"Is forfeited to the king to be applied to pious uses, and distributed
in alms by his high almoner, though formerly destined to a more
superstitious purpose. It seems to have been originally designed, in
the blind days of Popery, as an expiation for the souls of such as
were snatched away by sudden death; and for that purpose ought
properly to have been given to holy church."
The authorities for this latter statement are Fitzh., _Abr._, tit.
"Enditement," pt. 27., and Staunf., _P.C._, 20, 21., neither of which
books are in my possession, nor in this remote district can I gain
access to them. Hume, Lingard, Henry, and Rapin, omit all mention of
this change in the destination of the deodand, at least so far as I can
find. Fleta, who lived, according to Dr. Cowell (_Interpreter_, in verb.
"Fleta"), tem. Ed. II., Ed. III., or, according to Jacob (_Law Dic._, in
ver. "Fleta"), tem. Ed. I., says that--
"This deodand is to be sold to the poor, and the price distributed to
the poor for the soul of the king and all faithful people departed
this life."--_Interpreter_, in ver. "Deodand."
It would therefore appear that in Fleta's time it was settled law that
deodands went to the Crown; nor does this writer seem to take any notice
of their having been, at any time, payable to the Church. Hawkins, East,
and I think Hale also, are equally silent upon the point.
Can any of your readers kindly supply the information as to when
deodands first ceased to be given to the Church, and when they became
the property of the Crown?