messor but spicelegus a Gleaner And that in such Cases only where the King doth not prosecute pardon or release before the Informers Action is commenced 11 Co. 65. Dr. Fosters Case Bridgman 121.122 Parker against Sir J. Webb and uxor Lane 60. But whither this rule be general Bar. Fe◠and will not admit of an Exception in the Case of a Feme Covert is a Question For by some opinions if a Feme Covert be Indicted and convicted of Recusancy that shall not barr the Informer of his popular Action upon 23 Eliz. 1. § 11. N. 1. against her and her Husband for the Recusancy of the Wife because upon the Conviction by Indictment the cannot be compelled to pay the forfeiture of twenty pound per month while her Husband lives nor can it be levied of her Goods and Lands for that during the Coverture she hath nothing of her own to forfeit but all is her Husbands Bridgman 122. Infra 270. N 9. The Condemnation or acquittal of the party at the suit of the Informer is a good Bar against the King and all others 11 Co. 66. 18. Before 4 H. 7.20 § 1. N. 7. Collusion It seems that if a popular Action had been brought by Covin and with the consent of the defendent and the defendent was for want of Evidence or other Cause found not guilty and the Covin appeared to the Court yet Judgment should have been given thereupon against the King and it should have been a good Bar against all others 9 Ed. 4.4 pl. but now by 4 H. 7.20 § 1. N. 7. If any person sue with good Faith any Action popular and the defendent Plead a Recovery in an Action popular in Bar or that before that time he had Barred the Plantiff in such Action the Plantiff may aver such recovery or Bar was by Covin and upon such Covin found the Plantiff shall have Judgment and the defendent attainted or condemned of Covin shall shave Imprisonment of two years by process of Capias or Outlawry as well at the Kings suit as any other and the release of the party shall not avail the defendent which Covin may be averred generally Com. 49.50 54 55. Wymbishe and Talbois If a man bring upon a penal Statute debt tam c. quam c. and the defendent pleads thereunto the Plantiff may reply without the Kings Attorny c. Princes Case In debt upon 23 Eliz. 1. § 11. N. 1. the defendents demurred and the Plantiff qui tam c. Joyned in demurrer without the Kings Attorny and held to be good 1 Cro. 10.11 Farringtons Case Trin. 1. Car. 1. but in an Information tam c. quam c. the Kings Attorny ought to reply 2 Rol. 33. Smith and Catter And this difference between debt and an Information was taken Hutton 82. in the said Farringtons Case but yet if in an Information the defendent plead a special plea and the Kings Attorny will not reply and prosecute for the Kings part the Informer shall be admitted to reply and prosecute for his part as was adjudged in Stretton and Taylors Case 1 Leonard 119. pl. 161. and 11 Co. 65. Dr. Fosters Case 3 Inst 194. 19. The King before any Information or other popular suit commenced may pardon or release the whole penalty incurred Priory and it shall be a good bar against all men 11 Co. 65.66 Dr. Fosters Case 3 Inst 194.195.37 H. 6.4 _____ 2 R. 312. _____ _____ 1 H. 7.3 _____ Termes de ley 102. Decies tantum And if the defendent in the Information do not take advantage of such pardon or release by his plea but is condemned in the suit and the Kings share of the penalty be put in the Pipe in magno rotulo yet he may then discharge himself thereof upon a Compertum suit in magno rotulo by shewing forth the whole matter by way of Plea and shall not loose the effect of his pardon or release Savile 23. pl. 56. Tirringhams Case But when once the Informer hath brought his popular Suit the King cannot discharge it and if he then pardon or release or his Attorny enter an ulterius non vult prosequi this is good for the Kings part only but is no Bar quoad the Informer who may proceed notwithstanding for his part of the penalty And therefore neither can the Kings Attorny discharge the Jury when they come to deliver their Verdict Hutton 82. Vaughan 343. Thomas and Sorrel 1 Leonard 119. pl. 161. and 3 Cro. 138. Stretton and Taylor 3 Cro. 583. Hammon and Grissith 3 Inst 194. 