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
a Colony or Plantation and that imports rather the contrary and by such Names these Plantations have always gone in Letters Patents Proclamations and Acts of Parliament But whatsoever may by some be said as to Statutes in particular binding there the Common Law must and doth oblige there for 't is a Plantation or new Settlement of English-men by the King's Consent in an uninhabited Country and so is the History of Barbadoes written by Richard Ligon Printed at London 1673. pag. 23. says he 'T was a Country not inhabited by any but overgrown with Woods And pag. 100. They are governed by the Laws of England And Heylin in his Geography lib. 4.148 says The English are the sole Colony there they are called the King's Plantations and not his Conquests and he neither could nor can now impose any Laws upon them different from the Laws of England 'T was argued that even our Statutes do bind them and many of them name these Plantations as English they have some Municipal Rules there like our By-laws in the Stanneries or Fenns but that argues nothing as to the general which shall prevail when the one contradicts the other may be a Query another time By the 22 23 Car. 2. cap. 26. against the planting of Tobacco here and for the Regulation of the Plantation Trade the Governours of those Plantations are once a Year to return to the Custom-house in London an Account of all Ships laden and of all the Bonds c. And they are throughout the whole Act called the King's English Plantations Governours of such English Plantations to some of the English Plantations And Paragr 10. 't is said Inasmuch as the Plantations are inhabited which his Subjects of England and so 't is in 15 Car. 2. cap. 7. sect 5. and in 12 Car. 2. cap. 34. they are called Colonies and Plantations of this Kingdom of England From all which 't is natural to infer That the Rules in case of conquered Places cannot prevail here Conquest est res odiosa and never to be presumed besides 't is the People not the Soil that can be said to be conquered The reason of a Conquerour's Power to prescribe Laws is the Conqueror's Clemency in saving the Lives of the conquered whom by the strict right of War he might have destroyed or the presumed Chance of Subjection which the conquered Prince and People threw themselves upon when they first engaged in the War But this is not pretended to here tho' all the Cases about this Subject were put below stairs Then taking it as the truth is certain Subjects of England by consent of their Prince go and possess an uninhabited desert Country the Common Law must be supposed their Rule as 't was their Birthright and as 't is the best and so to be presumed their Choice and not only that but even as obligatory 't is so When they went thither they no more abandoned the English Laws then they did their Natural Allegiance nay they subjected themselves no more to other Laws than they did to another Allegiance which they did not This is a Dominion belonging not only to the Crown but to the Realm of England tho' not within the Territorial Realm Vaughan 330. says That they follow England and are a part of it Then 't was argued further If 't were possible that it should be otherwise when did the Common Law cease On the Sea it remained in all Personal Respects If Batteries or Wounds on Ship-board Actions lay here Then the same held when they landed there and no new Laws could be made for them but by the Prince with their consent Besides Either the Right of these Lands was gained to the Crown or to the Planters by the Occupancy and either way the Common Law must be their Rule It must be agreed that the first Entry gained the right and so is Grotius de jure Belli Pacis lib. 2. cap. 8. sect 6. and these Lands were never the Kings tho' they afterwards submitted to take a Grant of the King 'T is true in case of War what is gained becomes his who maintained the War and doth not of right belong to that Person who first possessed it Grot. lib. 3. cap. 6. sect 11. But in case it be not the effect of War but only by force of their first Entry it must be considered what Interest they did acquire and certainly 't was the largest that can be for an Occupant doth gain an Inheritance by the Law of Nations and the same shall descend then by the Rules of what Law shall the Descent be governed it must be by the Laws of the Country to which they did originally and still do belong But then supposing the Lands gained to the Crown and the Crown to distribute these Lands the Grant of them is to hold in Soccage and that is a common Law Tenure why are not their Persons in like manner under the Common Law When a Governour was first received by or imposed upon them 't was never intended either by King or People that he should Rule by any other Law than that of England And if it had been known to be otherwise the number of Subjects there would have been very small In these Cases their Allegiance continues and must be according to the Laws of England and 't was argued that ex consequenti the protection and rule of them ought to be by the same Laws for they are mutual and reciprocal unum trahit alterum and that Law which is the Rule of the one should be the Rule of the other besides 't is the Inhabitants not the Country that are capable of Laws and those are English and so declared and allowed to be and consequently there 's no reason why the English Laws should not follow the Persons of English-men especially while they are under the English Government and since the Great Seal goes thither And further a Writ of Error lies here upon any of their ultimate Judgments so says Vaughan 402. and 21 Hen. 7.3 that it doth so to all Subordinate Dominions and tho' the distance of the Place prevents the common use of such Writ yet by his Opinion it clearly lies and he reckons the Plantations part of those Subordinate Dominions Now a Writ of Error is a remedial Writ whereon Right is to be done and that must be according to the Laws of England for the King's Bench in case of a Reversal upon such Writ is to give a new Judgment as by Law ought to have been first given Vaughan 290 291 says It lies at Common Law to reverse Judgments in any inferiour Dominions for if it did not inferiour and Provincial Governments might make what Laws they please for Judgments are Laws when they are not to be reversed It lay to Ireland by the Common Law says Coke 7 Rep. 18. tho' there had been no Reservation of it in King John's Charter Then 't was inferred that the lying of a Writ of Error proves the Laws
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
