \ , 
 
 
 o 
 
 < 
 pq 
 O 
 
 Co 
 H 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 Q 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 <: 
 
 H 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 >^ 
 
 o 
 
 C ffi 
 
 p ^ 
 
 c ■ 
 
 H 
 O 
 
 l-l 
 
 o 
 
 J? 
 o 
 hJ 
 1^ 
 cq 
 
 en 
 
 D 
 O 
 i3 
 
 u 
 
 
 J ^ 
 
 H 
 
 Ph 
 O 
 
 >-| 
 H 
 
 o 
 u 
 
 w 
 
 o 
 
 'hose 
 
 c 
 is 
 
 
 
 
 p >^ 
 
 rji 
 
 
 
 
 „T3 
 
 
 
 
 
 .5 o 
 
 si 
 
 5 2 
 
 a3 
 
 S 'bD 
 
 1 "^ 
 
 
 g" 
 
 o .!2 
 
 s 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 i s' 
 
 
 
 P5 
 
 
 S. 
 
 
 ■6 
 
 j^ 
 
 
 "o rt 
 
 
 0) CJ 
 
 
 
 
 
 J3 S 
 
 M 
 
 
 (L> 
 
 
 
 'bo 
 
 
 o 13 
 
 
 sR 
 
 Hi 
 
 
 iS 5 
 
 
 |« 
 
 <i5 
 
 O -Jr 
 
 a 
 o 
 
 ^ a. 
 
 <i> s 
 
 S 
 
 «^ '?? 
 
 T3 
 
 0) 
 
 ^ o 
 — o 
 
 
 
 bX3 
 
 .5 
 
 
 fi 
 
 
 
 
 c3 _m 
 
 Ei3 
 
 ^•h3 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 ^ 
 
 % 
 
 
 J2 
 
 tc 
 
 ;?; 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 
 iJ 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 a> 
 
 
 
 Q 
 
 ^ 
 
 OJ 
 
 12 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 1-5 
 fa 
 
 
 .5" 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 w 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ? 
 
 
 
 
 ^o 
 
 . 
 
 
 H 
 
 rt 
 
 T3 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 w 
 
 KiH 
 
 rt 
 
 
 
 
 "2 
 
 ^ 
 
 p 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 e 
 o 
 
 s 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 bo 
 
 bD 
 
 
 
 n 
 
 
 g 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -a 
 
 iL^ 
 
 
 
 
 "2 
 
 
 
 
 c^ 
 
 f, , 
 
 «j-t 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 -^ 
 
 J 
 
 J3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 j-i 
 
 
 
 C3 
 
 n! 
 
 rt 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 Ph 
 
 tin 
 
 
 
 0) 
 
 a> 
 
 a> 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 
 <*- 
 
 r, 
 
 t^^ 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 >^ 
 
 >i 
 
 r^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 rt 
 
 ^ 
 
 rt 
 
 
 
 -d 
 
 
 -o 
 
 
 in 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 a) 
 
 <u 
 
 
 1 
 
 o 
 
 
 0) 
 
 X3 
 
 
 o 
 
 &, 
 
 £ 
 
 a. 
 
 
 o 
 
 <u 
 
 <D 
 
 a> 
 
 
 
 J2 
 
 J= 
 
 JS 
 
 
 a> 
 
 
 
 *-* 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 C '-*- 
 
 
 ">. 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 2 ° 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 j^ 
 
 m 
 
 t- _! 
 
 ■^ 
 
 to t. 
 
 bO 
 
 
 = s 
 
 a 
 
 B 3 
 
 Q 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 ? 6 
 
 Oh 
 S 
 
 
 U! 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 w
 
 UNIVi v.x« v^ALIFORNlA