to be delivered to the archdeacon on behalf of the ordinary, but the archdeacon refused to take him, alleging that the prisoner was not a clerk. This raised a serious difficulty; and the question was one of particular importance to the prisoner, as the judges deliberated whether he must not of necessity be hanged. He was, however, remanded to prison, and the subject was much discussed by the judges for several terms; but, luckily for the culprit, the conscientious archdeacon being removed, his successor heard the prisoner read, and consented to receive him; whereupon he was delivered to the ordinary, the judges saying "that in favorem vitæ et libertatis ecclesiæ, even where a man had once failed to read, and had received sentence of death, they would allow him his benefit of clergy, under the gallows, if he could then read, and was received by the ordinary." Another case is recorded in the 21st year of Edw. IV. (1481), in which a felon read well and audibly in the presence of the whole court; but the ordinary declared "non legit ut clericus for divers considerations." Upon which judgment was given that he should be hanged; "And so," says the reporter, "he was ut audivi." (Year Book, 21 Edw. IV. 21.) But though a felon might claim the benefit of clergy to the last moment of his life, it was an indictable offence to teach him to read for the purpose of saving him. Thus in the 7th Richard II. (1383), the vicar of Round Church in Canterbury was arraigned and tried, " for that by the licence of the jailer there, he had instructed in reading one William Gore, an approver, who at the time of his apprehension was unlearned (ineruditus in lecturâ).” (Dyer's Reports, p. 206.) It may readily be conceived that questions between the temporal courts and the ordinary would arise as the art of reading became more generally diffused; and it was probably on this account that an express provision was made by the legislature in order in some degree to obviate the occurrence of such difficulties. The statute 4 Henry VII. c. 13 (1488), revived the distinction between actual clergymen and such persons as had accidentally acquired a competent skill in reading, by providing that no per

son once admitted to the benefit of clergy should a second time be allowed the same privilege, unless he produced his orders; and to mark those who had once claimed the privilege, the statute enacted that all persons, not in orders, to whom it was so allowed, should be marked upon the "brawn of the left thumb" in the court, before the judge, before such person was delivered to the ordinary. After the offender was thus burned in the hand, he was formally delivered to the ordinary, to be dealt with according to the ecclesiastical canons, and to make purgation by undergoing the farce of a canonical trial. This second trial took place before the bishop or his deputy: there was a jury of twelve persons, who gave their verdict on oath; witnesses were examined on oath; the prisoner answered on oath; and twelve compurgators swore that they believed him. On this occasion, though the prisoner had been convicted at common law by the clearest evidence, or had even confessed his guilt, he was almost invariably acquitted. The whole proceeding before the ordinary is characterised by Chief Justice Hobart, at the beginning of the seventeenth century, "as turning the solemn trial of truth by oath into a ceremonious and formal lie." (Hobart's Reports, p. 291.) To remove this discre ditable abuse of the forms of justice, the statute 18 Eliz. c. 7, enacted that in all cases after an offender had been allowed his clergy, he should not be delivered to the ordinary, but be at once discharged by the court, with a provision that he might be detained in prison for any time not exceeding a year, at the discretion of the judge before whom he was tried.

By various statutes passed in the course of the last century, the court before which an offender was tried and admitted to his clergy were empowered to commute the burning in the hand for transportation, imprisonment, or whipping; and subsequently to the passing of these statutes it is believed that no instance has occurred of a convict being burned in the hand.

The practice of calling upon a convicted person to read in order to prove to the court his title to the benefit of clergy continued until a comparatively late period. A case is mentioned in Kelynge's

ordinaries, and incumbents, be made in such a manner as not to be affected by the statute of Pluralities. Under § 72 of 1 & 2 Vict. c. 106, benefices may be divided or consolidated with the consent of patrons, and there is a clanse for apportioning in certain cases the incomes of two benefices belonging to one patron. (Burn's Eccles. Law, tit. "Union.")

For the manner of obtaining dispensations from the archbishop, and for the form of such dispensations, and of the confirmation thereof by the lord chancellor, and the provisions which the canou law requires to be inserted in such dispensations, see Burn's Eccles. Law, tit. "Plurality."

The subject of Pluralities is now regulated by 1 & 2 Vict. c. 106, entitled An Act to abridge the holding of Benefices in Plurality, and to make better provision for the residence of the clergy. By this act no persons holding more benefices than one shall hold therewith any cathedral preferment or any other benefice. The term "cathedral preferment " comprehends every dignity and office in any cathedral or collegiate church. An archdeacon may hold two benefices with his archdeaconry under the limitations of the

act.

Two benefices held by one person must be within ten miles of each other, and a licence of dispensation must be obtained from the archbishop of Canterbury. No person is to hold a benefice with a population of more than three thousand persons, if he has already a benefice with à population exceeding five hundred persons; and two benefices cannot be held if their joint yearly value exceeds 1000l. If, however, the yearly value of one of the benefices be under 150l., and the population does not exceed 2000, two benefices may be held together, although their joint value exceed 1000l.; but the incumbent must give to the bishop a statement in writing of the reasons why the two benefices should be held together, and the bishop may require him to reside nine months in the year on one of them.

