that then every person or persons so offending shall for every such offence forfeit and lose the sum of forty pounds of lawful money of England, and the party so corruptly ordained or made minister, or taking orders, shall forfeit and lose the sum of ten pounds: and if at any time within seven years next after such corrupt entering into the ministry or receiving of orders, he shall accept or take any benefice, living, or promotion ecclesiastical, that then immediately from and after the induction, investing, or installation thereof or thereunto had, the same benefice, living, and promotion ecclesiastical shall be eftsoons merely void; and that the patron or the person to whom the advowson, gift, presentation, or collation shall by law appertain, shall and may, by virtue of this act, present or collate unto, give and dispose of the same benefice, living, or promotion ecclesiastical, in such sort, to all intents and purposes, as if the party so inducted, invested or installed, had been or were naturally dead; any law, ordinance, qualification, or dispensation to the contrary notwithstanding. The one moiety of all which forfeitures shall be to our sovereign lady the queen, her heirs, and successors, and the other moiety to him or them that will sue for the same by action of debt, bill, plaint, or information, in any of her majesty's courts of record, in which no essoin, protection, privilege, or wager of law shall be admitted or allowed."

Canons of the church ineffectual

patrons.

As many canons of the church were not confirmed by parliament, and many provisions are against lay contained in them which are not declaratory of the law of the land, the laity were consequently not bound by them; the clerical offender was alone punishable, and corrupt patrons not in any fear of the canon law, were in the habit of boldly making simoniacal presentations until this act was passed. The incumbent that came in by simony held the living until he was legally and judicially deprived by sentence ecclesiastical, from which he often escaped for want of that proof which the spiritual law requires.

But now by this statute, which is the test of what is or is not simony, and which is not privative of the jurisdiction of the church, but, as Bishop Wake calls it, cumulative, leaving the church all the authority it had before, the statute renders what was before voidable void, enacting penalties on certain acts, and making the presentation, admission, institution, and induction all void, instead of being voidable by deprivation as they were before the statute (1); the intent of which was to eradicate all manner of simonies (2), to make presentations spontaneous, to inflict punishment upon the patron as the author of the

(*) 1 Inst. 120. a. Winchcombe, v. The Bishop of Winchester, Hob. R. 167. Windsor's case, 5 Rep. 102.

Barret v. Glubb, 2. Blac. R. 1052.

(2) Kitchin V. Calvert, Lane's Rep. 100.

corruption by the loss of his presentation, and upon the incumbent, who comes in by such a corrupt patron, and corruptly takes the benefice, by the loss of his, incumbency (1), and disabling him from ever again enjoying the same benefice for which the contract was made. (2)

indicted for

In addition to these forfeitures and disabilities Simoniacus the simoniacus is also liable to be indicted and liable to be punished, as in other cases of perjury; how- perjury. ever, where an information was moved for against a clergyman for perjury, at his admission to a living, on an affidavit that the presentation was simoniacal, the court refused to grant it until he was convicted of the simony. (3)

If the presentee, however, is only simoniace Where the promotus, or one on whose behalf a simoniacal presentee is not privy to contract or promise is made, without his privity the corrupt presentation. or consent, then he is only deprived of the benefice to which he is so corruptly preferred, and not liable to any forfeiture. (*)

For when a sum of money or reward is given Presentation void, though for any presentation to a benefice with cure, clerk not although the clerk is not privy to the simoniacal privy. contract, yet as there is a corrupt agreement, the

(*) 12 Rep. 100.

(2) Geffrey Booth v. Potter. Cro. Jac. 533. 3 Inst. 154.

(3) The King v. Lewis,

1 Strange's R. 70. Sid. R.
170.

(4) Booth v. Potter, Cro.
Jac. 533. Baker v. Rogers,
Cro. El. 788.

Clerk not disabled

patron pro hac vice loses his presentation, which by the words of the statute comes to the king, and the presentation, admission, institution, and induction of the clerk are all void ('), but neverfrom holding under a new theless, as the clerk is neither party nor privy to presentation. the contract, and neither takes nor accepts the benefice upon the corrupt contract, he is not disabled from enjoying the same under a new presentation from the king, as though the presentation, admission, and induction, are all void within the letter, yet they are not within the clause of disability of the statute. (2)

Where

money given by a clerk to present,

And this agrees with the canon law: 'Aliquis est in Prelatum alicujus ecclesiæ electus per Simoniam eo tamen ignorante nec ratum habente: talis electio propterea reprobata est, quæritur utrum episcopus, cum illo poterit dispensare ut iterum ad eandem. Prelaturam elegatur. Respondetur, quod Episcopus illa vice cum illo dispensare non potest, sed cum illo qui ignoranter simplex beneficium per simoniam est adeptus post liberam resignationem potest Episcopus dispensare. (3) On the same principle, if money is given by a clerk to present him to a benefice, although it is not paid to the

(*) Hutchinson's case, 12 Rep. 74 and 101. Bawderock v. Mackaller, Cro. Car. 330. Cro. El. 789. 331.

(*) Degge P. C. Part 1. ch. 5. 48, 49. 3 Inst. 154. 12 Rep. 101.

(3) St. Gregory's Decretals The King v. The Bishop of lib. 1. tit. 7. c. 59. 210. Norwich and others, Cro.

Jac. 385. 3 Lev. 337.

patron, and the patron has no knowledge of it, yet the incumbent shall be deprived of his benefice, and the patron also, pro hac vice, lose his presentation. (1)

though the money is not paid to the patron, the presentation simoniacal.

Thus, where an incumbent makes a simoniacal Privity of the patron. agreement with the wife or friend of the patron, and the patron is no party to the agreement, but entirely ignorant of the contract, yet if the incumbent is presented thereto by means of this simoniacal agreement, he is within the statute, and the king may present. (2)

So where a person who wanted to be made a bishop, conversing with one who was supposed to have most interest at court, on the subject of a see that was then vacant, offered to bet him a large sum that he was not promoted to the bishoprick, this was clearly an evasion of simony, a mere collusion to disguise the real intention, namely, to enter into a contract or engagement manifestly corrupt, and therefore void. (3)

Nevertheless where a patron, the church being void, took a bond of a clerk before he presented him, to pay ten pounds a year, yearly, for the son of the last incumbent, so long as he was a student

(*) 2 Bulstr. 182.

(2) The King v. The Bishop of Norwich, Cro. Jac. 385.

(3) Jones v. Randall, Cowp. R. 39.