upon the Livings becoming void by Cession viz. by the Incumbents being made a Bishop but never a word of the King's Title in all the Case or any such Prerogative as is now contended for And in Owen's Rep. 144. Walmesly cites a President which he had seen in Edward the Second's time adjudged that the King had no such Prerogative and all that was said for it was eight or nine Presidents in Tradition or History of a Patron being complemented out of his Right but not one Law-Book for it Coke 4 Inst 356 357. who wrote and published much he never mentions this Prerogative but says that the Law is otherwise for upon his Observation on a Record of 24 Edw. 3. Rot. 25. coram Rege Cornub ' Admittitur Episcopus Exon ' pro fine 200 merc ' pro contemptu in non admittendo presentatum Regis ad Ecclesiam de Southwel pro quo contempt ' omnia temporalia Seisita fuerunt in manus Regis tunc temporis ante finem fact ' vacavit Archidiaconat ' Cornubiae ratione quod Incumbens Electus fuit in Archiepiscopunâ— Dublin ' in Hibernia Temporalibus Episcopi Exon ' ad tunc in manibus Regis existent per quod Dominus Rex recuperavit versus Episcopum dict' Archidiaconat ' Upon this Record he makes two Conclusions 1. Tho' Ireland be a distinct Kingdom yet 't is governed by the same Law as England in these Matters 2. That when the Arch-Deacon was by the King preferred to an Archbishoprick he had the Presentation to the Arch-deaconry in respect of the Temporalties of the Bishop of Exeter Patron of the Arch-deaconry and not by any Prerogative Here 't is observable That my Lord Coke took it that the Patronage by reason of the Temporalties gave to the King this Right and not the Prerogative Then his next Paragraph is stronger If a Bishop in England be made a Cardinal the Bishoprick becomes void and the King shall name his Successor because the Bishoprick is of his Patronage All which implies That if 't were not of his Patronage 't would be otherwise else why is that reason added Obj. But then say they The Pope's Usurpation prevailed in all those times and the Pope had it when Provisions were in use But that can be no Argument to give the Crown a Prerogative for the Pope was a Tyrant over the English Church and by the same Reason the King may claim to be above all Laws because some Judges said as Hank did in Hen. 4. quod Papa potest omnia at that rate no Act of Parliament shall bind the King because the Pope thought himself bound by no Law of ours Besides There were several of our English Monarchs and English Parliaments that boldly withstood these Usurpations and there were divers Intervals of Liberty and Freedom from that Romish Yoke and we never read of any Exercise of this Prerogative in those Intervals 'T is questioned in 41 Eliz. and in Owen's Rep. 't is said that the Pope's practise was no Authority to warrant a Prerogative for they used to do strange things and the Clergy then made his Will a Law and our English Lawyers have always complained of it Obj. There 's no ancient Books that mention Title by Lapse But 't was answered That in Caudries Case 't is fetch'd from the Reign of Edw. 3. and that is no very late Reign and Lapse is so ancient as it appears by the close Roll 21 Hen. 3. in n. 12. that the Deâ— and Chapter pretended to it during a Vacancy of a See upon an Advowson of the King 's own but it appears there by a Writ to that purpose that no Lapse per tempus semestre accrued on the King which shews that 't was old Law for the Subjects Pryn 2.481 By a Writ 8 Hen. 3. num 4. Dorso Prynne 2 Vol. 389. it appears the Archbishop of York was to present si ultra tempus sex mensium vasari contigerint and 1 Inst. 2 Inst. and all the Booksare full of it and Doctor and Student which is no new Book treats of it cap. 31. Besides that and this are different Cases there is a necessity of such a Law for the Service of the Church the King is by the Constitution intrusted with the Supreme Care of his People both for Religion and Property and if a Patron will not do it in reasonable time 't is reasonable he should lose it and the King present But to make that a similar Case they should shew that these Prerogatives were of equal duration and that there 's as much reason for the one as for the other but because the King hath preferred the Patron 's Friend therefore the King shall have it that cannot hold upon a toties quoties when the Friend is dead and three or four more of the King 's presenting for by this means the Patron may never present to his Church 2. The next Query was Whether this Commendam for above the six Months with power to take the Profits to his own use shall be a fulfilling of this turn or otherwise prevent the Operation of the Prerogative on it by this he was a plenary Incumbent after Consecration and he had the Profits to his own use He was not meerly the Ordinary's Deputy to supply the Cure during six Months but hath it in his own right and this with the King's concurrence The Prerogative could only work upon an Avoidance by Promotion and that is upon Consecration this becomes void at the expiration of therein limited T is to be considered That this is none of the old Prerogatives of the Crown which in a Competition are to be preferred before the Subject's Right it is a Prerogative not to be favourably interpreted but stricto Jure for 't was only taken up as a Papal Right and so 't is plain from 2 Rolls Abridg. 358 359. As such a Papal Right it ought to be interpreted stricto Jure even by the Pope's Law being against the Patron 's ordinary Right and so 't is nature odiose there might be cited Suares and others to this purpose Perhaps the Pope's Right was not so much allowed here as to make it clear with him in this Point for Dr. and Student cap. 36. 37. says that the Pope's Collection of Benefices vacantium in Curia was held to be within the Statute concerning Provisions viz. 25 Edw. 3. This Prerogative hath been construed stricto Jure here 1. In the Case which the Lord Chief Justice Vaughan Reports where the Crown upon the promotion of an Incumbent to the Bishoprick of Oxford and who by Dispensation retained his Living till death would have presented to the Living when it fell vold by the Incumbent the Bishop's Death it was resolved that the King's Prerogative was not to present to the next Avoidance after the Promotion but to the next Avoidance by the promotion which in that Case was none for that the Avoidance was by Death 2. In the Case my Lord Chief
Justice Dyer reports 228. the promoted Incumbent was dispensed with to retain for a term of years within which term he resigned and there upon the Avoidance the Prerogative was not admitted to take place because the Avoidance was by the Resignation and not by the Promotion Now if this Prerogative is to be interpreted stricto Jure it will have no place in this Case where the Incumbent promoted is dispensed with to retain for a term of time which is elapsed For The King's Prerogative will have a very Natural Construction by admitting his Title to present to all such Avoidances as commence immediately from and by the promotion This is the Avoidance which the Law intends and which the Law would always cause if not hindred to operate by Dispensation and this Avoidance is that therefore which the Prerogative must most principally respect and only that if it be to be strictly taken insomuch that were it in the sole power of the Archbishop to grant this Dispensation it seems the King's Title would clearly be set aside by it much more therefore should it be so when what the Law designs is prevented by the Act of the King himself For tho ' the Lord Vaughan saith That the King's Concurrence to the Dispensation is only for formality yet 't is plain that the King may force the Archbishop to grant it Now this Interpretation of the Prerogative seems to be already made in the Case cited upon a Resignation of the Incumbent dispensed with for as it is there intimated if the King's Title was not supposed to be gone by the defeating of the immediate Avoidance which the Law intended but the King would not permit It would be very strange that it should be eluded by the Resignation of the Incumbent to which the King was no Party for if the King had a Prerogative to present to this new this deferred this adjourned Avoidance it would be more reasonable to allow it to be hastened then defeated by such a Resignation before the time This Prerogative ought to admit such a Restriction from the reason of the thing and from the consideration of the Inconveniencies which may otherwise follow To the Subject A Patron might be content to let the King exchange a single Life and put in a Clerk in the place of one removed much rather then that the Living should be held on by one in Commendam that from thenceforth would be sure to leave it and be absent for a better Residence in a Palace yet they may as they have reason think it too hard that the King should as it were let a Lease of it first and afterwards put in his Clerk for Life and tho' the King doth commend here but for a small time yet he may for a longer He may perhaps as the Pope did often dispence with the Bishop to hold durante beneplacito and when the Incumbent is in danger of Death then present another so as the Patron may have his own Clerk not removed as was first intended but dispensed with to wear out his Life in the Benefice and yet after all have another put in The Crown may have Inconvenience by the straining of it further than this for all strains weaken if not break the thing it self This Opinion of theirs arises from the Principle my Lord Vaughan lays down That a Commendam neither gives nor takes away Right but only is a Dispensation to hold and he continues Incumbent still and it prevents an Avoidance and if so why should it not also prevent the operation of the Prerogative too As to the Case of Woodley 2 Cro. 691. they say 't is Law to prove the other Point for them If it be Law for them in that Point 't is Law against them in this That a Dispensation ad retinend ' prevents the Grantee of the next Avoidance The Case was thus A Man hath a Grant of the next Avoidance the Incumbent is promoted but with a Commendam Retinere for six years and dies the Grantee shall not present because he is to have the next Avoidance only and no other 'T is the words of the Book that when the Incumbent is created a Bishop and the King presents or grants that he shall hold it in Commendam which is quasi a Presentation and he is thereby full Incumbent and may plead as an Incumbent if the Grantee of the next Avoidance do not then present he hath lost his Presentation for he ought to have the next and he cannot have any other Now if this be so that a Commendam Retinere hath so much of a Grant in it and is so equivalent to a Commendam ad recipiend ' that it will set aside and frustrate a Grant of the next Avoidance and be it self taken for a presentation to the next Avoidance against the Grantee by the same reason it must be taken so against the King as a Presentation to an Avoidance and consequently his turn is served by it Much might be said against those Commendams as promotive of Pluralities and tending to the ruine of the Church and this out of our own Law-Books but it is not material at present 't is however to be observed that this is not a Commendatory for six Months during the time that the Patron may forbear to present such Person continued then is only commendatorius under the Bishop to provide for the Church as 't is his Duty to take care of it during that time 3. Admitting that the King hath such a Prerogative and that this Commendam tho' it gives the full perception of the Profits is not a fulfilling of the King's turn nor doth any way distinguish the Case or exempt it from the Prerogative yet this is a Case not within it and this doth appear of Mr. Attorney's own shewing in his Declaration upon the King's behalf He hath set it forth to be a Parish newly created by Act of Parliament a thing not in esse before It appears by the Declaration what that Act is it must be taken as 't is there set forth To this Declaration the Bishop hath demurred Now if by that Declaration it appears that the Bishop and not the King is rightfully intituled to present upon this Avoidance the Judgment will and must be accordingly for the Defendants Mr. Attorney by his Count doth agree an Avoidance within this Act of Parliament by the Promotion of Dr. Tennison and Mr. Attorney doth likewise admit and agree That the King is not Patron of this Benefice called St. James's he doth agree too That the King hath no Right given to have any Turn or Presentment by this Act for he saith 't is to be by the Bishop of London and the Lord Jermyn he doth also admit by this Declaration That Dr. Tennison was never presented to this Living that he came not into it by Virtue of any Presentation from any particular Patron nay That he did not come into it by any sort of Presentation whatever nay he
yet doth further agree That this Parish-Church was never presented to by any Person at all But he insists upon it That now it is void the King hath a Right to present to it by force of his Prerogative upon this Avoidance tho' the Act saith That the Bishop shall present after the Decease of Dr. Tennison or the next Avoidance The Query is whether the King's Prerogative can operate upon this Vacancy of this Benefice thus filled and thus avoided against the express Words of an Act of Parliament It will be necessary to repeat the Words of the Act and they are to this Effect That all that Precinct or District of Ground within the Bounds and Limits there mentioned from thenceforth should be a Parish of it self by the Name of the Parish of St. James's within the Liberties of Westminster and a Church thereupon built is dedicated by the Act to Divine Service and that there should be a Rector to have the Care of Souls inhabiting there and then after a full Commendation of the Merits and Services of Dr. Tennison in that Place the now Reverend the Bishop of Lincoln It doth Enact and Ordain him to be the first Rector of the same and that the said Doctor and his Successors Rectors of the said Parish should be incorporated and have a perpetual Capacity and Succession by the Name of the Rector of the said Parish Church and by Virtue of that Act should be enabled by the Name aforesaid to sue and be sued to plead and to be impleaded in all Courts and Places within this Kingdom and should have Capacity to hold and enjoy purchase and acquire Lands Tenements and Hereditaments to him and them Rectors thereof for ever over and above what is given and settled by that Act to any Value not exceeding 200 l. per Annum Then it Enacts That the Patronage Advowson or Presentation after the Decease of the said first Rector or Avoidance thereof shall or should belong and appertain and by that Act shall or should be vested in the said Bishop of London for the time being and his Successors and in Thomas Lord Jermyn and his Heirs for ever Then it Enacts That the first Rector after such Decease or Vacancy shall be presented or collated by the Bishop of London for the time being and the next to succeed him shall be presented by the Lord Jermyn and his Heirs and the two next succeeding turns by the Bishop and his Successors and the next turn to the Lord Jermyn and his Heirs and then the like Succession of two turns for one to the Bishop and his Succession and of one turn to the Lord Jermyn and his Heirs for ever after This is the Act. Now 't is to be considered That this Law doth bind the King and would bind him in point of Interest if he had been Patron of St. Martins in Right of his Crown and if a Right or Interest of the Crown shall be bound by an Act of Parliament a Prerogative shall be in no better plight It cannot be said That he shall not be obliged by it because not named for tho' and where he is not named he is bound by Multitudes of Statutes according to the 5 Rep. 14 and 11 Rep. 68. He is bound by all Acts generally speaking which are to prevent a Decay of Religion and so he is bound by Acts which are for further Relief or to give a more speedy Remedy against Wrong It is no Objection that this Law is in the Affirmative for that it is introductive of a new Law in the very Subject that is created de novo Then before this Act the King had no Right over this and if he hath now any over it he can only have it how when and as the Act gives it not contrary to it then the Bishop was Patron of the Place out of which the Parish is created And the Bishop can claim no other Right than what the Act gives him Bro. tit Remitter 49. 