SECTION VI. On Presentations by Commendam. dam. COMMENDAM is a benefice or ecclesiastical Definition of living which, being void, is commended by the a commencrown to the care of some sufficient clerk, until may be conveniently supplied with a pastor. it By the council of Lateran, and the canon law One benefice received here as common law, if any person had only tenable. a benefice with cure, and accepted and was inducted into another, the first was void ('), and as by the statute 21 Hen. VIII. c. 13. (which is in affirmance of the law of the land), if any person having a benefice with the cure of souls, of eight pounds per annum or above, according to the present valuation in the king's books (2), accepts any other and is instituted therein, the first shall be immediately void, on institution to the second, before induction, though a lapse does not incur until six months after induction, and the patron has a right to present. (3) All benefices vacant on the conse So, by the ancient, common, and ecclesiastical law, no bishop could within his diocess hold a cration of a second benefice, with cure, of whatever value, bishop. as all promotions, except donatives, are void when a clerk is promoted to a bishoprick the instant that he is consecrated. (1) Lord chief justice de Grey, speaking of this right of presentation (which is in general exerted by the archbishop of Canterbury, by the command of the king himself singly), observes that it appears in Bro. Presentment 61. to be as old as Edward the Third's time. It was exercised under Henry VIII. and Queen Elizabeth. The law concerning it was doubted in Charles the Second's time, but since finally determined in favour of the crown in the reign of King William. (2) Right of presentation in the King. This right is not a right of patronage in the king, nor a right of eviction, as it ejects nobody, nor an usurpation, as it is a rightful act. But it is a Dig. tit. Præ. D. Sir R. Basset v. Gee, Cro. El. 790. (') Humphreys v. Knight, Cro. Car. 456. Dod. on Adv. 93. Doctor and Stu. 218. (2) The Grocer's Company 219. Edes v. Walter, Vaugh. v. The Archbishop of CanR. 22. Com. Dig. tit. Esg.terbury, 2. Bl. R. 773. The H. 6. N. 1. Colt v. The Bi-King v. The Bishop of Lon shop of Coventry, Hob. don, 4 Mod. Rep. 202. 3 Lev. Rep. 377. 1 Ld. Raym, R. 23. 1 Show Rep. 413. contingent casual right, arising upon a particular event, the incumbent's becoming a bishop. Not only dignitaries and benefices, but deaneries, prebends, headships of colleges and hospitals, have been granted in commendam. (1) As there are four things required to make a complete parson, namely, presentation, admission, institution, and induction, so in making a bishop four things are also necessary; namely, election, which represents presentation; confirmation, which resembles admission; consecration, which corresponds with institution; and installation, or inthronization in the case of an archbishop, which resembles induction. (2) secration. As the church is full on the institution of a Bishoprick parson, and the person instituted has benefice full on conwith cure, so the bishoprick is full on the consecration of a bishop. On which principle, when a bishop is translated from one see to another, the old see is not even void by the election, till that election is confirmed, for though a bishop is elected, the king may not consent, nor the archbishop confirm, and it is but reasonable that the (*) Com. Dig. tit. Præ. D. | David's v. Lucy, Salk. Rep. Gibs. Codex. 954. 136. (2) The Bishop of St. To prevent which vacancies, dispensations necessary. Which were formerly granted by the pope, and called retinere. bishop should not lose his old preferment until he gains a new bishoprick. (') Hence in all cases where a clerk is presented to a benefice with cure, and is admitted, instituted, and inducted, so that the church is full, if he is afterwards presented to another benefice incompatible, or elected to a bishoprick, he must obtain, before institution to the second benefice, or before creation to the bishoprick, a faculty or dispensation of retainer, an invention of Pope Leo the Fourth's, about the year of our Lord eight hundred and forty-eight. (2) Formerly the pope, and now the king, by statute as well as by common law, can grant this dispensation, which is commonly called a comcommendam mendam retinere, or faculty of retention or continuation of the benefice, whereby the institution and induction remain and are continued in their full force (3), and the first benefice is not void by the acceptance of the second, or by the promotion to the bishoprick, but the parson remains full and perfect incumbent of the first benefice during his life. () Salk. Rep. 136. (2) The King v. Cyprian Horsefall and R. Wall, Davies R. 79. The King v. The Bishop of Landaff, Str. (3) Armiger v. Holland, Cro. El. 542. 601. to the archbishop by By the 25 Hen. VIII. c. 21. the archbishop Power given of Canterbury has power, on good and reasonable cause, to grant such dispensations as were the statute. allowed according to law under his seal. The authority of the pope, in this particular case, being by that statute transferred to the archbishop, and as we have seen by the canon and common law promotions of bishops are not vacant but by consecration, in case of creation, and by confirmation in case of translation; the dispensation from the archbishop may come at any time before such actual vacancy, but if such dispensation comes afterwards, it is too late. (1) But the king can grant dispensations, since this statute, as well as before, for though the statute says all dispensations shall be granted in manner following, and not otherwise, the king is not thereby restrained, but has a concurrent power, and may therefore still grant a dispensation retinere in commendam, which may be for years, or quamdiu he is a bishop, or tenere a deanery, prebend, or other dignity. (2) Which, however, has not the king's taken away power. thus done to The faculty or dispensation in this case makes No wrong no wrong or injury to the patron, for the patron the Patron. (*) Robins V. Gerrard, Moore's Rep. 443. Evans v. Ascuithe, Palm. Rep. 475. Dav. Rep. 77. a. (2) Armiger v. Holland, Cro. El. 542. 601. Colt v. |