Presentation deeds and institution papers

These documents belong to the period 1643-1646 before the Long Parliament had entirely destroyed the organisation of the Church, and before the new methods of governing the Church had been settled. Until the new system was evolved Parliament had to resort to the old ecclesiastical procedure for presentation and institution in those parts of England under its jurisdiction (W. Shaw, History of the English Church during the Civil Wars and under the Commonwealth, 2 vols, London 1900 ii, p 282.).

The usual procedure in presenting a new incumbent had been for the patron lay or ecclesiastical, to draw up a presentation deed addressed to the official of the diocese who was to be responsible for the institution. Parliament interfered as little as possible with private patronage and about half the presentations in this series were made by laymen, peers, and colleges. The Commissioners for the Great Seal acted on behalf of the Crown, not only for the King's own patronage but for presentations which had lapsed to the Crown in the usual way through vacancy in the Archbishopric of Canterbury and in the sees of the impeached bishops. In some cases Parliament presented on behalf of Archbishop Laud, then under 'supervision'. The Court of Wards continued to function as before.

According to the old procedure, institution was in the hands of the diocesan official to whom the presentation deed was addressed. During this period the institution to livings within the gift of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and those within the diocese of Canterbury, was officially entrusted to Sir Nathaniel Brent, Vicar General for the Province of Canterbury. Although all the papers in this series passed through Brent's hands, by no means all relate to livings within the diocese, and many of the presentation deeds are addressed to other bishops and their officials. In the case of presentations in other dioceses the candidate was approved by Parliament which then directed an order for institution to Brent (These orders are recorded in the Journals of the House of Commons and Lords). A study of these has shown that they all relate to livings in the dioceses of the bishops who were impeached in 1643 and 1644 (W. Shaw, History of the English Church during the Civil Wars and under the Commonwealth, 2 vols, London 1900 ii, pp 204-206). Their sees were thus vacant and by assuming rights of institution Brent was performing his usual function of dealing with 'sede vacante' matters. These papers therefore may have come to the Library with the other Vicar General archives and not with the Commonwealth records. Endorsements show that Brent or his deputies carried out the institutions in London, except when the candidate was instituted 'in absentia' by mandate issued by Brent to local clergy.

There are a few miscellaneous papers in the series. They include the grant of an advowson to another party for one turn, deeds of resignation of incumbents, a copy of the Thirty Nine Articles, with the signatures of those subscribing, and testimonials of good behaviour. The papers relating to Sundridge in Kent give an example of two rival candidates being considered by Parliament. The only document which does not form part of the series is the copy of a letter from Archbishop Laud to John Birkenhead, Master of the Faculties after the Restoration, asking him to ensure that his bequests are fairly distributed after his death (COMM.I/145).

The papers are arranged in alphabetical order of parishes and there is an index of patrons and incumbents