't is so agreed 1 Rep. 48. and in 2 Rep. 46. if Lands be given in Fee to one who was Tenant in Tayle his Issue shall not be remitted because the latter Act takes away the force of the Statute de donis Suppose he had been Enacted to be Patron of a Living to which he had a former Right there could be no Remitter because as to particulars the Act is like a Judgment and estops all Parties to claim any thing otherwise than according to the Act and yet Remitter is a Title favoured in the Law then if he have this only by force of this New Act and another Person should present in his turn so given 't would be an Injury if a Subject did it and consequently the King cannot do it for the Prerogative which this Act gives or which the Common Law gives is not yet come to take place Tho' this be an Affirmative Law yet according to the Rule taken and agreed in Slade's and Drake's Case Hob. 298. being introductive or creative of a new thing implies a Negative of all that is not in the purview and many Cases are there put to this purpose Then also it being particular and express it implies a Negative because this and the other are inconsistent But First 'T is observable all Prescriptions and Customs are fore-closed by a New Act of Parliament unless saved Suppose there was an Act of Parliament in Force before this viz. That the King should present yet another Statute Enacting somewhat new and inconsistent will carry a Negative and if so in Case of a former Act there 's almost as much Reason for a Prerogative It must be agreed That a Man may prescribe or alledge a Custom against an Act of Parliament when his Prescription or Custom is saved or preserved by that or another Act but regularly a Man cannot prescribe or alledge a Custom against any Act of Parliament because 't is matter of Record and the highest and greatest Record which we know of in the Law 1 Inst 115. Suppose Money were by the Law payable annually and an Act comes and says it shall be paid Quarterly by even and equal Portions at the four Feasts for the first Year this will certainly alter the Law 'T is true That a consistent Devife or Statute is no Repeal or Revocation but if a new Act gives a new Estate different from the former this amounts to a Repeal Fox and Harcourt's Case The same Rule holds even in Case of the King as in the Archbishop of Canterbury's Case 2 Rep. 46. and agreed to in Hob. 310. the Query was if the Lands came to the King by 31 H. 8. cap. 13. or by the Stat. of Edw. 6. and objected That the latter was in the Affirmative yet held That it came by the latter because tho' they were Affirmative Words yet they were differently penn'd and the last being of as high an Authority as the first and providing by express Words That by Authority of that Parliament
they should be in actual Possession of the King held that they should be in him by force of that last Act and Reason will warrant these Differences because if otherwise Inconsistencies and Contradictions must be allowed Then this is a new Law in the whole 't is a new Parish 't is a new Advowson and in truth 't is no Advowson till the Avoidance nay by the words of the Act if any difference can be in an instant between at and after as our Law in several Cases allows it as per mortem post mortem Devise by Jointenant c. there 's no Patronage fixed 't is no Advowson until after the Avoidance for so are the words after the Avoidance the Advowson Patronage and Presentation shall be vested foret vestit ' in Episcopo Lond ' Domino Jermyn and till then 't is vested in no Body and that which is in no Body is not at all unless it be as some times for necessity sake we say in nubibus or in abeyance but to say that an Advowson shall be in abeyance before 't is created or ordained to exist or be at all must favour somewhat of Absurdity Now the King can have no Prerogative turn upon an Avoidance by a Promotion but when the Patron 's Clerk was promoted and preferred and here is no Patron till that Avoidance happen They say 't is vested immediately tho' to take possession hereafter as a Reversion granted cum acciderit according to 3 Cro. 323. and 1 Saund. 147. But that 's not this Case for there is a present Grant here the words are After the Avoidance shall be vested and not before and being a new thing it may be so as a Rent-charge de novo may be granted to take effect de futuro but cannot be so of an old Rent 2. Dr. Tennison comes not in by the Patron 's Presentation but by Donation of the Parliament and there is not any President for a Prerogative to present to a Donative upon a Promotion The King cannot present to that which the Patron could not have presented to and the Patron could not present to a Donative quatenus a Donative and for the King to present to a Donative is to injure the Patron for 't is to make that Presentative which was never intended by the Patron to be so And yet in Case of a Donative with Cure of Souls as it may be of a Parochial Church tho' exempt from Ordinary's Jurisdiction according to Yelverton 61. 2 Roll. Abridg. 341. the Ordinary may compel the Patron to Collate some body as was held in Case of the Rectory Parochial Donative of St. Burian's in Cornwall and the Tower of London is with Cure of Souls 1 Cro. 330. 2 Roll. Abridg. 331. 1 Inst 144. The same will be void by a Promotion of the Incumbent for 't is not meerly the change of Inferiour into Superiour that makes the Avoidance for then an Incumbent made Bishop of another Diocess or in Ireland would not avoid the Benefice but 't is the Doubleness of the Charge contrary to the Council of Lateran which hath been received here This is more different from the pretended Notion and Reason of this Prerogative then that Case of a Common Donative for in Case of a Donative there 's an Incumbent of the Patron 's own preferring who is further promoted by the King and still in being and the same Patron claiming a Right to fill the same Here 't is an Incumbency by Gift of the King Lords and Commons And then if it be considered what this new Prerogative is for so it must be termed since there 's no footsteps for it in the old times and the Statute of Prerogativa Regis which enumerates most of them and is rather a Collection of old Prerogatives then a new Statute mentions it not 't is a Prerogative to present upon the Promotion of the Patron 's Presentee or incumbent presented in his Right here is no such thing 't is as their Books say when the Patron 's Presentee is advanced to a greater Dignity in the Church and the pretended Reason given for it to avoid the Objection That no Prerogative is to be injurious or to import a Wrong done to the Subject is this That here 's no Injury to the Patron but a Kindness to his Friend because the Person which he chose and preferred is bettered and further preferred to an higher Degree of Honour and State in the Church all this fails here so that there doth not seem to be the same Colour why the King should have it in this Case It is a good Argument according to Mr. Littleton That because no such ever was before that therefore of right it ought not to be And if no Practise hath been to warrant it in Case of a Gift by Act of Parliament there 's no reason it should be allowed in this Case for a Prerogative never used can never be with Propriety called a Prerogative much less reason have they for it if they have no Practise or presidents to warrant their Claim in case of any Donative Prima facie the patron hath the right to evade that right of his Mr. Attorney pretends to a Prerogative then it being of common right with him they ought to demonstrate that there is such a Prerogative to controul that right in this particular Case and the Arguments brought for it ought to be clear convincing and undoubted Now because where a Patron 's Presentee is preferred by being consecrated a Bishop the King shall present that therefore where the Parliament's Presentee is preferred the Patron shall lose the benefit of his Presentation is a non sequitur because the Cases are not the same for the supposed Recompence or Consideration in the one holds not in the other This is not the Case of a Prerogative incident to the Crown from the Necessity of Government nor is it a Prerogative which respects the Continuance or Improvement of the Revenue so as for the benefit of the Kingdom an Extent or Enlargement of it beyond former Practise may seem absolutely needful and therefore the common pretences of Intendment and Presumption are no more on their side then upon this nay 't is rather otherwise because that common right is with the Patron It is no Objection to say That there never was such a Promotion or Avoidance before whether there were or not is not material but that rather turns upon them for that Evinces beyond dispute that there never was such a Prerogative presentation in Fact as they now contend for Argument ' Ã simili is the weakest but they have no Case like this nay they have no Opinion in the Books declaring on their side nay the Book Definition of this Prerogative as was said before is only to present to a Benefice vacant by promotion that was antecedently presentable here the whole Kingdom is Patron and all that they can pretend to is when a Man is dignified by promotion who
came in by Presentation or Collation and not otherwise It is not at present proper to argue when this Prerogative shall begin or commence upon this Church or if ever 't will be time enough to dispute that when another Occasion offers it self when the Doctor or any of his Successors happens to be preferred to the same state as his Predecessor is It suffices to maintain that this turn belongs to the Bishop of London This is not an Advowson created as others usually are First As was observed before no Advowson is fixed or vested or created but in futuro the same Person is made a Pluralist by Act of Parliament tho' the Act it self says the Parish was too great for one Cure Then 't was observed That this is not a Patronage turn it must be admitted that this Act vests the Fee-simple of this Advowson in the Lord Jermyn and the Bishop of London and in their respective Heirs and Successors by turns viz. to the Lord Jermyn one and to the Bishop two successively and so the Succession is enacted to be for ever now this is not one of those Patronage successive turns but it is a particular Presentation which is given to the Bishop of London by express Limitation and the penning is different The first about which the present Contest is is to be by the Bishop of London for the time being then the successive Presentations of one and two are to be one by the Lord and his Heirs and the two by the Bishop and his Successors so that there is no words in the first that looks like the Gift of an Estate but 't is only one first particular Presentation given to the Bishop more then ordinary It is not one of his turns which he is to have as Patron by two to one But first he is to present one before ever it comes into the form and manner of turns prescribed by this Act in perpetual Succession For if otherwise the Patronage would be to the Bishop three turns in four to one of the Lord Jermyns As to their Objection That a Patronage newly created shall be in the same plight and under the same Rules and Circumstances and Incumbrances as another that Objection can never take place before it becomes a Patronage which this was not And 2. with a stronger reason it can never take place till it hath been presented unto 3. It can never take place where a particular Presentation is at first given by express words The words are The first Rector shall be Collated by the Bishop for the time being and then the Succession and it is always to be remembred that 't is an Act of Parliament Now suppose the Act had said that the Patronage after an Avoidance should be vested in A. and B. but that the first Rector upon that Avoidance should be presented by J. S. a third Person this could never be reckoned a common ordinary turn subject to the like Prerogative as others The Bishop here claims not this particular Presentation in right of his Patronage whereby he is to have two turns to one but by express Gift of the Parliament Suppose the King had been Patron of St. Martyns in his own right no Man would say that this Act thus creating of a new Parish a new Rectory and a new Patron would not have bound him Surely the King's Assent as Supream or General Patron is as much implied in this Act as it would have been had he been a particular Patron of the Church of that Parish out of which the new one is taken Here the King himself gives the first Presentation to the Bishop of London for the King and People all together the whole Kingdom are Donors or Grantors of this first Presentation to my Lord of London Suppose such a Right as this is were in a Subject and he were able to prescribe for it he must then have set forth that time out of mind wheresoever any incumbent of anothers Presentation was preferr'd by him to another Living that he should have the Presentation ea vice this is the most that could be made of it Would any Man say That this Case would fall under that Prescription or the reason of it Now tho' a Prerogative be part of the Common Law and not like a Prescription yet every Prerogative hath its Boundaries and its Limits and a Reason for it too or else 't is no Prerogative that our Law allows of Besides there 's good Reason in Fact for this Provision of the first Presentation because the Act takes notice of the Parish of St. Martyns out of which this Parish is taken and the Bishop of London was Patron thereof and at first there 's the same Incumbent of both Dr. Tennison Now the Patronage being formerly in the Bishop and in the Successive Patronage created of this new Church by this Act there 's one turn in three given away from him to a third Person then this Presentation out of turn is at first given to the Bishop of London in Consideration of the third turn given to the Lord Jermyn afterwards Then there 's another thing deserving of notice in this Case and that 's this That one and the same Person being incumbent of both Parishes the King hath had the Effect of his Prerogative upon the promotion of this very Incumbent by presenting to that Church into which he came by Presentation and Induction viz. St. Martyns but here the Prerogative cannot operate because he came into this by Donation not of the Patron but of the Parliament and consequently as was said before of the King himself Besides here 's no Salvoe of the King's Prerogative or other Right and to what end in all private Acts for Sale of Estates paying of Debts docking of Settlements and the like do the King's Council take Care always to insert a saving if the same be not necessary Here 's a new Estate given and that to a particular Person and in a particular manner and no Person can claim a Right to in or over this but as the Parliament hath given it as for instance in an Act where two Churches are united as upon the Rebuilding of the City of London the first Presentation is ordered to be by the Patron of the Living of the greatest Value in the King's Books The King is Patron of the Living of the lesser Value as he is of several of them in London he shall not have his Common Prerogative of the first Presentation which he hath in all other Cases where his Interest is intermixed with others as in Case of Coparceners and the youngest is in Ward he shall present first tho' the eldest by the Common Law is to have the first turn and the King 's Right is in the Place of the youngest but yet in case where that an Act of Parliament gives a new Estate and prescribes a Method tho' in the Affirmative the Method limited shall take place against the King's Prerogative of being
