bishop saint david vers Lucy ante a prohibition do not lie to the spiritual  court for proceed contrary to the canon law the right of deputation be  incident to the right of visitation S C salk d send for ante a archbishop may  by the commonlaw deprive any of his suffragan bishop S C salk vide ante and  the case there cite the same person may be appoint commissioner delegate upon  a appeal from a definitive sentence in the spiritual court as be appoint on a  appeal from a interlocutory decree a prohibition can in strictness be move for  until after the suggestion be enter on the roll Semb send for Mod a mandamus  do not lie to the spiritual court to admit allegation vide ante error do not  lie upon the refusal of a prohibition S c salk pen the suit against the bishop  of saint David before the archbishop he appeal to the delegate and pen his  appeal he move in B R pasch eleven of this king for a prohibition to be direct  to the delegate upon diverse suggestion which prohibition be deny see before  after which the commissioner delegate overrule his appeal and the archbishop  pronounce sentence of deprivation against he from which sentence he appeal to  the commissioner delegate and see that they be of opinion to affirm the  sentence he move by his counsel for a prohibition now to be grant by this  court to the commissioner delegate to stay their proceed in the appeal from  the sentence of the archbishop upon a suggestion l that by the canon law the  archbishop alone can not deprive a bishop and that the delegate refuse to  admit his allegation and the counsel for the prohibition argue that the  archbishop have not any authority over his suffragan bishop that the bishop be  lord of parliament and so peer to the archbishop and therefore he can not have  authority over they because par in pair non stir about that there be no  instance of such proceed nor have this point be determine in our book and  therefore be a matter of great consequence it ought to be settle by mature  deliberation that the deprivation of bishop which have be heretofore have be  by the ecclesiastical commission or in convocation or by Act of parliament and  therefore by Littleton rule S   Litt a b if such a thing may have be do it  shall be intend that it will have be put in practice before this time that  though the archbishop may visit and censure the bishop yet it do not follow  that he can deprive because deprivation do not follow the visitatorial power  as a necessary consequence that the law have provide for the temporalties as  Edward saint c that their temporalties shall not be seize into the king hand  but upon lawful cause and judgement thereupon give accord to the law of the  land and Edward saint c that their temporalties shall not be Lord Raymond er p  seize for a contempt and that in the case of the archbishop of York and the  bishop of Durham in riley placita parliamentaria there be a distinction make  between their temporal state and their ecclesiastical and the archbishop have  no authority over they as to their temporal state and therefore since this  sentence of deprivation take away their temporalties from they over which they  have no jurisdiction the king bench will grant a prohibition to examine into  Lord Raymond the jurisdiction of the archbishop to the end that if he have not  such jurisdiction the bishop may not be deprive of his temporalties another  objection be make that the same commissioner who where in the Commission of  delegate upon the appeal near gravamen be commissioner in the commission upon  the appeal to the merit where the whole matter as well the gravamen as the  rest of the cause may be urge and so they will be judge in the same cause  which they have determine against the bishop upon the former appeal which be  unreasonable e contra it be argue by the attorneygeneral and the other counsel  for the promoter against the prohibition that the suggestion for the  prohibition be find only upon the canon law and not upon the commonlaw or any  Act of parliament and therefore very proper before the delegate upon the  appeal but not any ground for a prohibition and as to the objection that the  bishop be a Lord of parliament that be only in respect that he hold his  temporalties by barony which temporalties be annex to his bishopric and  therefore be deprive of the bishopric he will in consequence be deprive of the  temporalties mind of his seat in parliament there be not any other  jurisdiction for such purpose for the convocation be more proper a legislative  than a executive authority if the archbishop have no such authority what be  the meaning of the exception in Henry c S that bishop may he cite out of their  diocese the Act as to clergyman in general be reasonable because there be a  jurisdiction within the diocese in which they be subject but the exception be  of necessity in case of bishop because they be not subject to any other  jurisdiction than that of the archbishop before the statute of car c which  take away the high Commission court which statute be since confirm by car  saint c they proceed before the commissioner appoint by virtue of the power  give to the queen by et c and the bishop be deprive by they because it be a  more expeditious way of proceed but now by the say act the old jurisdiction be  restore as it be upon h c and also upon car c which take away the writ de  heretic to burn up there be a save for the jurisdiction of archbishop and  bishop c wright king sergeant of the same side argue that a power of  deprivation be incident to the visitatorial power and the case in Ryley admit  the power of the archbishop in spiritual case it must follow of consequence  that he have a power of deprivation because deprivation be the punishment  proper for some case Lord Raymond this matter be move several time at the bar  and the whole court be of opinion that the prohibition shall not be grant and  as to the authority of the archbishop holt