case the king against archbishop OF Armagh and Jackson Wednesday November if  the king be seize of a vicarage and the archbishop of a rectory situate in the  same parish in Ireland and the incumbent of the vicarage die the archbishop  can during the vacancy unite the two church by virtue of the statute car c but  if the vicarage have be full the union may have be make for the statute bind  the king although he be not express name S c stram a writ of error on a  judgement in the king bench in Ireland the case be thus the king be seize of  the advowson of the vicarage of louthe in the diocese of Armagh and the  archbishop of Armagh be seize of the advowson of the rectory of c near the say  vicarage and be so seize the king incumbent die and after the say vacancy the  archbishop by a instrument under his archiepiscopal seal unite both the say  live accord to the power which he have by the statute car c the statute enact  that in every city or town corporate and their liberty where there be two or  more church or chapel and parish thereunto belong the bishop of the diocese  with the modern report consent of the chief officer or officer there or the  modern report er p major part of they and of the patron of such church may  unite they c and the parishioner shall pay all tithe and other duty to the  incumbent of the church to which the other be unite but that notwithstanding  such union the parish shall continue distinct as to all rate tax and parochial  right and churchwarden shall be appoint for each parish as before the union  and where one or both of the say church be full at the time of the union it  shall take effect at the next avoidance after and the patron shall present by  turn to that which remain c and that be who incumbent die first shall first  present and afterward by turn successive for ever the king incumbent be dead  and the vicarage be afterward unite to the rectory as aforesaid the king  present another vicar and the archbishop refuse to admit he a quare hinder be  bring against the archbishop and judgement give against he in the king bench  in Ireland upon which the archbishop bring a writ of error in this court the  great question be whether since the one advowson belong to the crown there can  be any union by virtue of the Act I e whether the king be bind by the general  word of the statute the second point be whether any union can be make when one  of the church be vacant the counsel for the archbishop argue that by the  general word of this statute this be a good consolidation although it be make  after the avoidance of the vicarage by the death of the king incumbent the  king ordinary right shall be bind by such general word in a Act of parliament  which in this ease be his right of presentation though a right which he have  by any prerogative shall not be bind by such word roll Abr cro Elizabeth dyer  a a every statute which be make for the advancement of justice for the  establishment of religion to suppress wrong to perform the will of the donor  to maintain the poor or for the encouragement of learning shall bind the  ordinary right of the king by general word as well as the right of the subject  Inst     Plowd roll Rep b and this statute have two of these purpose videlicet  the establishment of religion and the encouragement of learning this be prove  by every save of the king right in a Act of parliament for it show that his  right will be bind if it be not save on the other side it be argue to support  this judgement that by the statute beforementioned a new power be create and  consequent it must be literal perform which in this case be not do nay it be  impossible to be do because it be enact that after the union the patron who  modern report incumbent first die shall have the first presentation which show  that the legislature intend that both the church shall be full at the time of  the union puller v Hutchinson t Jones S c lev c for otherwise the right of  survivorship can never take place now here one be void when it be unite to the  other and after it be consolidate to the other there be but one incumbent and  if but one incumbent then it be impossible that those word in the statute can  ever be satisfy videlicet that he who incumbent first die shall first present  for these word import that both the incumbent must be live at the time of the  union now here the king incumbent be dead before the union and consequent a  right be vest in the crown to present another and it will be very hard and  what be never intend by this statute to divest the king of that right by such  a union as be make by the archbishop in this case beside it may be reasonable  intend that the king be not comprehend in this statute because the union be to  be at the equal expense of both patron and by their consent and it will be  indecent that the king shall join with a subject in the expense of a  commission it be true this union create a new parsonage and the church be full  of the archbishop incumbent be may claim a right to both but that can be no  objection because in a quare hinder plenarty be no plea against the king right  though give by the statute of Westminster the second c which be general and do  not name the king for if the king be not name the general word of a Act do not  bind any prerogative or royal interest vest in he upon the whole matter it be  admit that the word in this statute be general modern report er p and that the  right of the crown may seem be bind by they but though the word be general yet  they ought to be special construe to avoid a apparent injury for the intent of  the Act be to put thing in a ordinary and regular method and not to divest  either of the patron of their respective right and such a construction will be  conformable to the intent of the legislature videlicet that all union shall be  make by the consent of both patron and not to the damage of either and that  the church shall be unite when there be two incumbent live because the statute  give the right of presentation to that patron who incumbent shall first die  which may happen to be the king incumbent but now by this union he be deprive  of that survive and contingent right of presentation which be a apparent  damage do to the crown the court be of opinion that this statute never intend  that any union shall be make of two church after a avoidance in one for by the  commonlaw by which this Act must be construe there can be no union but by the  modern report consent of both patron neither can it be make in prsenti but by  the consent of both the incumbent though the patron agree to unite though it  may be make in going to be without the consent of the incumbent therefore it  will be very hard to construe this statute so as to make a union good where  both the church be not full at the time the union be make for it be not so by  the canon law in case of presentation and consolidation and it be that law  which shall direct in this case it be clear that the king can be divest of any  of his prerogative by general word in a Act of parliament hob a but that there  must be plain and express word for that purpose though all his other right be  no more favour in law than the right of his subject and it be likewise clear  that general word in a Act of parliament may be qualify by subsequent sentence  or clause in the same statute but certain it be never the intent of  legislature by this Act to work a wrong to any patron but if this union shall  be good it will divest the king of that right which be already vest in he to  present to this vicarage and such a construction of the statute will be a  damage not only to the crown but it may happen so to be to several other  patron beside in this case there be two benefice unite after a avoidance in  one it be plain that the archbishop make the union for his own benefit which  be against a principle in law as to the plenarty which the defendant plead to  this quare hinder the whole court agree that it be not a good plea in bar to  the king right and that be the principal reason why the court of king bench in  Ireland give judgement for the king but as to some other point there be  various opinion all four of the judge hold that the union be not good because  it be make after a avoidance of one of the church unite fortescue justice say  that will be a proper question and hold that it be good but that it be not to  take effect until after the king have present to the church Eyre justice hold  that by the union the church unite be extinct and that he do not know in what  manner the king can present to a church which be extinct fortescue justice  hold that the church be not extinct by the union because it be a spiritual act  which do not extinguish the church as to the right of either patron for if one  church have be appendant and the other in gross before the consolidation they  will be so after it Pratt chief justice as to the chief point I think as now  advice that the king will be bind by the general word of this statute he have  no right in this particular distinct from the right of a subject modern report  but for the reason beforementioned the whole court agree that the judgement in  Ireland shall be affirm it be adjourn now but in easter term follow it be  argue again and the judgement be then affirm the last argument be only upon  the second point the court have be clear of opinion upon the first as be admit  by the defendant counsel that the king be bind by the statute note to former  edition a modern report er p note there be another objection videlicet that it  ought to have be aver that the archbishop be the bishop of the diocese and the  union to have be set forth under the sealepiscopal as well as archiepiscopal  but the court take no notice of it michaelmas term the eight of George the  first at the sit before sir Peter king Knt chief justice of the court of  common plea