preferr'd and the reason is because it is a new Right which the Act gave to present to the Church to which the Union was and consequently it must be taken as 't is given And so was it held by the Civilians at Doctors Commons before the Chancellour of London and several assistant Delegates upon a Caveat there against Institution and on Advice of the Lawyers the King 's Presentee acquiesced and never brought any Quare Impedit The Argument now is only as to this one first Presentation there 's no flat Contradiction between the use of the Prerogative and My being Patron for ever but 't is a Contradiction to say the King and I shall both have the same Presentation To say That he shall have a Prerogative here is to say That he shall do a wrong to his Subject for the Bishop can have no other than this one Presentation he can have no other in lieu of it and has no Advantage or Recompence antecedent or subsequent from this Prerogative First-Fruits and Tenths are not demandable from this Parish because no saving of them in the Act to the King upon passing the Act 't is known That in the Commons House the same was press'd to be inserted but denied and the Clause rejected the same Attempt was made in this House but to no purpose In other Acts for the Erecting of new Parishes there is generally such a saving as for St. Ann's and St. John's of Wapping and the Act for uniting of Parishes upon Rebuilding the City hath a Clause of saving to this Effect All which shews That such a saving is necessary tho' the First-Fruits and Tenths being formerly enjoyed by the Popes might have been pretended by Construction of Law to be a Profit annexed to the Crown by Stat. of 26 Hen. 8. cap. 1. all Payments to the Pope having been prohibited by 25 Hen. 8. cap. 21. and all Profits and Commodities enjoyed by the Popes thereby annexed to the Crown Yet neither that Act nor that other in the same Year whereby the First-Fruits and Tenths of all Ecclesiastical Livings that then or thereafter should belong from any Parsonage or Vicarage were granted to the Crown were ever intended to reach this Parish of St. James's it being a new Creation by Act of Parliament and because in the Act no First-Fruits or Tenths are given or saved and there 's as much Reason to argue in that case for an implied saving as there is for this Prerogative Suppose it should be admitted That a presentable Benefice created by Act of Parliament should be subject to the same Rules as others are yet that will not reach this because not like other Benefices till once presented to 't is a peculiar singular Case by 2 Roll. abr 342. and 1 Inst 344. If a Patron present to a Donative it becomes presentative ever after which shews That 't is the Presentation which makes it presentative in its Nature now here 't is plainly a Donative till once presented to Then it was said That it is not needful to engage in the Dispute whether this Prerogative shall prevail against the Grantee of the next Avoidance according to Woodley's Case 2 Cro. 695. or whether that case be Law for that the same is plainly distinguishable from our Case for there the Grantee comes in the place of the Grantor quoad that Avoidance and he can have no better or greater Right than his Grantor would have had if no such Grant had been made Here ours is a first Presentation granted by Act of Parliament Suppose the Donors of this Presentation to the Bishop had named a Person in Esse to have succeeded upon the Death or Avoidance of Dr. Tennison no Man will pretend that this Prerogative should have prevented him the reason given in the Books cited for that Case of the Grantee of the next Avoidance is That the Patron could not grant more or otherwise than under the Contingency of this Prerogative Surely they will not say That the King Lords and Commons were such feeble qualified restrained Donors then the Parliament being the Donors the Prerogative insisted upon and the express Gift to the Bishop are contradictory and repugnant and cannot both be fulfilled It is no Argument to say That if a Vacancy had been in the See and the Temporalties in the King's hands then the King must have presented and not the Bishop and that would have contradicted the Act as much as this for that had been the same as if the Bishop had presented himself for the King during that time was in loco ordinarij To say That the Bishop of London hath no more right by the Act of Parliament then a Grantee of the next Avoidance hath by the Common Law this surely is no very close reasoning for there is some difference between the one and the other Here the Act of Parliament which hath the King's Consent gives a particular and express Right and an Act of Parliament may as Coke saith alter change annul abridge diminish qualifie enlarge or transferr any Common Law nay it hath the Common Law and the Prerogative too under its Controul Upon the whole it was concluded That by this Judgment a new Prerogative is affirm'd to belong to the Crown and this is extended to a turn after a Commendam which may be a prejudice to all the Patrons in England 2. It destroys and makes useless the plain and express Words and Meaning of the Act of Parliament which gives the first Presentation to the Bishop of London and 3. It confirms the old Non obstante Doctrine of Commendams which hath always been acknowledged to be to the prejudice of the Church wherefore it was prayed That the said Judgment might be revers'd On the other side it was argued That this Judgment ought to be affirmed for that as to the first pont tho' it hath been said to be a new thing and grounded upon late Presidents yet it hath been so often adjudged that it doth not now deserve a Debate 't was solemnly settled in Wright's Case and upon Consideration 2 Rolls Abridg. 343 344. 3 Cro. 526. Moore 399. That tho' many ancient Authorities have been lost yet in Brooke Presentment al Esglise 61. there is the Opinion of the Bishop of Ely for it And as to the old Presidents there 's no need of Recourse to them because continual Usage hath been with the King in this matter a settled Opinion for an hundred years is surely enough to declare the Law as to this particular This is sufficient Evidence to prove this Right in the Crown there being no Judicial Opinion against it The reason for this Prerogative is because the King by the exercise of his prerogative in the promotion hath made the Avoidance and it is but changing one Life for another and possibly the Patron is as near the having another presentation as before It was agreed that this is none of the prerogatives mentioned in the Statute de Prerogativa Regis but
it hath been time out of Mind But here 's a new Constitution and the Rule holds so in Commissions of Oyer and Terminer if the direction be so as is the Case in Plowden 384. the Earl of Leicester's Case If a Mayor and three Aldermen have Conusance of Pleas what a Mayor and two does is null and void And if there be no direction in particular for the number the Law requires the majority So that here was no Councel because but five of them present The Councel have not the power but the Governour with the Advice and Assent of the Councel and so ought their pleading to have been according to their Case That if a Man justifies as a Judge to excuse him from an Action he must set forth his Authority and the Cause must appear to be within his Conusance and so are multitudes of Cases 3 Cro. 130. 2 Leon. pl. 43. and 1 Cro. 153 557 579 593. 12 Rep. 23 25. Mod. Rep. 119. But taking it as a Councel neither Person nor Thing are within its Jurisdiction for if their Doctrine be true that by being Governour he is so absolute as to be subject only to the King then what Sir John Witham did being while and as Deputy Governour which is the true Governour to all purposes in absentia of the other is not examinable by a Successor But admitting for the present that by the Law one Magistrate may be punishable before his Successor for Miscarriages which were committed colore Officii yet here are no such Miscarriages sufficiently alledged to be charged on him 1. There 's no pretence of an Oath nor Circumstances shewing a reasonable Cause of Suspicion one of which ought to have been 2. In pleading no Allegation is sufficient if it be so general as the Party opponent can't in reason be supposed capable of making an Answer to it and that is the true Cause why our Law requires Certainty He did male arbitrarie execute the Office to the Oppression of the King's Subjects No Man living can defend himself on so general a Charge as this is for if Issue had been taken thereon all the Acts of his Government had been examinable which the Law never allows Then the Particulars are as general 1. That he did not take the usual Oath and it doth not appear what Oath or if any was requirable of a Deputy Governour nor who was to administer it so that non constat whether 't was his Fault or the Governours besides that 's no cause of Imprisonment for any thing which appears in the Plea 2. Assuming illegally the Title of Lieutanant Governour that is so trivial as it needs no Answer for Deputy Governour and Lieutenant Governour are all one locum tenens is a Deputy è contra 3. Altering of Orders at his Chamber ad libitum which were made in Court not said that there was any such Court or what Orders or where made non tantum without etiam or verum etiam is not a sufficient positive Allegation not said that he was guilty but only charged and not said how charged whether with or without Oath in writing or by parol nor said to be in any such manner as that the Councel ought or might receive it tho' Oath be not necessary to be mentioned in the Commitment yet it ought to be alledged in pleading because 't is necessary to warrant the Commitment as was held in the Lord Yarmouth's Case in B.R. It could not be to secure his answering the same for not so expressed and 't is not said that Sureties were demanded or denied or that he had notice of the Charge and surely this was bailable As to the Query If conusable here 't was argued That they had not pleaded to the Jur ' nor any Matter to oust the Court of its Jur ' If they intended by this Plea to have done that they should have given Jur ' to some other Court in some other place but this is not done for if an Injury 't is relievable somewhere in the King's Dominions and whether it be so or not is examinable somewhere Now here is a Wrong complain'd of as done by one English-man to another English-man and a Jur ' attacht in the King's Bench both of Cause and Person by the Bill filed and his Defence to it besides Jur ' could not be examined in the Exchequer Chamber because both the Statute and the Writ of Error expresly provide against it and. this Writ of Error is founded upon that Affirmance and therefore questionable whether that could be insisted on here But supposing it might 't was argued that the Action lies for that 't is a transitory Action and follows the Person wheresoever he comes under the power of the Common Law Process and that a Man may as well be sued in England for a Trespass done beyond Sea as in Barbadoes or the like place as for a Debt arising there by Specialty or other Contract that no Body but Prynne ever denied it and he did so only in case of Bonds dated there That many Actions have been maintained and tried here for Facts done in the Indies notwithstanding special Justifications to them and the Trials have been where the Actions were laid There was quoted Dowdale's Case 6 Rep. 47 48. and 7 Rep. 27. and if otherwise there would be a failure of Justice in the King's Dominions 32 Hen. 6.25 vide Jackson and Crispe's Case Sid. 462. 2 Keeble 391 397. 'T was then argued That whatsoever question might be made about the Trial of the Issue if one had been joyned yet now Demurrer being to the Plea if that Plea be naught then the Plaintiff is to have Judgment upon his Declaration and that is all right It was further said That the Justification of such a tort or wrong ought to be according to the Common Law of England for that Barbadoes is under the same Law as England and if 't were not upon his pleading it must be intended to be so and tho' they should be intended different yet the Defendant in the Action was obliged to the same Rules of Pleading for tho' the Matter may justifie him for an Act done there which would not justifie him for the same Act done here yet he must shew that he hath pursued the Rules of Law in that place or in case of no positive Laws the Rules of Natural Equity for either the Common Law or new instituted Laws or natural Equity must be the Rule in those places 'T was agreed That according to Calvin's Case 7 Rep. 17. upon the Conquest of an Infidel Country all the old Laws are abrogated ex instanti and the King imposes what he pleases and in case of the Conquest of a Christian Country he may change them at pleasure and appoint such as he thinks fit tho' Coke quotes no Authority for it yet 't was agreed that this might be consonant to reason But 't was denied that Barbadoes was a Conquest 't was
to be the same i.e. in general the Common Law to govern in both places from the difference assigned between Ireland and Scotland it lies not to Scotland because a distinct Kingdom and governed by distinct Laws and it lies to Ireland because ruled by the same and consequently if a Writ of Error lies on the final Judgment there it 's a good Argument that the same Law prevails there These Plantations are parcel of the Realm as Counties Palatine are Their Rights and Interests are every day determined in Chancery here only that for necessity and encouragement of Trade and Commerce they make Plantation-Lands as Assets in certain Cases to pay Debts in all other things they make Rules for them according to the common Course of English Equity The distance or the contiguity of the thing makes no alteration in the Case And then 't was said as at first That this then was the same case as if the Imprisonment had been in England or on Shipboard as to the Rules of Justification that if there were another Law which could justifie it the same ought to have been certainly pleaded As to the Instructions those do not appear and therefore are not to be considered in the Case and they should have been set forth and no extraordinary Power is to be presumed unless shewn for every Man in pleading is thought to make the best of his own Case and consequently that if 't would have made for him the same would have been shewn and because they are not shewn they must be thought directive of a Government according to the Laws of England since 't is to a Subject of this Realm to govern other Subjects of this Realm living upon a part of this Realm and from the King thereof who must be supposed to approve those Laws which make him King and by which he reigns Then 't was argued Suppose this Governour had borrowed Money of a Man in the Island and then had returned to England and an Action had been brought for it and he had pretended to ustifie the receipt of it as Governour he must have shewn his Power the Law and how he observed that Law the like for Goods the same reason for Torts and Wrongs done vi armis Now the Court below could consider no other Power or Law to justifie this act but the Common Law of England and that will not do it for the Reasons given and if it be justifiable by any other it must be pleaded and what he hath pleaded is not pursued c. As to the Commitment by a Council of State what it means is hardly known in the Law of England and that Authority which commits by our Law ought to be certain and the Cause expressed as all the Arguments upon the Writ of Habeas Corpus in old time do shew but here 's no Councel and 't is not said so much as that he was debito modo onerat ' And as to the Demurr ' that confesses no more then what is well pleaded And as to Consequences there 's more danger to the Liberty of the Subject by allowing such a Behaviour then can be to the Government by allowing the Action to lye And therefore 't was prayed that the Judgment might be affirmed It was replyed on behalf of the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error That notwithstanding all that had been said the Laws there were different tho' the Foundation of them was the Common Law that they would not enter into that Question What sort of Title at first gave Right to these Lands