Then, again, in the parish of St. Nicholas, at Nottingham, we find from the returns of the Commissioners that the members of the “Guild of the Virgin” contributed to the support of an extra priest. In the parish there were “more than 200 houseling people,” and as the parish living was very poor, there was no other priest to look after them but this one, John Chester, who was paid by the Guild. The King’s officials, however, did not hesitate on this account to confiscate the property. It is useless to multiply instances of this kind, some hundreds of which might be given in the county of Nottingham alone. It may be interesting, however, to take one or two examples of “obits” in this part of England. In the parish of South Wheatley there were parish lands let out to farm, which produced 18_d._ a year; say from £1 to £1 4_s._ of our money. Of this sum, 1_s._ was for the poor and 6_d._ for church lights; that is, two-thirds, or, say, 16_s._ of our money, was for the relief of the distressed. So in the parish of Tuxford the church “obit” lands produced £1 5_s._ 4_d._, or more than £16 a year; of this 16_s._ 4_d._ was intended for the poor, and 9_s._ for the church expenses. It is almost unnecessary to add that the Crown took the whole sum; that intended for the poor, as well as that used for the support of the ecclesiastical services. Neither can it be held, I fear, that the robbery of the poor was accidental and unpremeditated. It has been frequently asserted, of course, that although grave injury was undoubtedly done to the poor and needy in this way, it was altogether inevitable, since the money thus intended for them was so inextricably bound up with property to which religious obligations (now declared to be superstitious and illegal) were attached, that the whole passed together into the royal exchequer. It would be well if it could be shown that this spoliation of the sick and needy by the Crown of England was accidental and unpremeditated; but there are the hard facts which cannot be got over. The documents prove unmistakably that the attention of the officials was drawn to the claims of the poor, and that in every such case these claims were disregarded, and a plain intimation was given that the Crown deliberately intended to take even the pittance of the poor. The _Stipendiary_ priest differed in little from the curate, except that he was engaged and paid for some special service and not for the general purposes of a parish like a curate. They (_i.e._ the stipendiaries) live, says Lyndwood, upon the stipend paid them for their service, and have no fixed title or claim upon the church where they offer up their Mass, except that they are paid for doing so for a year or other fixed time. They had no claim whatever to fees or oblations, and indeed, they were prohibited from receiving them.