Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/904

of St. John; for in such case, the rectory must be taken to be an incident inseparable from the prebend; and if the plaintiff be visitable as Prebendary, it could only be in chapter. That as from the declaration, this living appeared to be a donative, so it appeared from the whole record, that the plaintiff, in respect of such donative, was not visitable by the Archbishop; all his proceedings were therefore, ab initio, coram non judice and void; his sentence of suspension was also null and void; nay, even his citation was void, as being issued against one, who, upon the whole of this record, appeared not to be visitable. It was said in the declaration, that the plaintiff offered to plead all the matters contained in it before the Archbishop, and to prove the same, but that the Archbishop refused to admit him so to do; this was not traversed or denied by the Archbishop's plea, otherwise than by saying the plaintiff refused to appear; and therefore he pronounced him contumacious, and suspended him. But this allegation, though inconsistent with the declaration, (for the plaintiff could not offer to plead and prove all the matters therein contained, nor the Archbishop refuse him, if he had not appeared,) yet did not disprove it; nor did the plea, in that particular, so much as refer to the proceeding before the Archbishop, whereby his allegation might appear; and therefore, the demurrer was no confession of it. Supposing the plaintiff was guilty of a contumacy, for not appearing; yet, if the sentence of suspension ab officio et beneficio, was such a sentence as the Archbishop could not in this case lawfully pronounce, and which, from the present record, it appeared to be, he ought to be prohibited, and the judgment already given reversed. And that this was so, appeared, 1st, Because such a sentence could not be given but by the visitor; and as it was manifest from the record, that the rectory was a donative, it was equally manifest that the Archbishop had not ordinary visitation. [204] 2dly, The Archbishop cannot suspend ab officio, but where he can appoint one to supply the cure; and it was apparent from this record, that he had no such power of appointment; for the nomination and admission of the Prebendary, was granted by the charter of King James to the Dean and Chapter only, without making any application to the Archbishop. And, 3dly, the Archbishop could not suspend the plaintiff from this benefice, when it was in the power of the Dean and Chapter to allot him elsewhere such part of their livings, and in such place as they should think fit, and allot this living to another. That these reasons were warranted by the declaration, which the court decreed to be the only part of the record on which the case turned, the defendant's plea being disregarded by the court for its manifold defects, both in form and substance; and therefore, as so many errors were apparent in the record, it was hoped that the judgment would be reversed.

On the other side it was said (R. Raymond, P. King), that there were two questions in this case; 1st, Whether the plaintiff was visitable as Rector of St. John? and if so, 2dly, Whether he was visited in a proper manner? That the first was the principal and main question; for if he was visitable, the manner of such visitation belonged intirely to the ecclesiastical law, and any error therein was to be remedied by appeal. As to the plaintiff's being visitable, nothing appeared from his declaration to excuse him from it; he was Rector and Incumbent of a church within the Archbishop's diocese, and whatever might be his title, it could not hinder the Archbishop from seeing the cure served, and that he behaved himself properly in his office; and though he was seised of this rectory in right of his prebend, yet still being Rector and Incumbent, he might as such be visited. As to what had been insisted on by the plaintiff, that this was a donative, founded by King Henry VIII. there was no colour to make this church a foundation of that King's, neither was he even founder of the corporation of the Dean and Chapter; he only translated and changed the Prior and Canons into a Dean and Chapter, and the whole consequence of that was, that all matters rested, in respect of visitation, as they were before; and the Archbishop might do every thing after those letters patent, which he might do before. It had been hinted, that the appropriation of the rectory to the priory, did of itself, without any thing more, exempt the church from the Archbishop's visitation; but surely, there was no real foundation for such an opinion; the rectory still remained a rectory, the appropriator must still be sued as Rector, and the procurations were still payable out of such appropriations to the Bishop for visitations. That though the Dean and Chapter were but one body in law, yet their possessions might be several and divided, and each of them might bring an action in his own name for his several possessions; that