but that this was a Commitment by a Councel of State And as to the Objection of too general Pleadings in male arbitrarie exercendo c. tho' the inducement of the Plea was so There were other Matters more particularly pleaded the altering the Decrees in his Chamber which was sufficient And as to the Objection That 't is not alledged in the Pleadings that the Charge in Councel against Wytham was upon Oath they answered That 't is not effential tho' prudent to have the Charge upon Oath before Commitment Matters may be otherwise apparent And as to the Objection That the Warrant of the Councel for the Commitment was not shewn they said that it lay not in their power because 't was delivered to the Provost Marshal as his Authority for the Capture and Detention of him and therefore did belong to him to keep And that the Councel tho' they were not a Court yet they had Jurisdiction to hear the Complaint and send him to another Court that could try the Crime and tho' it did not appear that the King gave any Authority to the Governour and Councel to commit yet 't is incident to their Authority as being a Councel of State the Councel here in England commit no otherwise and where the Commitment is not authorized by Law the King's Patent gives no power for it But the Government must be very weak where the Councel of State cannot commit a Delinquent so as to be forth-coming to another Court that can punish his Delinquency And therefore prayed that the Judgment should be reversed and the same was accordingly reversed Philips versus Bury WRit of Error to reverse a Judgment given for the Defendant in the Court of King's Bench where the Case upon the Record was thus Ejectione firme on the Demise of Painter as Rector and the Scholars of Exeter Colledge in Oxon for the Rector's House The Defendant pleads specially That the House in question is the Freehold of the Rector and Scholars of the Colledge but he says That he the said Dr. Bury was then Rector of that Colledge and that in right of the Rector and Scholars he did enter into the Messuage in question and did Eject the Plaintiff and so holds him out absque hoc That Painter the Lessor of the Plaintiff was at the time of making the Lease in the Declaration Rector of that Colledge hoc paratus est verificare c. The Plaintiff replys That the Messuage belongs to the Rector an Scholars but that Painter the Lessor was Rector at the time of the Lease hoc petit quod inquiratur per Patriam c. and thereon Issue is joyned and a Special Verdict The Jury find that Exeter Colledge is and was one Body Politick and Corporate by the Name of Rector and Scholars Collegij Exon ' infra Vniversitat ' Oxon ' that by the Foundation of the Colledge there were Laws and Statutes by which they were to be governed and that the Bishop of Exeter for the time being and no other at the time of founding the Colledge was constituted by virtue of the Statute concerning that Matter hereafter mentioned ordinary Visitor of the same Colledge secundum tenorem effectum statut ' eam rem concernent ' That the Bishop of Exeter who now is is Visitor according to that Statute Then they find the Statute for the Election of a Rector prout c. Then they find
Inst 125. though the Statutes of Hen. VIII impower Commissions for trial of Treasons Committed beyond the Seas yet this Court doth and may still take Conusance of such Causes 4 Inst 124. Its Sentences are only reversable by and upon Appeal to the King no Writ of Error or false Judgment lies upon any of them which shews the greatness of the Court and the difference of its Jurisdiction from other Courts which may be some of thereasons why no Prohibition was ever granted to it and why the Parliament of Rich. II. gave the Remedy of a Privy Seal wherefore it was prayed that the Judgment should be Reversed On the other side it was argued by the Council in behalf of the Plaintiff in the Original Action that this Judgment ought to be affirmed and it was after this manner there seem three Queries in the Case 1. If any Prohibition lies to that Court 2. If any Cause here for a Prohibition and 3. If there be any such Court as that before the Earl Marshal but another doubt was raised whether any of these Questions could be such upon this plea which is concluded to the Jurisdiction for that seems to make only one doubt whether the Court of Exchequer could hold Plea of an Action for proceeding contrary to a Prohibition already granted but this was waved and then it was argued 1. That a Prohibition doth lie to this Court of Chivalry in case it exceeds the Jurisdiction proper to it and it was agreed that the Office of Constable is Ancient and by Cambden is held to have been in Ure in this Kingdom in the Saxon's time though the Office of Marshal is but of a puisne date but however Great and Noble the Office is however large and Extensive the Jurisdiction is yet 't is but limitted and Coke in 4 Inst 123. says that 't is declared so by the Statute of Rich. II. where 't is said that they incroached in great prejudice of the King's Courts and to the great grievance and oppression of his people and that their proper Business is to have conusance of Contracts and Deeds of Arms and of War out of the Realm which cannot be determined or discussed by the common-Common-Law which other Constables have heretofore duly and reasonably used in their time now by this Act 't is plain what the Jurisdiction is Contracts and Deeds of Arms and War out of the Realm are the subject matter of it and by Coke 't is called curia militaris or the Fountain of Marshal Law which shews it a Court that hath its boundaries a Court that may incroach nay which hath incroach'd in diverse instances belonging to the Common-Law And that 't is a Court that ought to meddle with nothing that may be Determined in Westminster-Hall then there must be some way of restraining this excess and these incroachments and if the Statute of Rich. II. had not been made it must be agreed that a Prohibition would have lain for else there had been no remedy which is absurd to affirm 'T is no Objection that Prohibitions are only grantable to Inferiour Courts and that this is one of the greatest Courts in the Realm for if a Court Marshal intermeddle with a Common-Law matter ea ratione it becomes inferior and may be controwled There needs no contest about the Superiority of Courts in this matter 't is the same here as among private Persons he that offends becomes inferior and subject to the Censure of his equal by offending though that Court should be reckoned so noble and great as hath been represented yet 't is only so while it keeps within its Jurisdiction Prohibitions are grantable to almost all sort of Courts which differ from the Common-Law in their proceeding to Courts Christian to the Admiralty nay to the Delegates and even to the Steward and Marshal upon the Statute of Articuli super Chartas Cap. 3. That they shall not hold Plea of Freehold or of Trespass Fits ' N.B. 241 242. is an express Writ of Prohibition though the Statute gave no such Writ but only did restrain the Jurisdiction of the Court which in truth is the Case in Question antecedent to the Statute pleaded No Argument can be raised from the subject matter of the Jurisdiction of this Court that 't is different from the Common-Law for so is the Admiralty and the Prerogative Courts nor is it any Objection that upon any Grievance in this Court the Appeal must be to the King for that holds in the other Courts with equal reason Nay Prohibitions lie from Westminster-Hall to hinder proceeding in Causes which the Courts that grant such Prohibitions cannot hold Plea of as to the Ecclesiastical Court which grants probate of a Will made within a Mannor to the Lord whereof such probate belongs 5 Rep. 73. to the Marches of Wales if hold Plea of what belongs to Court Christian 2 Roll's Abridg. 313. are several Cases to this purpose there were also Cited 1 Roll's Rep. 42. 2 Roll's Abridg. 317. Sid. 189. 1 Brownl 143 144. and Herne 543. 't was further urged that there neither was nor could be any reason assigned why a Prohibition should not be grantable to the Court of Chancery when by English Bill it meddles with the Common-Law in other manner than its Ancient and proper Jurisdiction doth allow and several Authorities were Cited to countenance that Assertion Then was considered the reason of Prohibitions in general that they were to preserve the right of the King's Crown and Courts and the ease and quiet of the Subject that 't was the Wisdom and Policy of the Law to suppose both best preserved when every thing runs in its right Channel according to the Original Jurisdiction of every Court that by the same reason one Court might be allowed to incroach another might which could produce nothing but confusion and disorder in the Administration of Justice that in all other Writs of Prohibition the suggestion is and with Truth in prejudicium corone Regis Gravamen partis and both these are declared to be the consequent of this Courts excess or incroachment of Jurisdiction even by their own Statutes and when the reason is the same the remedy ought to be so But it hath been pretended That the Statute appoints a Privy Seal for to supersede c. and therefore no Prohibition to this it was answered That this Act doth not take away the force of the 8 Rich. II. mentio ned in 4 Inst 125. which restrains the Constable and Marshal from medling with any Plea which concerns the Common Law and if it had a limitted Jurisdiction by the Common-Law or by that Statute the subsequent Statute which gave a further Remedy for to restrain them did not take away that which they had before and every Body must agree that where an Act of Parliament restrains a Jurisdiction such Act warrants a Prohibition in case that restraint be broken or exceeded 't is so in case of a limited Power at
receive the Allegations and Matters given in Evidence for the Plaintiff as sufficient to maintain his Title whereas they were given in Evidence and considered and if it be meant as a sufficient Evidence to controul and over-rule all other that doth not belong to the Court in Trials to determine unless referred to them upon demurrer to Evidence but is the proper business of the Jury and if the Party be aggrieved the Remedy is an Attaint Nor can it be pretended that the Defendants Evidence was admitted to over-rule the Record produced because no Objection was made to the Defendants Evidence at the Trial and the same was all given before the Record of 15 Ed. 3. was produced and consequently the Jury must consider the force of it for Evidence on both sides being given by the Law of England the Decision of the Right belongs to the Jury and the Act of Edw. 3. being repealed 't is no Matter of Law but the most which could be made of it was that it was Evidence which must be left to the Jury together with the Defendants Evidence But no Bill of Exception will lye in such a Case by the Statute when the Evidence given is admitted as Evidence and left to a Jury and where no Opposition was made to the Defendants Evidence as here in this Case and therefore in this Case a Bill of Exception could not be warrantable because the Plaintiff's Evidence was not refused or over-ruled nor was the Defendant's Evidence fit to be rejected or so much as opposed by the Plaintiff And as to the Allegations made by the Counsel and not proved those never could be an Exception And for these and other Reasons the Judges refused to Seal their Bill Upon this a Writ of Error is brought and a Petition was exhibited to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled in the Name of the Lady Isabella Dutchess of Grafton and William Bridgman her Trustee showing that King Charles the Second granted the Office in question to W. B. for the Lives of Henry Earl of Arlington Henry Duke of Grafton and of the Petitioner the Lady Isabella in Trust for the Duke his Executors and Administrators to commence after the Death of Sir Robert Henly that upon the death of Sir Robert Henly the Petitioner by virtue of the said Grant was well intituled to the said Office but was interrupted in receiving the Profits by Rowland Holt Esq Brother to the Lord Chief Justice Holt and by Edward Coleman Gent. who pretended to be admitted thereto by some Grant from the Chief Justice that thereupon an Assize was brought for the said Office which came to Trial and the Petitioners Counsel insisted upon an Act of Parliament proving the King to have the Right of granting the said Office which the Judges would not admit to be sufficient to prove the King's Right to grant the same That the Petitioners Counsel did thereupon pray the benefit of a Bill therein to be allowed and sealed by the Judges according to Law And the Petitioner's Counsel relying upon the said Act of Parliament as sufficient proof of the King 's Right duly tendred a Bill of Exceptions before Judgment in the Assize which the Judges upon the Trial said they would Seal yet when tendred to them in Court before Judgment would not Seal the same Thereupon Judgment was entred against the Petitioners Title in the Assize by default of the Judges not allowing and sealing the said Bill according to the Duty of their Office by Law whereby they are hindred from making the Matter of the said Bill part of the Record of the said Judgment now brought and depending before your Lordships upon a Writ of Error in Parliament for reversing the said Judgment in the Assize and so are precluded from having the full benefit of the Law by the said Writ of Error to examine reverse and annul the said Judgment Wherefore the Petitioners prayed that their Lordships would be pleased to order the said Judges or some of them to Seal the said Bill of Exceptions to the end the said Case might as by Law it ought come intirely before their Lordships for Judgment c. Upon reading this Petition 't was ordered that the Lord Chief Justice and the rest of the Judges of the Court of King's Bench should have Copies of the Petition and put in their Answer thereunto in Writing on ..... next At the Day appointed there was deliver'd an Answer in these or the like words The Answer of William Dolben William Gregory and Giles Eyre Knights three of their Majesties Justices assigned to hold Pleas in their Court of King's Bench at Westminster to the Petition of the most noble Isabella Dutchess of Grafton and William Bridgman exhibited by them to your Lordships THese Respondents by Protestation not owning or allowing any of the Matters of the Petition to be true as they are therein alledged and saving to themselves the benefit of all the several Statutes herein after mentioned and all the Right they have as Members of the Body of the Commons of England to defend themselves upon any Trial that may be brought against them for any thing done contrary to their Duty as Judges according to the due Course of the Common Law which Right they hold themselves obliged to insist upon in answer to the said Petition think themselves bound to shew and offer to your Lordships consideration That the Petition is a Complaint against them for refusing to Seal a pretended Bill of Exceptions contrary to a Statute in that behalf as the Petition pretends without setting forth the tenour of the said Statute or what that pretended Bill was whereas that Statute is the Statute of Westminster 2. cap. 31. and doth enact That if any impleaded before any Justices doth offer an Exception and pray the Justices to allow the same and they refuse so to do the Party offering the Exception is thereby to write it and pray the Justices to Seal it which they or one of them are thereby enjoyned to do So that if the pretended Bill was duly tendred to these Respondents and was such as they were bound to Seal these Respondents are answerable only for it by the Course of the Common Law in an Action to be brought on that Statute which ought to be tried by a Jury of Twelve honest and lawful Men of England by the Course of the Common Law and not in any other manner And the Respondents further shew and humbly offer to your Lordships consideration That the Petition is a Complaint in the nature of an Original Suit charging those Respondents with a Crime of a very high Nature in acting contrary to the Duty of their Office and so altogether improper for your Lordships Examination or Consideration not being any more triable by your Lordships then every Information or Action for breach of any Statute Law is all which Matters are by the Common Law and Justice of the Land of Common Right to be
