Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1482

years, when the person promoted is dead, and the life is not changed before; by the same reason the church may be kept void, and the patron deprived of his right for ever. When the king has made the avoidance by promoting the incumbent, it may be reasonable that he should present to the avoidance which he has made by his own act, provided he does it before the patron's right accrues by the death of his clerk; for the patron would not have had any right of presentation at that time, and if the king presents in the life-time of the person promoted, he then gives the patron one life for another, and takes away nothing from him; because no one can know, whether the new or the old incumbent will die first; and upon this ground alone it has been adjudged, that this is a reasonable prerogative.

[511] But it was objected, that the plaintiffs could shew no authorities in law, that the crown cannot present after the death of the promotes, where the life has not been changed before; and therefore there is no such restraint upon the prerogative. To this, however it was answered, that the king's prerogative must have been immemorial; and therefore, they that alledge any thing to be the prerogative of the crown, ought to shew that it has been exercised in the same, or a like instance. It is incumbent on them to produce precedents and authorities for it; but there is not a single authority in all the law books to shew that the crown has presented after the death of the person promoted, where the life was not changed before.

It was further objected, that if the king could not present after the death of the promotee, it would be necessary for the attorney general to aver the life of such promotes in his declaration, as often as the king should bring his quare impedit, to recover his right to present, on account of his promoting a clerk to a bishopric; but to this it was answered, that the king being already entitled to present, by having made an actual avoidance by the promotion, the life of the promotee need not be averred in the attorney general's count; but if the person promoted be dead, that should come out on the other side.

There was, however, a third point in the case, as it now stood; namely, that the record being removed from Ireland by writ of error in the life of the late king, who was the sole plaintiff in it, and he being dead, which appeared to the Judges upon the record; it was apprehended, that this writ of error was absolutely abated, and for that reason the judgment given was erroneous, because the sole plaintiff in this case was dead before the judgment, which was given for the present king, though no party to the writ; and because this was a case not within the savings of any of the statutes.

On the other side it was argued (T. Reeves, N. Fazakerley), that there could be no doubt but that the king's title, as set forth in the declaration, was good; for, upon the promotion of Dr. Vigors to the bishopric of Leighlin and Ferns, the church of Armagh was become void by cession; whereby a right accrued to the king to present as lawful patron for that turn, by virtue of his prerogative. That this prerogative right of the crown was now so established, that it could not be controverted; and though the king's right to present accrued so long ago as the year 1690, yet, if his turn had not yet been served or satisfied, he still had a right to present; and so would any common person, if he had a right to present as patron for this turn, notwithstanding the length of time. That the questions in this case, arose upon the pleas of the archbishop and the incumbent Whaley, and upon the attorney general's replication to Whaley's plea; viz. I. Whether the archbishop's plea, to which the attorney general had demurred, was a good plea? II. Whether the attorney general's replication, to [512] which the incumbent Whaley had demurred, was a good replication?

As to the archbishop's plea, it was conceived to be plainly a bad plea, and therefore nothing contained in it could be of any avail to the plaintiffs in error, against the king's title; the plea being inconsistent and repugnant in itself; for it admits that the archbishop was seised of the advowson in right of his archbishopric, and afterwards derives a title against the crown under a grant by the crown of the deanery, without shewing that the deanery was belonging to the archbishopric; and if it were, the king's grant would not pass it. The plea was also naught, for the causes assigned by the attorney general in his demurrer; and especially, because the church of Armagh was not averred by the plea to be a member of, or belonging to the deanery of Armagh; and if it were not, the grant of the crown was nothing to the purpose. Besides, upon this plea, no material issue could properly be taken. As to the incumbent Whaley's plea, he, after confessing the avoidance by the promotion of Dr. Vigors, pleaded, that King William and Queen