422
NOTES AND QUERIES. [9 th s. vn. JUNE i, 1901.
borne by the rector of Market Deeping, who
tells me that his only duty is as trusteeof a
large town charity.
Now as to the exercise of jurisdiction. In every peculiar there was, or ought to have been, a periodical "visitation" like that of bishop or archdeacon. By custom an official or commissary was appointed for this busi- ness, except where the rector was himself the ordinary, holding his own court. By No. cxxvii., 'Of Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical,' enacted in 1 James I., it was provided that
" no man shall hereafter be admitted a chancellor' commissary, or officiall to exercise any ecclesias- tical jurisdiction, except he be of the full age of six and twentie yeeres at the least, and one that is learned in civill and ecclesiastical lawes, and is at least a Master of Arts or Bachelor of Law."
Those who are cognizant of the former prac- tice in Church courts need not to be told that the business brought before these commis- saries was of a very substantial character. Marriage licences and probate of wills were granted, midwives received or exhibited their licences, presentations were made of those who abstained from public worship, &c., also of the fathers and mothers of base-born children.
But we may well suppose that laxity of discipline would follow on this exemption and freedom from episcopal control. Parish priests might become careless in performance of ministerial work, scandalous in life and conduct. It is not improbable that such visitation as there was might in many cases be intermittent and rare, even that it might altogether fall through ; and we cannot doubt that officials and commissaries would be less strict in dealing with offences whether ministerial, or those of lay men and women in regard to irreligious and scandalous conduct than would the bishops' or archdeacons' courts. We of the present day, who have learnt that not every sin can be treated as a crime, may think that the cause of religion and morality would not greatly suffer from this absence or laxity of supervision, but it was far otherwise thought of in past days.
Hence the existence of peculiars was always regarded by bishops (as we might be sure that it would be) with indignation and jealousy the jealousy of human nature against an independence which defied them, as well as righteous indignation at abuses and evil examples in their diocese with which they were powerless to deal. Thus in fact, from earlier times to the latest, we find evidence of struggles on the part oi
bishops to overcome this baneful independ-
ence. The Koll of Battle Abbey records
such a struggle in the twelfth century, of
which I will speak hereafter. In the year
1562 Alley, Bishop of Exeter, exhibited in
Convocation certain proposals to be sub-
mitted to the Queen in Parliament : this
amongst others, that
bishops should have jurisdiction in all criminal causes before them, and to reform other disorders in all peculiars and places exempt, which be speluncce latronum " (Strype, ' Annals ')
In 1714, following on the institution of Queen Anne's Bounty, it was provided by Act of Parliament that " all such donatives as are now exempt from all ecclesiastical juris- diction, and shall be augmented ..... .shall be
subjected to the visitation and jurisdiction
of the bishop." The 'Valor Ecclesiasticus '
of Henry VIII., published 1818-25, contains
an appendix for each diocese, signed by its
bishop, setting out the number and nature of
all peculiars therein. From these we obtain
a few hints, some of them almost amusing.
Thus, to quote one case, that of Hawarden,
then in the diocese of Chester, it is said :
"Grants probates and marriage licences,
but subject to the jurisdiction of the Bishop
of Chester as to everything strictly epis-
copal." Seeing that the rector was ordinary
of the place, holding his own court therein,
that he could not be summoned to the
bishop's visitation, and that when a confirma-
tion was needed he "invited" the bishop
who could not come for that purpose unless
invited it is hard to see what were the
" things strictly episcopal " in *respect of
which he was subject. Again, of Bibury in
Gloucestershire it is said, "The bishop
claims the right of visitation." Of this
claim we will speak hereafter. On the other
hand, it is likely enough that, partly through
a becoming sense of loyalty, partly also in
the hope of favour and preferment, many
incumbents of peculiars might be willing to
waive somewhat of their privilege, attending
visitations and the like a submission which
would no doubt be carefully noted, and soon
quoted for a precedent. Thus in the Exeter
diocesan registry it is recorded that on a
visitation of Bishop Valentine Carey (ob.
1626), the curate of Temple (hereafter to be
spoken of) appeared and paid the registrar
12d visitation fee. From this he would cer-
tainly have been exempt, and it must have
been a voluntary act of submission.
I have already stated how and when these peculiar privileges were abolished. A few places I believe there still are (maybe a sort of private chapelries) to which the patron