upon grievous pain sometimes before the King himself sometimes before the King's Council sometimes to the Parliament to answer thereof anew to the grievance of the Parties and in Subversion of the Common-Law of the Land 't is Enacted that after Judgment the Parties shall be in Peace until the Judgment be undone by Attaint or Error this is agreed and amplified 3 Bulst 47.115 Here is mention even of the Parliaments Summoning persons to Answer in Subversion of the Laws There are other Statutes not Printed as 4 Edw. 3. numb 6. Cotton's Abridg. 7. and the same in 2 Inst 50. The Lords gave Judgment of Death without Indictment upon some who were not their Peers and agreed in full Parliament that they should be discharged of so doing for the future and that it should not be drawn in President that the like should not be done on any but their Peers 't is a Declaration of the Lords nay 't is an Act of Parliament and penned in the same manner as 29 Edw. 1. Statute del Estoppel at a Parliament agreed 33 Edw. 1. by common accord and 9 Edw. 2. the King in Parliament by Advice of his Council and these are held to be Statutes This was not only an acquittal from the trouble but a clear denial of the Power as appears by the words before that they had assumed upon themselves and the words subsequent that the like should not be done again The Complaint was because it was intermedling with Commoners after that manner Suppose this House should make an Order upon this matter which is a Law business and not of Equity no Execution can be made of it but Commitment There is the 15 Edw. 3. now insisted on Printed in the Old Statute Book but omitted in this 't is in Cotton 28.33 and 't is thus the Commons complained of breaches of Magna Charta c. and pray remedy with this Conclusion That every Man may stand to the Law according to his Condition and the Lords pray that Magna Charta may be observed and further that if any of what Condition soever should break it he should be adjudged by the Peers of the Realm in Parliament the next Parliament and so from Parliament to Parliament and it was Enacted accordingly This was Specious the same being only for the breakers of Magna Charta but in 17 Edw. 3. that whole Parliament i. e. all the Acts of it are Repealed which Repeal seems designed for the Petitioners for it Repeals the supposed Laws which make both their Title and this Jurisdiction which they would support 'T is observable what is said in the Repeal that the Act was contrary to the King's Oath in prejudice of his Crown and Royalty and against the Ancient Law And such is this for here 's no use of the King 's Writ no Address to or Command by the King for this Proceeding nor any mention of his name in the Petition By 1 Hen. 4. cap. 14. Appeals in Parliament for Offences are declared against as contrary to Reason and the Constitution this is such This is not incident to the Power of Hearing and Determining upon the Writ of Error because as was said before it belongs properly to the Chancery to Issue a Writ Commanding it to be done Si ita est as is Suggested By 12 Rep. 63. the King himself cannot take any Cause out of the Court where it depends and give Judgment on it himself And this House can make no Order upon this Petition that will be a Record as in Hob. 110. The Petition is in the name of a Person not party to the Record which seems very new for 't is by a Stranger in the eye of the Law to the Cause and consequently ought not to be joyned in any legal proceeding if this be such This is not incident to the Jurisdiction of the Error no more than Amendment of an Error in the Court from whence the Record comes or the filing of a Baile a Declaration or a Warrant of Attorney or the Sueing out another Process in Defect of one lost or the like These things are never Examinable in the Superior Court for in these Collateral things the other are intrusted Here 's no Hardship upon the Petitioner for he might have been Non-suite or have given this Repeal'd Act in Evidence at first and then have demurr'd on the Defendant's Evidence or might have Sued a Writ on the Statute of Westminster 2. But suppose this House should Examine this matter and find the Petition to be groundless will such Determination prevent the Judges from being troubled by Sueing of the Writ afterwards Suppose it E contra that this House should punish the Judges and commit them and award Damages or make other Order in favour of the Petitioners would such Order bar or stop the legal process afterwards can any Order made here be used below as a Recovery or Acquittal as an Auterfoits Convict or Auterfoits Acquitte If there be any thing in it 't is a breach of a Statute Law for which they are punishable at the King's Suit will the proceeding here save them from the trouble of answering to an Indictment or Information for the same thing Then since a Writ lies to Command them to Seal this Bill and since an Act of Parliament directs it if it were a true one perhaps it may be Questionable if they do not break their Oaths in case they Sign it in Obedience to any other direction If they did it in Obedience to the Royal Word Signet or Privy Seal of the King their Master 't would be a breach of their Oath Then as to presidents of the Exercise of such a Jurisdiction none come near this And abundance of particular Cases were put and answered but the considerable one was Jeffery Stanton's Case 14 Edw. 3.31 Cot. 30. The Case is odd 't is in Fits Abridgment tit voucher 119. there is a Writ directory to the Judges to proceed to Judgment or to bring the Record before the Parliament that they might receive an Averment c. To this Case it was Answered That the same was long before most of the Statutes aforementioned and in full Parliament and in that Case Stone would not agree to it but adhered to the Law according to his Opinion 't is true Shard in the absence of Stone gave Judgment according to that Advice but a Writ of Error was afterwards brought in the King 's Bench and the Judgment was Reversed 15 Edw. 3. B. R. even contrary to the Advice of Parliament to the other Judges As to the other Cases of Property Examined here either the Parties submitted to Answer or they were at the Suit or Complaint of the Commons or by Consent of the King and Commons but none of them carry any resemblance to this where the Judges insist upon it that there is another and a proper Remedy All the Cases in Ryley's Placita Parliamentaria are either Ordinances of Parliament or directions to follow
then 't was said That the prerogative to present by Lapse is not in the Statute and yet that is admitted so that the omission of it there can be no objection this is a prerogative that follows a Vacancy occasioned by the exercise of the prerogative for such it is to make Bishops The King first made them by the donation of a Ring and Staff then by a Conge d'Eslier the King gave licence to choose and approved the person chosen tho' not by absolute donation as before By the 25 Hen. 8. the Crown is restored to its ancient Prerogatives and there are Letters Missive directing the choice of such a person In Wright's Case in 3 Cro. and Moore then was the first time it came in question and it was debated and considered and the Judgment upon deliberation settled it with the King And as to the Objection that in Dyer 228. 't is said That he and the rest of his Brethren thought otherwise that point was nothing to the Case then in question But however 't is observable that the Queen presented Anno 6. and the Patron did not dispute it as appears in Woodly's Case And in Owen's Rep. 't is said that several Presidents in Henry the Eighth's time were searched 'T is true that in 11 Hen. 4.67 and 21 Edw. 4.33 the King did not intitle himself by virtue of his Prerogative but by reason of the Temporalties being in his hands those Cases can influence nothing in this matter because the King's Prerogative consists not in ousting of himself but of a Stranger it is to present in the turn of another upon such a Vacancy but not where he is intituled himself there he presents by virtue of his own Interest As to the Objection That the Old Books are silent about this Prerogative 't was answer'd That before the Statute of Provisors 25 Edw. 3. the King was defeated of his Prerogative by reason of the Pope's Provisions and therefore the King could not have it whereas 't is the Exercise of his Prerogative of Promotion that gives him this Prerogative of presenting upon this Vacancy by such Promotion and therefore that Statute was made to prevent all Incroachments and tho' it was made to that very purpose yet the Clergy being then so strongly united to the Pope's Interest the Kings of England could not use that Prerogative and frequent Usurpations were made upon the Crown till the Pope's Supremacy was denied The 41 Edw. 3.5 shews that there were such Usurpations 7 Hen. 4. cap. 8. complaint is made of them and 5 Hen. 4. num 95. Cotton 458. And thus it continued till the Statute about the Supremacy 28 Hen. 8. the Kings are to make the Bishops and then consequently in point of Law the right of presenting was restored Then 't was urged That none of the old Books do mention the King 's right to present by Lapse except in Cawdries Case where notice is taken of a Case in the time of Edw. 3. but that is not to be found Bro. tit Presentment 61. is as much Authority for this as that in Cawdries Case is for the Prerogative to present upon Lapse And this right in question having been enjoyed so long should not now have been questioned In 5 Edw. 2. Maynard 148 198. there is one Instance of the Patron 's presenting again but then Provisions were common and usual Walsingham 1313. so that supposing the Patron did in those times present the King was not concerned because 't was then only the Pope's right as was thought and the Pope might be ignorant of the matter And from thence 't was argued that the practise of those Times cannot be urged as Arguments in the present Case Then 2. it was urged That the King having this Prerogative he is not debarred of it by the Dispensation to hold it c. nor by the Act of Parliament nor by the King's Confirmation of it The King by that did transfer no Right to the Incumbent but meerly did continue him in and there was no Avoidance but the same is suspended and had the Incumbent died or resigned during this time the Church had been void by such Death or Resignation and had debarred the King of his Prerogative The Incumbent still remains Incumbent for the time by force of his first presentation and so the Dispensation doth prevent the Avoidance He is not in by force of any Title which the Dispensation gives him but of his old Title Jones 91. 161. Vaughan 18. 3. Then 't was argued that the Act of Parliament for making this new Parish did not alter the Case 'T was said that the making of this a Rectory in this manner doth make it subject to this prerogative and that it was by no means the intent of the Act to debar the prerogative It is made a Parish and Rectory such as others are subject to the EcclesiasticalLaws as well as any other Benefice under the obligation to Residence and liable to the Common Jurisdiction and Censure of the Ordinary and 't is to be made vacant by the same ways and means as other livings are the words Death or any other Avoidance prove it to be so Lapse will prevail upon this Rectory and that cannot be but because 't is made a Rectory and presentative It cannot be doubted but that the next Avoidance might have been granted over by the Bishop of London before any Avoidance was Suppose the Bishop of London had died and this Promotion had happened should not the King have presented by reason of the Temporalties and yet that is as much out of the Words of the Act as this is As to its being a Donative 't was said That the present Rector doth not come in by Donation and tho' 't is true That the King cannot present to a Donative upon such an occasion the reason is because the Promotion doth not make a Vacancy of the Donative it doth not make a Cession the Parson is not subject to Censures as other Rectors are he is still in by reason of the Institution of the Founder so that nothing can be inferr'd from thence Suppose the Incumbency of a Donative had been immediately turned into a Rectory would not that have subjected it to this Prerogative 'T is admitted That the promotion of the Rector did make an Avoidance then was cited Princes Case 8 Rep. Then suppose it a Donative as to Dr. Tennison at the same time that the Church becomes vacant the Patronage vests and then the King's Prerogative shall take place either codem Instanti or before But here the Right of Patronage did vest immediately by the Act he that is to present when the Rectory becomes void he is Patron 'T is like a Reversion granted cum acciderit there is a present Interest vested and there 's no reason why it should not be so in Case of this Act of Parliament The Stat. of 12 Car. 2. for confirming of Livings makes the then Possessors full and perfect Incumbents as this
doth were not these Benefices void if the Parties were advanced to Bishopricks and upon such promotions did not the King present undoubtedly he did Then 't was argued That 't was never the Intent of this Act to oust the King of this Prerogative the first Intent was to make a Parish and establish a Rectory that was the true design Suppose the Act had only vested the Advowson in my Lord of London and had not mentioned the Lord Jermyn would not this Prerogative have been consistent with the Right of Patronage As to the pretence that the Bishop is to present first that is only to make a Partition 't is an Explanation That they should not have it in common but by turns The holding of Dr. Tennison was reckoned as one turn and the Bishop was to have the next besides every Act of Parliament is to be construed according to the Subject Matter and not further than the Act designs and intends 't is plain from the Nature of the thing That nothing was designed but to settle the Rectory and establish the manner of Presentation according to the Agreement of the parties General Words shall not oust the King of his Prerogative since he is not named 3 Cor. 542. Moor 540.7 Rep. 32. Plowd 240. Hob. 146. Here are no Words which do import any Intention to restrain the King of that Right with respect to this as he hath with respect to other Rectories The King's Prerogative doth not interfere with their being two Parishes this Prerogative must operate upon all presentative Livings so soon as they are made so This can never be pretended to be partly presentative and partly donative for Dr. Tennison was in by Act of Parliament as one presented Then it being a Cession of a presentative Rectory whether old or new 't is the King's Right to present Vernon's Case 4 Rep. 4. Plowd 127. The Dr. came in not by Donation but was rather placed in by Parliament which implies in it the Consent and all the necessary Acts of the Patron and Ordinary Suppose the King should grant away his own Advowson during a Plenarty and afterwards such a Cession should happen by promotion surely that would not deprive the King of his prerogative and by the same Reason it ought not in this Case Wherefore upon the whole Matter it was prayed That the Judgment should be affirmed and it was affirmed accordingly Dominus Rex Versus Reginald Tucker WRit of Error to reverse a Judgment given in B. R. for Reversal of a Judgment against T. before Commissioners of Oyer and Terminer upon an Indictment for High Treason The Record is to the Effect following Ad Gen ' Session ' de Oyer et Terminer tent ' pro Com' Somerset apud Civitat ' Wellen ' in dict Com' Somerset corum Francisco Wythens mil ' un ' c. Richardo Heath un ' c. Georgio Strode mil ' un ' Servient ' c. et aliis Sociis suis Justiciariis dicti Domini Regis per Liter as Patentes ipsius Dom ' Regis sub magno sigillo Anglie confect