Suppose he had been Enacted to be Patron of a Living, to which he had a former Right; there could be no Remitter: Because as to Particulars, the Act is like a Judgment, and estops all Parties to claim any Thing otherwise than according to the Act: And yet Remitter is a Title favoured in the Law. Then if he have this only by Force of this new Act, and another Person should present in his Turn so given, 'twould be an Injury, if a Subject did it, and consequently the King cannot do it: For the Prerogative which this Act gives, or which the Common Law gives, is not yet come to take Place.
[175] Where a subsequent repeals a former Statute by Implication.—Tho' this be an Affirmative Law, yet according to the Rule taken and agreed in Slade's and Drake's Case, Hob. 298. being introductive or creative of a new Thing, it implies a Negative of all that is not in the Purview: And many Cases are there put to this Purpose.
Then also it being particular and express, it implies a Negative, because this and the other are inconsistent.
But First, 'Tis observable all Prescriptions and Customs are fore- closed by a New Act of Parliament, unless saved. Suppose there was an Act of Parliament in Force before this, viz. That the King should present; yet another Statute Enacting somewhat new and inconsistent will carry a Negative: And if so in Case of a former Act, there's almost as much Reason for a Prerogative. It must be agreed, That a Man may prescribe or alledge a Custom against an Act of Parliament, when his Prescription or Custom is saved or preserved by that or another Act. But regularly a Man cannot prescribe or alledge a Custom against any Act of Parliament; because 'tis Matter of Record, and the highest and greatest Record which we know of in the Law. 1 Inst. 115.
Suppose Money were by the Law payable annually, and an Act comes and says it shall be paid Quarterly, by even and equal Portions at the four Feasts, for the first Year, this will certainly alter the Law.
Tis true, that a consistent Devise or Statute is no Repeal or Revocation: But if a new Act gives a new Estate different from the Former, this amounts to a Repeal. Fox and Harcourt's Case.
The same Rule holds even in Case of the King, as in the Archbishop of Canterbury's Case, 2 Rep. 46. and agreed to in Hob. 310. the Query was, if the Lands came to the King by 31 H. 8. cap. 13. or by the Stat. of E. 6. and objected, That the latter was in the Affirmative; yet held, That it came by the latter: Because tho' they were Affirmative Words, yet they were differently penned; and the last being of as high an Authority as the first, and providing by express Words, That by Authority of that Parliament they should be in actual Possession of the King, held that they should be in him by Force of that last Act. And Reason will warrant these Differences, because if otherwise, Inconsistencies and Contradictions must be allowed.
Then this is a new Law in the whole; 'tis a new Parish, 'tis a new Advowson; and in Truth 'tis no Advowson till the Avoidance: Nay, by the Words of the Act (if any Difference can be in an Instant, between, at and after, as our Law in several Cases allows it, as per mortem & post mortem, Devise by Jointenant, &c.) there's no Patronage fixed, 'tis no Advowson until after the Avoidance (for so are the Words) after the Avoidance, the Ad-[176]-vowson, Patronage, and Presentation shall be vested, foret vestit' in Episcopo Lond' & Domino Jermyn, and till then 'tis vested in Nobody; and that which is in Nobody, is not at all; unless it be, as sometimes for Necessity sake we say, in nubibus, or in Abeyance; but to say that an Advowson shall be in Abeyance, before 'tis created or ordained to exist or be at all, must savour somewhat of Absurdity: Now the King can have no Prerogative Turn upon an Avoidance by a Promotion, but when the Patron's Clerk was promoted and preferred; and here is no Patron till that Avoidance happen. They say 'tis vested immediately, tho' to take Possession hereafter, as a Reversion granted cum acciderit, according to 3 Cro. 323. and 1 Saund. 147. But that's not this Case; for there is a present Grant; here the Words are, After the Avoidance shall be vested, and not before; and being a new Thing it may be so; as a Rent-charge de novo may be granted to take effect de futuro, but cannot be so of an old Rent.
119