chief justice say that there be  archbishop who have authority over their suffragan bishop and there be primate  who be superior to they the archbishop of Spalat say in his book that a  archbishop have the same authority over his suffragan bishop that the bishop  have over his inferior clergy and though there may be a coordination jure  prophet yet there be a subordination jure ecclesiastic how of man not of  necessity from the nature of their office but for convenience and for what  other purpose have archbishop be institute by ecclesiastical constitution the  power of a archbishop be very great here in England ancient the same  jurisdiction of funeral rites that as the patriarch of Constantinople c the  pope use to call he of one another circle papan and he exercise the same  jurisdiction with he Theodore who be archbishop soon after the first  constitution not more than the four five or six of saint Austin deprive  Winifred bishop of York for the say see be not then metropolitical but subject  to the archbishop of Canterbury and yet at the same time there be a council  hold and Beda commend Theodore for it but afterward in the time of Henry and  king Stephen the pope usurp the authority of the archbishop in exchange for  which they become bequest born of the pope see for this Roger Twisden de  schism divide and that be the reason why this practice can be find to have be  put in use for so Lord Raymond er p long time for when the archbishop have  divest himself of his supremacy and the pope have gain all his jurisdiction  the bishop be create by the pope and consequent have better interest at Rome  at least as good as the archbishop it be in vain to intermeddle and if there  be any instance find of bishop who be deprive in the say time it be where the  archbishop have more interest with his holiness and so the bishop perceive it  acquiesce but at this day by the Act of h c this jurisdiction be restore it be  always admit that the archbishop have metropolitical jurisdiction and the  bishop swear canonical obedience to he and where there be a visitatorial power  there be no reason to question the power of deprivation for the same  superiority which give he power to pass ecclesiastical censure upon the bishop  will give he power to deprive it be only a different degree of punishment for  a different degree of offence this appear upon the statute h c and et c where  notwithstanding that there be not one word of deprivation but only to visit  repress redress reform correct and amend yet they have be construe to give a  power of deprivation and by virtue of the h c bonner be deprivWd dr Burnett  the bishop of Salisbury in his book of the reformation Lord Raymond believe  that bonner be deprive because he have accept letter patent of Henry to the  bishop but that can be a legal reason for he be bishop before for his life  acceptance a of a patent durante bene plea can not determine it so the high  commissioner by virtue of the Act of et c deprive and yet there be not one  word of deprivation in the say Act but only visit c as in the say Act of h c  and the reason that it be a inherent prerogative in the king be but a  additional reason for it be plain that before the statute of Elizabeth the  king can not have grant a commission for redress and reform ecclesiastical  matter and therefore the power that they have proceed from the say Act for the  king exercise his ecclesiastical supremacy by his ecclesiastical judge as he  exercise his temporal by his temporal judge and he say that he do not know any  subordinate visitatorial power in any case but that of a archdeacon which be a  subordinate jurisdiction and for inform the bishop and he be call oculus  bishop but where there be a unlimited power of visitation there must be of  consequence a power of deprivation this jurisdiction of the archbishop have  notice take of it in act of parliament because that the Act of car c which  take away the high Commission court be think to have lessen the jurisdiction  of archbishop and bishop therefore it be repeal quoad by car saint c and the  Act of car c which take away the writ de heretic to burn up have a save of the  jurisdiction of the protestant archbishop and bishop if the issue be join as  his brother gold justice well observe in a real action upon the deprivation of  a bishop to who can the court write unless to the archbishop in case of  deprivation of a parson the court write to the bishop to certify then if the  archbishop have such authority as it be plain he have by what law be be  restrain mention be make of a old canon of Antioch but that be never receive  in England and if the nonusage shall be a argument against it which proceed  from a particular reason as appear before it will also be a reason why bishop  shall never be deprive at all because no bishop be ever deprive from the time  of Henry two until Henry VIII and no other jurisdiction can be show to which  they be subject for all the same objection may be make to the power of the  convocation for a convocation have no power over a peer how peer but the  objection will not prevail for their peerage be but accessary and they have  their temporalties as they be bishop and in ancient time there be abbot who be  lord of parliament and yet their visitor have power to deprive they so that if  any ecclesiastical jurisdiction be allow to be over they this objection will  fail and in fact it signify note g because their peerage be but graft upon  their be bishop Lord Raymond and the notion of the deprivation of bishop by  the convocation be new and start by sir Bartholomew shower and by he the  convocation have not any such power and if there be such power in the  convocation it be presumable that care will have be take in the Act of Henry  that there shall be a appeal from they far it seem by the writ de heretic to  burn up f n b that what be do in convocation be the act of the archbishop and  only the consent