eisdem Francisco Wythens Richardo Heath Georgio Strode et aliis aliquibus tribus vel pluribus eorum direct ' quorum alter ' eorum praefat ' F. W. vel Richardum Heath Dictus Dominus Rex unum esse voluit ad inquirend ' per Sacramentum proborum et legalium Hominum Com' praed ' ac aliis viis modis et mediis c. assignat ' per Sacrament ' Francisci Warre Baronett ' c. proborum et legalium hominum Com' Somerset praed ' adtunc et ibid impannellat ' jurat ' et onerat ' ad inquirend ' pro Domino Rege pro Corpore Com' praed ' presentat ' existit quod Reginald Tucker nuper de Long Sutton in Com' praed ' Gen ' et Thomas Place nuper de Eddington in Com' praed ' Yeoman timorem Dei in cordibus suis non habentes nec debitum ligeantie sue ponderantes sed Instigatione diabolica mot ' et seduct ' dilection ' ac veram et debit ' obedientiam quas veri et Fideles subditi Domini Jacobi secundi nuper Regis Anglie c. erga ipsum Dominum Regem gererent et de jure gerere tenentur subtrahent ' et machinant ' et totis viribus suis intendent ' pacem et Communem tranquilitatem c. proditoris compassaverint imaginat ' fuer ' et intendebant dictum Dominum Regem supremum et naturalem Dominum suum ad mortem adducere et contra dictum Dominum Regem supremum verum naturalem et indubitatum Dominum suum prodotorie levaverunt guerram c. contra pacem dicti Domini Regis nunc Coron ' et Dignitat ' suas ac contra formam Statut ' in hujusmodi casu edit ' et provis ' Et statim de premissis in Indictament ' praed ' specificat ' superius eis imposit ' per cur ' hic allocut ' qualiter se vellent inde acquietari iidem Reginald Tucker et Thomas Place separatim dicunt c. The Judgment is per cur ' hic quod praed ' Reginald Tucker et Thomas Place ducantur eteorum uterque ducatur usque ad Gaolam dicti Domini Regis Com' praed ' unde venerunt et abinde usque ad locum Executionis trahantur et uterque eorum trahatur et super furcas ibidem per collum suspendantur et viventes ad terram prosternantur et uterque eorum prosternatur et interiora sua extra ventres eorum et utriusque eorum capiantur ipsisque viventibus ibidem comburantur et quod capita eorum et utriusque eorum amputentur quodque corpora eorum et utriusque eorum in quatuor partes dividantur et quod capita et quarteria illa ponantur ubi Dominus Rex ea assignare voluit c. And now it was argued on the behalf of the King That this Reversal was not justifiable that the Exceptions taken below were many and as to the Pretence that secreta membra amputentur was omitted the same was not allowed as Error below by reason of the many Precedents which in the Entries did omit it That tho' the Practice be common to pronounce it yet few or no ancient Records do mention it that in 3 Inst. 210. where the Judgment is taken notice of this is not part In Plowd 387. 't is omitted that Interiora includes it In Bro coron ' 128. 't is not inserted That this was never entred as part of the Judgment till 12 Car. 2. Then as to the separatim allocut ' upon the Arraignment that was likewise over-rul'd below for it must be intended a several Demand or Question And the same is implied in this Entry as much as if it had been express'd and the Precedents are both ways But the main and only Exception for which the Court revers'd the Judgment was That in the Indictment 't is not said to be a Fact done
Suspended were Seniors to the Consenting Scholars Then they find that after this Sentence Painter was elected into the Rectorship Concurrentibus omnibus requisitis si praedict ' Officium Rectoris eo tempore fuit vacans and that Dr. Bury 1 June Anno Jac. 2. semper postea usque sententiam praedict ' si sententia in contrar ' non valeat semper postea fuit adhuc est verus legitimus Rector Collegij praedict ' That William Painter as Rector and the Scholars of the said Colledge did make the Demise in the Declaration and thereon the Plaintiff entred and Dr. Bury enters on him and holds and yet doth hold him out modo forma prout in nar ' c. sed utrum super totam materiam praedict ' locus Rectoris per privation ' praedictam praed ' Arthuri legitime vacavit nec ne the Jury are ignorant si per inde locus praedict ' legitime vacavit tunc pro quaerent ' si non tunc pro Defendent ' It was argued on the behalf of the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error That this Judgment was illegal and the general Question was Whether this Sentence of Deprivation thus given by the Visitor against Dr. Bury did make the Rectorship void as to him and so consequently gave a Title to the Lessor of the Plaintiff But upon this Record the Questions were two 1. Whether or no by the Constitution of this Colledge the Bishop had a Power in this Case to give a Sentence 2. Supposing that he had such a Power Whether the Justice of that Sentence were examinable in Westminster-hall upon that Action And 1. 't was argued That the Bishop had such a Power to give a Sentence and it was agreed that he could make his Visitation but once in five Years unless he be called by the Request of the Colledge and if he comes uncalled within the five Years his Visitation would be void But yet the Visitation of the 24th of July was a good Visitation and consequently the Sentence upon it is good that there was no colour to make Dr. Masters's coming in March to examine Colmer's Appeal upon the Visitor's Commission to be a Visitation and that because it was a Commission upon a particular Complaint made by a single expelled Fellow for a particular Wrong and Injury supposed to be done to him and not a general Authority to exercise the Visitatorial Power which is to inquire into all Abuses c. Colmer complains that he was expelled without just Cause and seeks to the Visitor for redress they having expelled him for an Offence of which he thought himself innocent and the Visitor sends his Commissary to examine this particular matter Then 't was urged That tho' a Visitor be restrained by the Constitutions of the Colledge from visiting ex officio but once in five Years yet as a Visitor he had a constant standing Authority at all times to hear the Complaints and redress the Grievances of the particular Members and that is part of the proper Office of a Visitor to determine particular Differences between the Members and thus is Littleton's Text sect 136. that complaint may be made to the Ordinary or Visitor praying him that he will lay some Correction and Punishment for the same and that such Default be no more made c. And the Ordinary or Visitor of right ought to do this c. and so was it held in Appleford's Case in the Court of King's Bench who was expelled upon a like occasion as Colmer was he appealed to the Bishop of Winton who was Visitor and he confirmed the Expulsion and held to be good upon the Appeal for the hearing of Appeals is a standing fixed constant Jurisdiction Visiting is one Act or Exercise of his Power in which he is limited as to time but redressing of Grievances is another and his proper Office and Business at all times 'T is the Case of all the Bishops of England they can visit by Law but once in three years but their Courts are always open to hear Complaints and Determine Appeals so that here tho' but one Visitation can be in five years without request yet the Power and Authority to hear and examine any difference between the Members and to relieve against any particular Injury that 's continual and not limited Then 't was argued That tho' what was done upon the 16th of June was with an Intention to Visit yet being denied to enter the Chappel where the Visitation was appointed to be held it was none and his Calling over the Names was only to know who hindred the Visiting and his making an Act of it afterwards or administring an Oath at the time can never be called one tho' it hath been below said to be a tacking that of June to that of July but that cannot be for then it continued much longer than was intended nay much longer then it can by the Statutes of the Colledge for that is to cease in three days It turns rather the other way having been hindred in June he makes an Act of it in July in order to call them to an account for it as for a Conturnacy and to bring them to Judgment at his Visitation 'T was no more then taking an Affidavit of the Service of a Citation The appointment of a Visitation in the Hall was occasioned by the Obstruction met with at the Chappel and 't would be a very strange Construction that when he designed a Visitation and was hindred that the Hinderance and his Inquiry about it should be called a Visitation and a former Contumacy in opposing an intended Visitation should prevent their being subject to an actual true one Then 't was argued That there was no necessity that there should be the Consent of the four Senior Fellows to the Deprivation of the Rector and by one of the Counsel 't was owned that if such Consent had been necessary the Sentence had been a Nullity But as this Statute is framed 't was argued that the Bishop might deprive tho' they did not concur for these Reasons 1. By the Statutes the Bishop for the time being is made the ordinary Visitor of Exeter Colledge and that where any one is Visitor of a Colledge he hath full and ample Authority to Deprive or Amove any Member of the Colledge quatenus Visitor 2. There is an express Power given to the Bishop to proceed to the Deprivation of the Rector or the Expulsion of a Scholar and this in his Visitation And 3. The qualifying words do not restrain it to be with the Consent of the four Fellows the word is Deprivatio as to the Rector and Expulsio as to the Scholar tho' they are synonymous as to real Sense yet by this Statute they are differently applied Then it says If the Bishop do proceed c. that only relates to the Case of a Scholar because the word there used is Expulsio which is never applied but to the amotion
haberi decrevit and then he adjourns 't is no Argument to say that he was hindred for he might have proceeded in absentia and if the 16th of June be tacked to it 't is longer than the time There needed no formal adjournment for that he is Authorized to proceed in a Summary way 't is no such absurdity to call that a Visitation which was in some sort hindred since notwithstanding the obstruction some Acts were done and more might have been by adjourning to another place 3. Here was no such cause as could warrant a Deprivation it was not one of the causes mentioned in the Statutes which are not directions merely but they are the constituent Qualifications of the Power and Contumacy is none of the causes nay here is no Contumacy at all The Offence of the Suspended Fellows was only a mistake in their Opinions and the Doctors was no more and 't is not a Contumacy for refusing to answer to or for any Crime within the Statutes for there was none of the Crimes mentioned in the Statutes laid to the charge of the Rector if the Crime charged had incurred Deprivation perhaps a Contumacy might be Evidence of a Guilt of that Crime and so deserve the same Censure but Contumacy in not consenting to a Visitation can never be such especially when the consenting to a Visitation is not required under pain of Deprivation 4. Admitting the Visitor legally in the Exercise of his Office that here was cause of Censure that the Cause or Crime was deserving of that Punishment which was inflicted that Deprivation was a congruous Penalty for such an Offence yet t was argued That this Sentence was void for that the Visitor alone was in this Case minus competens judex because his Authority was particularly designed to be exercised with the consent of others which was wanting in this Case This was the same as if it had required the concurrence of some other Persons Extra Colleg ' then that such a concurrence was necessary appears from the words of the Statute his meaning seems plain upon the whole to require it A greater tenderness is all along shewn to the Rector then to the Scholars 't is sine quorum consensu irrita erit hujusmodi Expulsio vacua ipso facto and the Sentence it self shews it necessary because it affirms it self to be made with such consent and it cannot be thought that the Rector should be deprivable without their consent when the meanest Scholar could not Then here 's no such consent for 't is not of the four Seniors but of the four Seniors not Suspended now this doth not fulfil the Command of the Statute for the Suspension doth not make them to be no Fellows a Suspended Fellow is a Fellow though Suspended a Suspension makes no vacancy the taking off of the Suspension by Sentence or by Effluxion of time doth make them capable of acting still without the aid of any new Election and they are in upon their old choice and have all the priviledges of Seniority and Precedency as before If they ceased to be Fellows by the Suspension then they ought to undergo the Annum probationis again and to take the Oaths again In case of Benefices or Offices Religious or Civil Ecclesiastical or Temporal 't is so a Suspension in this Case is only a disabling them from taking the Profits during the time it continues And 't is no Argument to say That their Concurrence was not necessary for that they had withdrawn themselves and were guilty of Contumacy for that a Man guilty of Contumacy might be present if withdrawn from the Chapel he might be in the Colledge or in the University and 't is not found that they were absent and then their Consent not being had the Sentence was void and null and consequently no Title found for the Lessor of the Plaintiff in the Action below It was replied in behalf of the Plaintiff much to the same effect as 't was argued before and great weight laid upon the Contumacy which hindred the observance of the Statutes that by allowing such a Behaviour in a Colledge no Will of the Founder could be fulfilled no Visitation could ever be had and all the Statutes would be repealed or made void at once that tho' this Crime was not mentioned 't was as great or greater than any of the rest that here was an Authority and well executed and upon a just Cause and in a regular manner as far as the Rector's own Misbehaviour did not prevent it and therefore they prayed that the Judgment might be reversed And upon Debate the same was reversed accordingly Note That in this Case there was one Doubt conceived before and another after this hearing The first was If a Writ of Error lay in Parliament immediately upon a Judgment in the King's Bench without first resorting to the Exchequer Chamber but upon perusing the Statute which erects that Court for Examination of Errors it appeared plainly that that Act only gives the Election to the Party aggrieved to go thither that it did not take away the old Common Law method of Relief in Parliament and so hath the Practise been but upon Judgments in the Exchequer Court the Writ of Error must first be brought before the Lord Chancellor and cannot come per saltum into Parliament because the Statute in that case expresly ordains That Errors in the Court of Exchequer shall be examined there and so held in the Case of the Earl of Macclesfield and Grosvenor The other Doubt was raised by a Motion in B. R. for the Court to give a new Judgment upon the Reversal above and insisted on that it ought so to be as was done in the Case of Faldo and Ridge Yelv. 74. entred Trin. 2 Jac. 1. Rot. 267. Trespass and Special Plea and Judgment in B. R. for the Defendant and upon Writ of Error in the Exchequer Chamber the Judgment was Reversed and upon the Record returned into the King's Bench they gave Judgment that the Plaintiff should recover contrary to the first Judgment for otherwise they said the Law would prove defective and a Precedent was shewn in Winchcomb's Case 38 Eliz. where the same Course was taken and the like Rule was made Mich. 1 W. Mar. upon the Reversal of the Judgment inter Claxton vers Swift which is entred Mich 2 Jac. 2. B. R. Rot. 645. the like between Sarsfield vers Witherley 'T was argued on the other side That the Court which reverses the Judgment ought to give the new Judgment such as ought to have been given at first that in the Exchequer Chamber it may be otherwise because they have only power to affirm or reverse for yet in the Case of King and Seutin the Exchequer Chamber gave a new Judgment tho' they cannot inquire of Damages and that is a kind of Execution which must be in B.R. In Omulkery's Case 1 Cro. 512. and 2 Cro. 534. the Court here sends a Mandatory Writ to
