Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/890

the Archbishop, and being the usual door and passage, by which the Archbishops used to go to the said Chapter-house; but that the said doors were shut at the time of the defendant's coming to them, and no other passage to the said Chapter-house was open; so that the defendant though he was ready, and tried by all lawful means, could not enter and go to the said Chapter-house, to make his said visitation there; whereupon the defendant began and held his said visitation [182] ordinary of the said Dean and Chapter, at the said western door of the said church, being within the diocess of Dublin; and though the plaintiff was duly summoned as aforesaid, and cited to appear and undergo the said visitation ordinary, as was usual, and was solemnly called, yet he did not appear, nor would undergo the said visitation; and thereupon the Archbishop pronounced him contumacious in his said visitation, on the said 9th of April 1711, because there was no passage open for the said Archbishop to make his said visitation in the Chapter-house; and because the defendant did not appear at the said visitation: and, that then the Archbishop prorogued his visitation to St. Patrick's church, Dublin, being within the diocess of Dublin, where such proceedings were had, as in the declaration set forth, as was lawful for the said Archbishop to do.—And then the defendant concluded his plea with a traverse or denial, that the said priory was of Royal foundation.

To this plea the plaintiff demurred specially; and for causes of demurrer, showed, that the defendant traversed an immaterial matter not traversable; that the traverse was ill taken; that the matter in the plea did not answer the matter contained in the plaintiff's declaration; and, that the several prorogations of the pretended visitation and proceedings in the plea alledged, were invalid and not legal.—The defendant joined in demurrer; and after several arguments, judgment was given for the defendant, that he should have a writ of consultation. Whereupon the plaintiff brought a writ of error in the Court of King's Bench in Ireland, and after several arguments, the judgment of the Common Pleas being affirmed in the said Court of King's Bench; the plaintiff afterwards brought a writ of error in the Court of King's Bench in England; where, after several arguments, both the former judgments were affirmed.

And now to reverse all the judgments, the plaintiff brought a writ of error in Parliament; insisting (J. Darnall, F. Nott), that the matter in controversy upon the prohibition, was properly, whether the King or the Archbishop had the right of visitation of this Dean and Chapter? And to that purpose, whether this Chapter, as created, modelled, and formed into a Dean and Chapter by the charters of Hen. VIII. Philip and Mary, and Jac. I. and which gave them the very lands on which they subsisted, was not now to be deemed on this record as a corporate body of Royal foundation? For if so, it was apprehended that the King, and not the Archbishop, was properly visitor; and therefore, the principal matter in question, as to the visitatorial power, was, Whether the Dean and Chapter was, or was not, founded of Royal bounty? But to avoid this question, the Archbishop would, by his traverse, introduce another question, in no sort material to the case, viz. Whether the monastery or priory was founded of Royal bounty? So that it was apprehended, the traverse in the plea was manifestly ill, and well demurred to by the plaintiff. That if the King was visitor of this Chapter, as of Royal foundation, then the Dean was right [183] in refusing obedience to the Archbishop's usurped power of visitation, in prejudice of the King's power as visitor consequently, the proceeding of the Archbishop in his court to censure the Dean as contumacious, for such refusal of his usurped power, was unjustly instituted there; and therefore the courts of common law in Ireland, ought to have prohibited such suit, and given judgment against the Archbishop, in favour of the King's power.

On the other side it was contended (P. Yorke, T. Reeve), that there was no colour to say, that the translation into a Dean and Chapter made by King Hen. VIII. caused this church to become a Royal foundation; the effect of that being only to discharge the Prior and Canons from rule and habit, and to change them from regular into secular clergy; but all matters in respect of visitation remained just as before, and the Archbishop might do everything after the letters patent of translation, which he could have done before. That if this was so, then the only material fact alledged in the declaration to exempt the Dean from the visitation of the Archbishop was, that the Priory was of Royal foundation; and this the Archbishop had traversed in his plea, i.e. denied it so, as to put it in issue to be tried; but which trial the plaintiff