of the rest of the clergy in convocation he agree that a the  spiritual court have not any jurisdiction in case of freehold but a vide    Litt b that Edward a a r send for ante Str vide Com prohibition f d Edward vol  p Lord Raymond er p in this case the freehold follow the person be under such  capacity he agree also that the spiritual court can b examine institution  after the induction because that make a plenarty and therefore the declare of  institution to be void will be avoid a temporal Act but these instance be not  like the present case the reason of the case in Ryley be plain because the  archbishop punish he for matter in which the bishop of Durham act in his  temporal capacity as count palatine of Durham which appear by the question ask  whether the gaol be the gaol of the county palatine and whether it have not  always be deliver by lie people and by he to question this authority of the  archbishop be to question the very foundation of the government and gold  justice say that in h a where the ecclesiastical jurisdiction be enumerate the  account begin with archbishop and it appear by our book that bishop may be  deprive for dilapidation   b Inst Edward a h b and such deprivation seem to be  by the archbishop for otherwise to who shall the court write for which reason  it must be plead by who it be do as bro deposition the court can write to the  convocation and it be strange if the bishop be deprivable that the law shall  place it at such a distance as to refer it to the convocation and in roll Abr  vin g pl Anselmus archbishop of Canterbury be say to have deprive several  prelate and there be no case where a person have power of visitation but he  have also power of deprivation f n b title prohibition but when there be such  a summary way of proceed before the high Commission it be no wonder if such a  tedious proceed before the archbishop be not use but holt chief justice say  that though he be full satisfy in his opinion that the archbishop have such  jurisdiction yet he will not make that the ground of deny a prohibition in  this case the matter of the suggestion be that the archbishop be restrain by  the canon law from proceed c without assistance c now it must be that the  court take notice that the archbishop by the commonlaw have metropolitical  jurisdiction and for that purpose he be constitute that Lord Raymond there be  two in England who be primate in their respective province and then they have  sufficient jurisdiction and be the judge though perhaps by the canon law they  ought to take other person to their assistance yet their proceed without such  assistance can be a ground for a prohibition if in fact the archbishop extend  his jurisdiction far than he can by the rule of the commonlaw that may be a  ground for a prohibition but where all the authority that he make use of be no  more than what the commonlaw allow he but there be some ecclesiastical canon  which restrain he from exercise the jurisdiction which he have by the  commonlaw that be matter proper for the conusance of the delegate upon the  appeal but no ground to prohibit they from proceed and it be without precedent  to grant a prohibition to the ecclesiastical court because they proceed there  contrary to the canon and gold justice say that a if a tortuous judgement be  give that be proper matter for appeal and not for prohibition and of that  opinion Lord Hobart be express and as to the objection concern the  commissioner of the Commission of delegate holt chief justice say that they  upon a second appeal can not determine the gravamen at another time and if the  say objection shall be allow where their course be upon allow the gravamen to  retain the cause there the archbishop may make the same objection that they be  not proper person to be judge for the bishop because they have determine the  gravamen against the archbishop and so they shall not proceed at all it be but  the reverse of the say objection and he be of opinion that be appoint judge by  a new commission it be well enough and the prohibition be deny by the whole  court and holt chief justice order the counsel for the bishop to enter their  suggestion upon record and they will enter the reason of the denial of the  prohibition and holt say that if the other party have insist upon it they can  not have move for a prohibition before their suggestion be enter upon the roll  then Mr Montague on behalf of the bishop move the court that they will grant a  mandamus to the commissioner delegate to admit the bishop allegation and he  compare it to the case where they grant mandamus to compel the grant of  probate of will and letter of administration but per holt chief justice the  king bench can grant a mandamus to they to compel they to proceed accord to  their law indeed b r hob a vide ante and the case there cite Lord Raymond er p  mandamus be b grantable to compel probate of will because it concern temporal  right and c to compel the grant of letter of administration because the  statute direct to who they shall be grant but in the present case a mandamus  be deny ex relation mri Jacob Lord Raymond note that after this denial of the  prohibition the bishop of saint David petition the Lord chancellor summer to  have a writ of error upon this denial of the prohibition who have some doubt  whether it will lie or not refer it to the attorneygeneral who certify his  opinion to be that a writ of error will lie in this case upon which the  suggestion be enter upon record and the denial of the prohibition and the writ  of error be grant and the whole record bring by the chief justice into  parliament and afterward upon hear of his opinion the lord of parliament be of  opinion that a writ of error will not lie in this case note that holt chief  justice tell I that if the lord have be of opinion that the prohibition ought  to have be grant he never will have grant it b vide ante and the case there  cite c vide ante