whom of right it doth belong to grant that Office whensoever it shall be void It was then further insisted on and proved That there are in the nature of Clerks three considerable Officers of the Court of King's Bench The first and chiefest is the Clerk of the Crown called sometimes Coronator Attornat ' Domini Regis c. his Business is to draw all Indictments Informations c. in Pleas of the Crown This Officer being the chief Clerk in Court is always made by Patent under the Great Seal The second Officer is this the Prothonotary or chief Clerk for inrolling Pleas between Party and Party in Civil Matters He and his Under-Clerks do inroll all Declarations Pleadings c. in Civil Causes especially where the Proceedings are by Bill This Clerk files in his Office all Bills Declarations c. and all the Writs of this Court in Civil Matters are made by him and his Under-Clerks and tested by the Chief Justice And he hath the custody of all Returns of Elegits Executions Scire Facias's and the filing of all Villes every of which are in the Eye and Judgment of the Law in the hands of the Chief Justice whose Clerk this Officer is The third is the Custos Brevium who keeps all the Rolls and Records of Judgments in this Court which are also said to be in the custody of the Chief Justice And this Office when void is in his Gift and Disposal It was further shewn on the behalf of the Defendants That in the Statute of Edw. 6. against the Sale of Offices there is a Salvo to the two Chief Justices and Judges of Assize to dispose of the Offices in their disposition as they used formerly And ever since that Statute these two Offices of chief Clerk to inroll the Pleas c. and the Custos Brevium have without controul been disposed by the Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench. And it is also observed That in the Grant of this Office to Mr. Bridgman the Plaintiff it is recited that Henly and Wightwick were debito modo admitted to this Office and yet they never had any Grant from the Crown nor any other Grant except that from the Chief Justice before mentioned Then to prove the Defendant's Title to the Office the Grant of the now Chief Justice to them for their Lives was produced and read and proved that they were admitted and sworn To answer all this Evidence there was produced the Copy of an Act of Parliament which was made in 15 Edw. 3. to this effect It is consented that if any of the Offices aforesaid which are other great Offices mentioned in the Act or the Controller or chief Clerk in the Common Bench or King's Bench by Death or other Case be ousted of their Office the King with the consent of the great Men c. shall put another fit person in such Office From whence the Plaintiff's Counsel would have inferred That the King had a right to grant this Office and that this Act was declaratory of such his Right and that all the Grants from the Chief Justices ever since that Act were but Usurpations on the Crown and that no Usage of granting it by the Chief Justices could prevail against the King's Right To this it was replied That the Act was repealed as did appear by the Record it self as well as by their own Copy produced And for a further Answer 't was said That the Office in question was not the Office mentioned in that Act for that Act mentions the chief Clerk of the King's Bench which is the Clerk of the Crown and so called in the 2 H. 4. the Statute against Extortion and he is in reality the chief Clerk in that Court and hath precedency of this Officer both in Court and elsewhere And that this Officer is not called chief Clerk in the King's Bench altho' he is the chief for inrolling of Pleas Civil in that Court And the constant Usage explains the meaning of that Act. And that the Officer called chief Clerk was meant to be the Clerk of the Crown for that that Office hath been always granted by Letters Patents according to that Act And the Office in question was never enjoyed one day by virtue of a Grant from the Crown The Defendants did further insist That it was a Scandalous Imputation upon all those chief Justices who were Persons of Probity and Virtue and had clear Reputations to surmise that they imposed and usurped upon the Crown as they must all have done if the right of granting this Place be in the King And Sir Robert Heath that was the King's Attorney took a Grant of the Office in question from the Chief Justice and upon his Admittance the right of the Chief Justice to grant it is affirmed upon Record Then all this Evidence on both sides being given and the same being strong on the Defendants behalf the Court proposed to the Plaintiff's Counsel to be Nonsuit which they would not but prayed the Court to direct the Jury some of them saying that they would take another Course And then the Court did briefly sum up the same and particularly the Evidence of the Act 15 Edw. 3. and what was urged from it by the Plaintiff and the Answers made thereto and left the Matter to the Jury upon the whole The Jury withdrew and after some time gave a Verdict for the Defendants Upon this Verdict the Counsel for the Plaintiff prayed leave to bring in a Bill of Exceptions and produced in Court and tendred to the three Judges to be sealed a Parchment Writing in form of such a Bill in which after a Recital of the Declaration and Issue in the Cause 't is alledged That the Plaintiff's Counsel produced in Evidence the Grant of the Office to the Plaintiff and that they shewed to the Court and Jury that the Office is of the Grant of the Crown And that to make out the Right of King Charles the Second to grant this Office to the Plaintiff they gave in Evidence the 15 Edw. 3. which in the Bill is set out at large and is in Substance as is before set forth And 't is further alledged in the Bill That the Justices refused to allow admit and receive the Allegations and Matters given in Evidence as sufficient to prove the Plaintiff's Title to this Office by reason whereof the Jury found That the Defendant did not disseize the Plaintiff and prays that the Justices would put their Seals to it according to the Statute of Westminster 2. cap. 31. The Justices upon reading this Bill did refuse to Seal it 1. Because 't is asserted therein That the Plaintiff's Counsel did show that this Office was of the Gift and Grant of the King whensoever it should be void whereas there was no such Evidence to show any such Right in the King offered or pretended to besides the Patent in question and the Act of Edw. 3. 2. That the Judges refused to allow admit and
Court. If such Bill be tendred and the Exceptions in it are truly stated then the Judges ought to set their Seal in testimony that such Exceptions were taken at the Trial But if the Bill contain Matters false or untruly stated or Matters wherein they were not over-ruled then they are not obliged to affix the Seal for that would be to command them to attest a falsity a Bill is not to draw the whole Matter into Examination again 't is only for a single point and the truth of it can never be doubted after the Bill is sealed for the adverse Party is concluded from averring the contrary or supplying an Omission in it This Bill was without Foundation the Plaintiff was not over-ruled in any one Point of Law 'T is true the Counsel desired the Opinion of the Court after all the Defendant's Evidence had been heard concerning their Record and the Judges did declare that they thought it did not extend to the Office in question but to the Clerk of the Crown who is the chief Clerk in Court and hath precedency and the Grant of that Office by the King both before and since that supposed Act proves that to be meant and not the Office in question which hath always been granted by the Chief Justice and this was afterwards left to the Jury Here was no cause for a Bill of Exceptions the Judges at the Counsels desire gave their Opinion upon the thing but did not over-rule them for that the Act being repealed could make no Point of Law but only be Evidence for the Jury to consider Besides this Act tho' repealed is inserted in the Bill as an Act in force And if an Act be set out and no repeal appears it must be understood to be in force and if the Bill had been sealed it must have been taken as in force and the Defendants could not here upon the Writ of Error have shewn the repeal which was in the 17 Edw. 3. and appeared so upon the Evidence from whence 't was inferred That this Bill was too artificial If any point of Law had arisen upon the whole Evidence and a particular point there was none the whole ought to have been inserted in the Bill or at least all that which concerned that Matter If this should be allowed 't would be in the power of any Counsel to destroy any Verdict as in case of a Title by Descent from Father to Son and a Will of the Father had been produced and proved at the Trial and a Bill had been sealed only shewing the Seisin and Descent the Son must prevail tho' he had no Title This is enough to shew that the Judges are not obliged nay are obliged not to Seal this Bill Then it was argued That the present Complaint is beneath the Honour and besides the Jurisdiction of the House of Peers that this was a Complaint of a Default in the Judges which cannot be tried in this place that MagnaCharta was made for them as well as for others that if they offend against any Rule of the Common Law or particular Statute whether in their Personal behaviour or as Judges they are triable only by their Peers that Peers are only such qui pari conditione lege vivunt that the Crown and Constitution of England had so far exalted their Lordships in their State and Condition that 't is beneath them to judge or try Commoners that all Powers and Priviledges in this Kingdom even the highest are circumscrib'd by the Law and have their limits That this is a Complaint of a great Crime in the Judges a Breach of their Oaths and with the insinuation of Partiality to one of themselves which if true incurs loss of their Offices and Forfeiture of their Estates by Fine and of their Liberty by Imprisonment and all this to the King besides Damages to the Party grieved and therefore it concerns them to have the benefit of the Law That this comes not regularly into the House 't is not any matter of Advice to the King nor of Priviledge nor of Contempt to this Court because the Matter complained of was before any Judgment below or any Jurisdiction could be attached here by pretence of the Writ of Error 'T is brought hither by way of Complaint for a supposed Miscarriage in Westminster-hall in a private Cause between Bridgman and Holt two Commoners It presumes the Lords to be proper Judges in the first Instance for the hearing and punishing of all Offences committed by the Judges and that in a Summary way upon a Petition and without that due Process of Law which is established under our Government Either this Refusal is punishable or not If not the Petition ought to be rejected If it be 't is either by the Common Law or by Act of Parliament but neither do warrant this Practise of Petitioning and the old Law is that which past Ages have approved and that by which Justice is to be administred and whatsoever is done by way of Judgment in a different manner than the Law allows is against that Law The proceeding in this manner is against the Consent of the Respondents for they have Pleaded to the Jurisdiction of this House as to this matter c. and therefore it differs from all Cases where the Parties concerned have Answered the Complaint and thereby submitted the same to an Examination and this will prevent the force of many presidents which may be Cited on this occasion Some Persons perhaps have from a confidence of Success or from a slavish Fear or private Policy forborn to Question the Power of their Superiors but the Judges must betray their Reputation and their Knowledge of the Laws if they should own a Jurisdiction which former times and their Predecessors were unacquainted with 'T is necessary to answer the pretence of a failure of Justice in case this method be Rejected and therefore it must be observed That our Law knows nothing of extraordinary means to redress a Mischief but that upon a defect of ordinary ones recourse is to be had to the Legislature and to that only either to explain and correct in reference to things past or to provide remedies for the future But here is a common easie means of relief if there had been occasion By the Statute of Westminster 2 cap. 31. In case the Judge refuses then a Writ to Command him which is to issue out of Chancery quod apponat sigillum suum and then a Writ to own or deny his Seal By 2 Inst 426. the party grieved by the denial may have a Writ upon the Statute Commanding the same to be done juxta formam Statuti Reg. 182. Fitch Natura brevium 21. and 11 Hen. 4.51 62 63. there 's the form of the Writ set out at large It recites a surmise of an Exception taken and over-ruled and it follows vobis precipimus quod si ita est tunc sigilla vestra apponatis Si ita 't is conditional if the Bill
the Alienation even of an Ideot and then after Office the Practise is to Issue a Scire facias to him in possession or to the Alienee and so is Fitzh tit Scire facias pl. 2. 106. All these Methods prescribed by the Law would be useless if the Acts themselves were void Then 't is as certain that the Office must be found during the Parties Life and during the insanity and not afterwards If there had been an Office 't would only avoid it with a prospect as it would be in case of an Heir after death Even after an Office the King cannot have the Profits from the time of the Alienation which shews it not it not void from the beginning If a Suit be against an Ideot after Inquisition the Ideot cannot plead it but the King shall send a Supersedeas to the Judges suggesting the Inquisition so that even then the Party himself cannot avoid it As to the other way of avoiding it by the Heir it must be by Writ or Entry and till Entry or Writ the Act remains good But here 's no Contest with the Party himself or with his Heirs but with a Remainder Man This Act of Surrender was no tortious Act it wrought no discontinuance there was no Trust in him to preserve the Contingent Remainder A Feoffment with livery is allowed not to be void and yet that may do a wrong by discontinuance c. As to the pretence that a Warrant of Attorney to make livery is void that doth not reach this Case for here 's an Act done by himself which would have passed the Estate as by and from himself if he had been of sound Mind Then 't was desired that the other side would shew any such Case as this whereas multitudes of Gifts Grants Releases Bonds and other Specialties sealed and delivered by the Party himself are allowed to be good and the same reason holds for a Surrender made in Person and there 's no difference between a livery made in Person and a Surrender the Act being Personal and not by another under his Authority makes the livery good and so it ought to be here 18 Ed. 4.2 Perkins sect 139. And 't is observable in 39 Hen. 6.42 per Priscott upon the Inquisition 't is reseized and revested into the Interest of the Ideot and consequently of the King and if revested 't was once out of him Now here 's no prejudice to the Man himself by this Opinion he is taken care of and his Acts avoided by the King on his behalf and his Heirs may avoid them But that Strangers should take notice of them as void was denied and therefore prayed that the Judgment should be reversed On the other side it was argued with the Judgment That this never was a Surrender that 't was against sense and reason to allow the Acts of a Madman a Person distracted to be valid to any purpose that in case of livery it had been allowed to be only voidable by reason of the solemnity and notoriety of the thing but in case of a Deed or a Thing passing only by Deed 't was otherwise and Bracton Britton Fleta and the Register were cited where 't is declared who can take and who can alien and that a Madman cannot alien and Fitzh is of Opinion that the Writ of dum non fuit compos may be brought by himself that there was a notion scattered in the Books that such Acts are only voidable but the reason of the Law is otherwise 39 Hen. 6.42 hath the distinction that Feoffment with livery is good but if livery be by Warrant of Attorney 't is void If it be a Feoffment with Warranty by Deed and possession delivered with his own hands yet the warranty is void because the Deed is void Perk. 5. The Deed of a Mad-man is void if he grants a Rent 't is void If an Infant makes a Warrant of Attorney 't is void so is Whittingham's Case A Deed and a Will are not to be distinguished and by the same reason that the one is void the other is so Finch 102. is general All Deeds of a Man of non sane memorie are null 12 Rep. Shulter's Case 'T is an offence to procure a Deed from him The Civil Law makes all his Acts which he doth without consent of his Curator to be void A Madman is taken pro absente 'T is a Rule unaccountable That a Man shall not stuitifie himself that he shall not be able to excuse himself by the Visitation of Heaven when he may plead Duress from Men to avoid his own Act. 