Adwoson, the right of presentation to a church or ecclesiastical benefice in England. Adwosons are either appendant or in gross. Lords of manors were originally the founders, and, of course, the patrons of churches; and so long as a right of patronage continues annexed or appended to the manor, it is called an adwoson appendant. Such rights are conveyed with the manor as incident thereto, by a grant of the manor only, without adding any other words. But where the adwoson has been once separated from the manor, it is called an adwoson in gross, or at large, and is annexed to the person of its owner, and not to his manor or lands.
Adwosons are of three kinds—(1) Collative, where the bishop is patron. When this is the case, rights of patronage are seldom grossly abused; though clergymen complain that the bishops are accustomed to appoint their own relatives and dependents, without due regard to the principle of promotion by merit. (2) Donative, where a private patron disposes of the living without presenting his nominee to the bishop. This form of patronage is generally condemned; but the number of donatives is small; there are probably not more than one hundred in England. (3) Presentative, where the patron presents to the bishop, who may refuse to institute a person whom he has good—i.e. legally sufficient—reason to regard as unfit, in point of learning, doctrine, or morals. If the patron is a Jew, he cannot present, and his right lapses to the Archbishop of Canterbury. If the patron is a Roman Catholic, his right lapses to the university of Oxford or of Cambridge, according to the county in which the living is situated.
An adwoson is regarded as real estate, and may be disposed of as freely as other rights of property, subject to the rules of law relating to simoniacal contracts. An agreement to sell an adwoson or next presentation while the living is vacant is simoniacal, and therefore unlawful. By an act of 1713, clergymen are forbidden to buy next presentations for themselves; but it has been held that the act does not apply to the purchase of a life estate in the adwoson. The traffic in livings is conducted as a regular branch of agency business. It often happens that a clergyman, who owns the adwoson of his living, offers it for sale, 'with immediate possession'—in other words, he agrees to resign as soon as the sale is complete, that the purchaser may present himself or the person for whom he has purchased the living; and bishops acquiesce in these illegal transactions, because they see that no good will be done by compelling the vendor to remain in charge of the parish. Scandal is also caused by the advertisements put forth by the 'clerical agents' who have livings for sale. By way of inducement to purchasers, they state that 'there is a good trout stream in the neighbourhood'—'there are no charities to support'—'the weekly attendance in church is very small'—'there is no house, and consequently no obligation to reside in the parish.' If the incumbent remains in possession, it is explained that he is extremely old, and in feeble health. Sometimes the living is offered at an enhanced value, because the church or the parsonage has been improved by means of a public subscription, or of a grant from Queen Anne's Bounty.
The abuses connected with the traffic in livings have led to many parliamentary debates and inquiries. In 1879 a royal commission sat to take evidence on the subject; and in 1886 the Archbishop of Canterbury introduced a reforming bill into the House of Lords. Those churchmen who favour reform have generally disclaimed hostility to private patronage as an institution. They believe that patronage, when properly exercised, tends to bring a wholesome lay influence to bear on the clergy; they prefer that patronage should be in private and not in episcopal hands; and they are opposed to popular election, which, they say, works badly in the few parishes where the minister is chosen by the ratepayers. They are also well aware that parliament is not easily persuaded to meddle with rights which have been acquired by the payment of hard cash. But they desire to confer on the parishioners the right of raising objections to an unfit presentee, and on the bishop the right of refusing institution on any ground which implies unfitness for pastoral duty. The bill of 1886 proposed to provide for the appointment of a diocesan council, empowered to prevent the improper exercise of the rights of patrons. Advocates of religious equality have sometimes opposed legislation of this nature, because they hold that the church reformers are claiming powers of self-government inconsistent with the position of a state church.