5. Another mode of avoidance of a benefice is by deprivation under a sentence of an ecclesiastical court. The principal causes on which sentence of deprivation is usually founded are heresy,

blasphemy, gross immorality; or conviction of treason, murder, or felony.

6. A benefice may be avoided by act of the law; as where the incumbent omits or refuses to subscribe the Thirty-Nine Articles, or declaration of conformity to the Liturgy, or to read the Articles or Book of Common Prayer, in pursuance of the statutes which render those acts necessary. But the most remarkable mode of avoidance which is to be classed under this head is that for simony, in pursuance of the statute 31 Elizabeth, c. 6. By this statute for the avoiding of simony, it is among other things enacted, that if any patron, for any sum of money, reward, profit, or benefit, or for any promise, agreement, grant, bond, of or for any sum of money, reward, gift, profit, or benefit, shall present or collate any person to an ecclesiastical benefice with cure of souls or dignity, such presentation or collation shall be utterly void, and the crown shall present to the benefice for that turn only. The statute also imposes a penalty upon the parties to the simoniacal contract to the amount of double the value of a year's profit of the benefice, and for ever disables the person corruptly procuring or accepting the benefice from enjoying the same. And by statute 12 Anne, sess. 2. c. 12, a purchase by a clergyman, either in his own name or that of another, of the next presentation for himself, is declared to be simony, and is attended with the same penalties and forfeiture as are imposed by the statute of Elizabeth. Upon the construction of this statute of Elizabeth it has been held, that if the next presentation can be shown to have been purchased with the intention of presenting a particular person, who, upon a vacancy taking place, is presented accordingly, this fact is sufficient to render the transaction simoniacal. An exception has indeed been made in the case of a father providing for his son by the purchase of a next presentation, but the principle of this exception has lately been denied. (2 B. & C. 652.)

The circumstance of the incumbent being at the point of death at the time of the contract, may also vitiate the transaction; except where the fee simple of the advowson is purchased, in which case

it has been decided that the knowledge of the state of the incumbent's health does not make the purchase simoniacal.

It has been a question much agitated in our courts, whether a presentation is valid where the person presented enters into a bond or agreement, either generally to resign the benefice at the patron's request, or to resign it in favour of a particular person specified in the instrument. After several contrary decisions in the courts below, it was finally decided by the House of Lords, towards the latter end of the last century, that general bonds of resignation were simoniacal and illegal. A similar decision has lately been made by the same tribunal with respect to bonds of resignation in favour of specified persons. As there is no objection on the grounds of public policy to the last-mentioned instruments, if restrained within due limits, the interference of the legislature has been thought necessary in order to regulate transactions of this nature. On this account, after a retrospective act (7 & 8 Geo. IV. c. 25) had been passed, to remedy the hardships that might otherwise have been occasioned by the lastmentioned judgment of the House of Lords, it was finally enacted by the 9 Geo. IV. c. 94, that every engagement, bona fide made for the resignation of any spiritual office or living, in favour of a person, or one of two persons to be specially named therein, being such persons as were mentioned in a subsequent section of the act, should be valid and effectual in law, provided such engagement were entered into before the presentation of the party entering into the same. By the section referred to, where two persons are specially named in the engagement, each of them must be, either by blood or marriage, an uncle, son, grandson, brother, nephew, or grand-nephew of the patron (provided the patron is not a mere trustee), or of the person for whom the patron is a trustee, or of the person by whose direction the presentation is intended to be made, or of any married woman whose husband in her right is patron, or of any other person in whose right the presentation is intended to be inade. The deed containing the engagement to resign must be deposited for

inspection with the registrar of the diocese wherein the benefice is situated, and every resignation made in pursuance of such an engagement must refer to the same, and state the name of the person for whose benefit it is made and becomes void, unless that person is presented within six months. The statute is limited in its operation to cases where the patronage is strictly private property.

There are certain benefices of which the patronage is either by custom or act of parliament vested in certain public officers or corporations. Thus, the lord chancellor has the absolute patronage of all the king's livings which are valued at 201. per annum or under in the king's books. It is not known how this patronage of the chancellor was derived; but it appears from the rolls of parliament in the 4 Edward III., that the chancellor at that time had the patronage of all the king's livings of the value of 20 marks or under, and it is not improbable that at the time of making the new valuation of benefices in the reign of Henry VIII., a new grant was made to the chancellor by the crown, in consideration of the altered value or ecclesiastical property

By the Municipal Corporations Act (5 & 6 Will. IV. c. 76) all advowsons, rights of presentation or nomination to any benefice or ecclesiastical preferment in the gift of any body corporate, according to the meaning of the act, were required to be sold under the direction of the ecclesiastical commissioners, and the proceeds invested in government securities, the interest on which was to be carried to the account of the borough fund (§ 139). The act 1 & 2 Vict. c. 31, was passed for facilitating this transfer of patronage.

By stat. 3 Jac. I. c. 5, popish recusants are disabled from exercising any right of ecclesiastical patronage; and the patronage of livings in the gift of such persons is vested in the two universities, according to the several counties in which the livings are situate. This disability was confirmed by the subsequent statutes 1 William and Mary, c. 26, 12 Anne sess. c. 14, and extended to cases where the right of patronage was vested in a trustee for a papist; and is not removed (along with the other disabilities affecting Roman