'T is absurd to say That a Deed procured from a Man in a Fever or in Bethlehem shall be valid to any purpose Fitzherbert who was a good Lawyer ridicules the pretence and maintains That he himself may avoid such Act. Then were cited 2 Inst 14. Lloyd and Gregory 1 Cro. 501 502. Perkins tit Grant 13. Then it was said That in this Case there needs not much Argument the Reason of the Thing exposes the pretended Law And the Judges have declared that this Surrender is void the word amens or demens imply that the Man hath no Mind and consequently could make no Conveyance Wherefore 't was prayed that the Judgment should be affirmed and without much debate it was accordingly affirmed Henry Earl of Lincoln by Susanna Countess of Lincoln his Mother and Procheine Amye Appellant Versus Samuel Roll Esq Vere Booth Hugh Fortescue Esq and Bridget his Wife al' Respondents AApeal from a Decree of Dismission in Chancery The Case was thus Edward late Earl of Lincoln who was Son and Heir of Edward Lord Clinton the only Son of Theophilus Earl of Lincoln deceased being seized in Fee of the Mannors of c. after his Mothers decease who is yet living and of other Lands of about 3000 l. per Annum part of the ancient Estate of the Family And designing that in default of Issue-Male by himself his Estate should go with the Honour made his Will 20 Sept. 34 Car. 2. and thereby devised the Premisses to Sir Francis Clinton for Life Remainder to his first and other Sons in Tail-Male with many Remainders over to such Persons in Tail-Male to whom the Honour might descend and directed that his Houshold Goods at ...... should remain there as Heir Loomes to be enjoyed by the next Heir-Male who should be Heir of Lincoln and made the said Sir Francis the Appellants Father and after his Death Earl of Lincoln Executor On the sixth of Novemb. 36 Car. 2. Earl Edward made another Will in writing in like manner with the alteration of some Personal Legacies and afterwards in April 1686. and in Dec. 1690. did republish his Will Then Earl Edward sold part to Richard Wynne Esq for 24491 l. 3 s. 6 d. and mortgaged the Premisses in question to him for 12200 l. Then Earl Edward by Deeds of Lease and Release dated the 27th and 28th of April 1691. conveys his whole Estate to
in the Negative doth amount to it viz. that he shall continue no longer especially when the Act recites the Mischief to be a Continuance during Life It implies that the Clerkship of the Peace should be never granted for a longer Interest than the Custos had in his Office The 3 and 4 Edw. 6. doth indeed repeal part of the 37 Hen. 8. not by express words but by a very strong Implication by giving the Chancellor a power to nominate the Custos But the Office of Clerk of the Peace is not toucht by that of Edw. 6. and continues as settled by 37 H. 8. which is during the continuance of the Custos Then 't is the new Statute which gives the occasion of the present Dispute and there 's nothing in this Act which can make such an Alteration in the Law as was below contended for The words So long only as he shall well demean himself are not enlarging of his Estate but Restrictive and whensover 't is considered how to make a Grant for Life to be good you must consider the power and capacity of the Grantor and how the thing is capable of being so granted as in Case of Tenant in Tail or Fee and each make a Lease for Life in the latter Case 't is for the Life of the Lessee and in the former for the Life of the Tenant in Tail because of the different Capacities of the Grantors and so the thing it self is considerable here 's an express Statute that saith it shall be only during the continuance of the Custos now that Provision is to be pursued 'T is said that a Grant quam diu se bene gesserit is for Life but the words themselves do not import any such thing 't is indeed a restrictive Condition which the Law imposes upon all Offices for Misbehaviour in any Office if in Fee is a Forfeiture but the chiefest Consideration is if it be an Office that is capable of being granted for life if it be so these words may amount to a Grant for Life as expounded by usage and the nature or capacity of the Office it self but otherwise if the Office be not grantable for Life such words will not give an Estate for Life These words seem only to be an Expression of what the Law always implieth tho' not particularly expressed If it operate any thing it seems only to have reference to the power of the Grantor as a Restirction on him and not as an Enlargement of the Estate of the Grantee especially where by a Law in being there 's an incapacity upon the very Office not to be granted for life Then it was urged that the Statute of 37 H. 8. was not repealed the 3 and 4 Edw. 6. doth not alter this Matter at all and where it did make any Alteration the same is expresly repealed by this last Act in question It is a settled Rule that if there be two Statutes and both consistent and not contradictory the latter can never be said to repeal the former and so is Dr. Foster's Case 11 Rep. 5 6. so it is in Wills Hodgkinson and Wood Cro. Car. 23. This last Act of Will. et Mar. is consistent with the 37 Hâ—n 8. the one says He shall continue during the time that the Custos doth remain such so as he demean himself well the other says He shall enjoy his place so song only as he demeans himself well in it Now take the Office to be by the 37 Hen. 8. only granâ—able to hold during the continuance of the Custos then suppose in the same Act it should be said to hold so long only as he demean himself well where is the inconsistency or contradiction And if none then this last Act doth not Repeal the former as to this Matter And Mr. Fox's Grant is pursuant to the Statute of Hen. 8. and Mr. Harcourt's hath no relation to it Then 't was argued That 't was unreasonable that a Custos should have an Officer under him of anothers choice when himself is responsible for the Records which such Officer is concerned with The primary Intent of this last Act was only to settle the Doubts about the Keepers of the Great Seal not to alter the Estate of the Office of Clerk of the Peace The Offices of the Judges in Westminster-hall determine with the King's Life who grants them tho ' they are granted to hold during good behaviour In this Act the reason of using these words was for Caution to advertise them that Misbehaviour should forfeit their Places If an Alteration of the Law had been intended they would have said for Life so as he demean himself well especially when as was said before he was removable for Misbehaviour by the former Laws in being Wherefore upon the whole Matter it was prayed that the Judgment might be reversed On the other side it was argued with the Judgment That 't is clear and apparent that this Act of W. M. was made not only to satisfie Doubts and prevent Questions about the Office for the Custody of the Great Seal but to settle the manner of naming the Custos and Clerk of the Peace and that 't is in part introductive of a new Law and in part a reviver of the old But the general end was that that Office of Clerk should be filled and executed by a learned able honest Person because it concerns the Administration of Justice He is the King's Attorney in many respects he not only writes the sense of the Justices in their Orders but draws Indictments and upon Traverses he joyns Issue as one qui pro Domino Rege in ea parte sequitur and prays Judgment for the King in many Cases joyns in Demurrer when occasion requires and is in the Sessions the same as the Clerk of the Crown is in the King 's Bench. Now to accomplish this end of having a Person well qualified and to encourage and oblige him to his good Behaviour it requires a Residence in the County it enjoyns that the Person named be able it subjects him to the Jurisdiction of the Justices who have a daily observance of his demeanour it gives them a power to remove him upon a just Complaint which they could not before it frees him from the usual Temptation to Fraud and Corruption by introducing him gratis sine pretio and to provoke his Care and Diligence it gives him a more durable Estate in his Office then he had before when he bought it viz. Freehold an Estate for his Life That it should be so is convenient because then he will be encouraged to endeavour the increase of his Knowledge in that Employment which he may enjoy during Life whereas precarious dependent Interests in Places tempt Men to the contrary That this is an Estate for Life appears from the words of the Act they do direct how long he shall enjoy his Office so long only as he shall behave himself well If the word only had been omitted
another Subject 2. If this Commendam Retinere and to take the Profits to his own use was not a Service of this Prerogative turn 3. Supposing that there be such a Prerogative and that the Commendam makes no Alteration in the Case then if this Vacancy of this Church be subject to this Prerogative As to the first it was argued That where an Incumbent is promoted to the Order and Degree of a Bishop his Living or Benefice becomes void and that where a Bishop is Patron and the Advowson and Bishoprick are become void at a time there the King shall present because while the Temporalties are in his hands he is lawful Patron for that time and consequently had a Right to present but not by virtue of any Special Prerogative but only as a Temporary qualified Patron like a Dominus pro Tempore of a Mannor may do Acts of Necessity which regularly belong to the very true Lord himself and this perhaps gave the Colour for this pretended Prerogative and in truth it answers every thing that can be suggested from any ancient Authority whether President Book Case or Opinion It is otherwise where a Subject is Patron and the King hath no Possession of or a Right to the Patronage at that time In such case he cannot present and there is no Prerogative given by our Law for to warrant such a Right to that Presentation All Prerogatives are founded upon some reason of Benefit to the People either in respect of the Government in general or else of some particular Subjects but this hath neither And in 3 Cro. 527. 't is agreed that there is no Reason for such a Prerogative but 't is added and the Addition is somewhat strange that many Prerogatives have no reason in them or for them and that 't is unmannerly to Enquire or Doubt if they are reasonable whereas it might be thought that unreasonableness in the Matter contended for had been an Argument against any thing but an Act of Parliament In Dyer 228. Sir Henry Sidney's Case versus the Bishop of Glocester by Dyer 't was agreed That the Queen had no such Prerogative and he adds quod sic alij Socii mei sentiebant so that 't was not his single Opinion against it but the whole Court of C. B. Then 't was said that the ancient Law knew nothing of his Prerogative all the Records Law Books and even Histories have been searched for the Maintenance of it and no footsteps can be found for it No Bracton or Fleta no Dr. and Student or Stamf. that treats of the Prerogative hath any thing of it Now all Prerogatives are and must be time out of mind or not at all And then if this be not so it must be an Usurpation and being not time out of mind it cannot be a Prerogative because not part of the Common Law In the great Case which they so much insist on of Woodley in 2 Cro. 691. Justice Hutton who was an ingenious Man a good Lawyer and a true English Judge that argued against Ship-money he expresly denies that there was any such Prerogative that the King had no Title to present but where himself is Patron and that there was no such Presentment till of late days nor any Book of Law to warrant it but that Case which is in Bro. Abr. Presentment al' Esglise 61. Then 't was urged That a few years Practise can no more make a Prerogative then it can Repeal an Act of Parliament 'T is true that in the Report of that Case Crook seems to admit that Winch was of Opinion for the Prerogative and only Hutton against it for he makes Winch to say That the King has an Absolute Title by his Prerogative as well in the Case of Common Persons Patronage as where himself is so But as 't is in Winches Reports 96. where the Case is reported again there they are both of Opinion against it and Winch ridiculed the Opinion of Bro. Presentment 61. as the saying of the Bishop of Ely who was then Chancellor and might have right to present to it by force of his Place if the King had such a Prerogative And indeed Bro. himself makes a Remark upon it as a thing never heard of before by a quod nota The King hath presented to Livings of other Mens Patronages but that was not by force of this Prerogative but on other grounds as 40 Ed. 3.40 the King presented to a Prebendary when the Prebend was made a Bishop And the reason of that Case makes for the Plaintiff in Error i.e. because the Temporalties of the Bishop who was Patron of that Prebendary was then in the King's Hands and then the King was Patron so long and he did present as such So is the 41 Edw. 3.5 the same as Patron having the Temporalties in his hand So is 44 Edw. 3.24 upon another reason a Parson is made a Bishop and the King presented not Jure Prerogative but because that the Patron was the King's Tenant in Capite and the Heir was in Ward to the King and so he had Jus Patronatus in him The King hath it where he has the Temporalties so is Fitzh Grand Abridgment Title Quare Impedit pl. 35. the King claimed Title to present to the Provostry of Wells in the Gift of the Bishop void upon the Provost being made Dean because the Temporalties of the Bishop were in the King's hands at that time The 11 Hen. 4.37 59 and 76. tho' cited on the other side below is a full Authority 't is a noted Case the ancientest Case in our Law concerning Commendams The Case in short is thus The King brings a Quare Impedit and makes his Title by the Creation of the Incumbent to be a Bishop There was some Debate on the Declaration but the Defendants plead that the King granted the Temporalties to the new Bishop before the Living became vacant Then the King waives that Declaration and betakes himself to another Title and Declares on the Statute of Provisors because the Pope had usurped a Power which that Statute denied him and there 's no Judgment in the Case upon the first point but 't is most clear that the King's Counsel in that Case were of Opinion against this Prerogative because they did not stand to that Title but amended their Declaration and took to another This Point was directly to have been judged in the Case if they had thought fit to abide by it So that 't is plain that they took the Plea to be good if the Temporalties were in the King's hands then the King was to present if not that he had no such Prerogative And this is a great Authority that the King had no such Prerogative because he waives that Title and goes to another 5 Edw. 2. Maynard 148. Hugh de Courtney brings a Quare Impedit against Thomas de Hutwet for the Church of Bingham and sets forth that Isabel de Force Countess of Aumerle presented such a one