without the assent of the Dominion Superiour And 2. Judgments or Decrees might be there made or given to the disadvantage or of lessening that Superiority which cannot be reasonable or to make the Superiority to be only in the King not in the Crown of England as King Jac. 1. would have had it and consulted Selden upon the point Now though the Writ of Error be only mentioned yet the same reason holds to both and the true cause why we have not so many Ancient precedents of Equity Cases as of Law ones is for that in Ancient time the Equity Courts were not so high meddled with few matters and in a Summary way but since their Authority is so advanced and their Jurisdiction so enlarged that most questions of property are become determinable there and almost every suit begins or ends with them to the entire subversion of the Old Common-Law It is and must now be reasonable to have the Examination of their final Sentences in the Parliament of England as well as of the other Suppose non-residence in Ireland should be pretended a Forfeiture of the Estate to the next remainder Man or to the King Can it be safe for to intrust them with a conclusive Opinion in this matter When Calais was in our hands Writs of Error lay thither 21 Hen. 7. fol. 3. As to the pretence that the orders of this House cannot be executed there 't is very vain for if the King's Bench Command their Judgments to be executed there this House may order theirs and in like manner as they do to the Chancery here In 15 Rich. 2. numb 17. in the Abbot of St. Osithe's Case the Lords here made an Order and charged the Lord Chancellor that he see it performed and this hath been constant practice It hath been imagined That the Jurisdiction of this House in matters of this kind is dated from the 21 Jac. 1. as to the proceedings in Chancery but that is not now to be disputed for the Commons in Parliament Assembled did agree it to be the Right of this House in the Case of Skinner and the East-India Company and in the Book about it supposed to be written by that Noble Lord the Lord Hollis 105. 't is said that where the King 's Sovereigntydoth not reach the Jurisdiction of this House cannot the contrary is implied that where the King of England's Sovereignty doth extend the Jurisdiction of this House doth so too and no Man will affirm That Ireland is out of or beyond the limits of the Sovereignty of the English Crown And as to the exercise of this Judicature by the Lords here nothing can be stronger for it then the 1 Hen. 4. numb 79. So 't is in the Record though in Cotton's Abridg 't is 80. the Commons declare that all Judgments Appertain to the King and Lords and not to them Skinner's Case 199 200. 4 Inst 349 353 354. It was further argued That Protection commands a due Subjection and that these people who insisted upon this independency had forgot the English Treasure and Bloud which had been spent for their preservation That they are part of England and subject to its Laws appears from the common Case of an incumbency here being made void by acceptance of a Bishoprick in that Colony Besides that in Ancient time the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury was Primate of Ireland and had the Confirmation and Consecration of Bishops there Cambden's Britt pag. 735. and 765. 4 Inst 360. then 't was urged that the Question now was whether it were a Dominion inferiour or equal to and independant upon the Realm of England That the constant practice had been for the Lords here to examine the Decrees in their Court of Chancery that the refusing of this Appeal would shake all those Cases thus determined that every Appeal-here from their Equity Sentences which have been very many was an Argument against the Order of their Lords and for the receiving of this Appeal here That this thing hath been acknowledged even by the Rebels there for in Sir John Temple's History of the first Progress of the Irish Rebellion written 1641. pag. 141. amongst the several propositions made by the Irish then in a general Rebellion these two are mentioned 1. That by several Acts of Parliament to be respectively passed in England and Ireland it should be declared that the Parliament of Ireland had no subordination to the Parliament of England but should have supreme Jurisdiction in that Kingdom as Absolute as the Parliament of England here hath 2. That the Act of 10 Hen. 7. called Poyning's Act and all other Acts expounding or explaining that Law should be Repealed both which with their other dangerous propositions were justly rejected however it shews their Opinion that at that time the Law was or was taken and deemed to be against them in this point and there is as much reason for keeping the final Judicature here as there is for maintaining the Superiority and Obligatory Power over them in the legislature 'T was farther urged That the with holding the Irish Lords from having the like Jurisdiction in their Parliament as the Lords in England have in Judging upon Appeals and Writs of Error was absolutely necessary for the preserving of the Possessions of the English in Ireland for those of that Country must be suppos'd to incline to their own interest and cannot be suppos'd so much inclined to love and affect the English amongst them And that this Power of Judging here is Co-eval with the very Constitution of the Government 'T was further urged That their Precedents returned did or concern the point in Question except the two or three Cases in 1661 and 1662. and two Appeals lately in 1695. that their Case of the Prior of Lauthony in 8 Hen. 6. Prynnes Animadversions 313 314 was against them the Prior having removed a Judgment in the King 's Bench in Ireland into the Parliament there which affirmed it did bring a Writ of Error in the King 's Bench in England and they refused to meddle with it the reason was because the Writ of Error before the Lords there did not lie and that it ought to have come hither immediately and all the rest of their Quotations in their Printed Case either prove nothing at all or too much for they are against the allowance of Writs of Error in the King 's Bench in England and against the Legislature of England's being able to oblige the people of Ireland both which have been approved by constant practice and therefore it was prayed that the Appeal here might be allowed and the Order of the Irish Lords might be vacated On the other side it was argued from 1 Inst 141. Prynne's Animadversions 286. and 4 Inst 12. that their Parliaments had the same Authority there in respect of making Laws for that Country as the Parliaments have for England that they have ever since 10 Hen. 7. Re-enacted there such subsequent Acts of England as they thought
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