1 H. 7.3 Such Entry of a non vult prosequi by the Attorny General hath the same effect with a Nonsuit of a Private person but the King cannot be said properly to be Nonsuit because he is in Judgment of Law ever present in Court 1 Inst 139.227 Hutton 82. Goldsborough 53. pl. Leighs Case Savile 56. pl. 119. Weare against Adamson Upon the Death of Queen Elizabeth it was resolved by the Judges that where an Information tam pro Domina Regina quam c. was brought upon a penal Statute and pending the same and before Judgment the Queen dyed the Information it self should stand for that otherwise the Suit might be lost there being a time limited for the bringing of it but all the proceedings thereupon were lost and void and the defendent should plead de novo 2 Cro. 14. and 7 Co. 30.31 Of discontinuance of Process And to that purpose 5 Ed. 6. Rot. 38. is there cited where in a popular action the King dyed after demurrer upon the Evidence and before Judgment and the defendent pleaded de novo But yet 1 Cro. 10.11 and Hob. 82. Farringtons Case in a popular action of debt upon 23 Eliz. 1. § 11. N. 1. against Prince and his Wife where the defendent demurred upon the declaration and the Plantiff qui tam c. Joyned demurrer in Hillary Term and King James died the Vacation following It was resolved that not only the Writ and declaration but all the other proceedings thereupon should stand notwithstanding the demise of the King for that in such Case it is meerly the Suit of the party and is aided by 1 Ed. 6.7 § 1. N. 4. of Discontinuances and he only Joyned in demurrer Which Resolutions are in appearance flatly contrary each to other for 2 Cro. 14. seems to take in all popular Suits whatsoever and as well a popular Action of debt as an Information but yet t is observable that in 1 Cro. 10. the Plantiff only joyned in demurrer and not the Kings Attorny And this seems to be the reason why in that Case the proceedings should stand notwithstanding the demise of the King for where the party alone joyns in demurrer or replies and not the Kings Attorny there the Suit may properly be said to be depending between party and party and within the express words of 1 Ed. 6.7 § 1. N. 4. which provides that altho the
King die all proceedings in Suits depending between party and party shall stand But 2 Cro. 14. is to be understood of such Cases where after a Plea or demurrer by the defendent the Attorny General alone replies or joynes in demurrer there the proceedings shall be void and the defendent shall plead de novo But the Information it self shall stand to avoid a manifest inconvenience for that the Informer is limited to a certain time wherein to exhibit his Information and so these two opinions are reconciled 20. An Informer Release qui tam c. may be Nonsuited altho the King cannot 1 Inst 139. Hutton 82. Farrington versus Arundell If pending the popular action or Information the Plantiff or Informer qui tam c. be Nonsuited or release or Enter a nolie prosequi or die none of these shall bar the King but the Attorny Genaral may proceed upon the Information for the Kings part 1 Leonard 119. pl. 191. 3 Cro. 138. Stretton versus Taylor 3 Cro. 583. Hamond 3 Inst 194. Moor 541. pl. 715. and 11 Co. 66. Dr. Fosters Case 2 Bulstrode 261.262 Waller versus Hanger 2 Rol. 33. Smith versus Carter And therefore the opinions in 37 H. 6.5 and 38 H. 6.2 that if the Plantiff in a Decies tantum which is a popular Action be Nonsuit the King is without remedy but by Indictment or if such Plantiff will relinquish his Suit that the King hath nothing further to do seem not to be Law at this day 21. If a popular Information be brought upon a penal Statue in a wrong Court where the Informer cannot sue Courts yet it was held Moor 564 c. pl. 770. in Agar and Candishes Case that the King should not for that loose his advantage of the suit but the Information should be good for his part of the penalty By 18 Eliz. 5. § 3. N. 3. If an Informer or Plantiff Costs upon a penal Statute where any forfeiture is generally limited to him that will sue shall delay or discontinue his suit or be Nonsuit or shall have the Tryal or matter pass against him by Verdict or Judgment of Law he shall pay to the defendent his Cost Charges and Damages see the addition to Bendloes 141. Rhobotham and Vincent and if it be upon a special Verdict or demurrer those Cases are within 18 Eliz. 5. § 3. N. 3. and he shall pay Costs by force thereof Hutton 36. Pies Case But an Informer is not compellable to find Sureties to answer Costs howbeit the Court if they see Cause may order him to appear in person before the defendent answer the Information 2 Bulst 18 Martin and Gunnystons Case Savil 10. pl. 26. Wilkes Case it was held in the Exchequer Chamber that if a writ of Error be brought upon a Judgment given for the King at the Suit of an Informer a Scire facias ought to be awarded against the Informer LXXX Courts Page 82 83 84. By any Court of Record is here 23 Eliz. 1. § 11. N. 1. meant the four ordinary Courts of Record at Westminster For they are the general Courts of Record and the Courts where the Kings Attorny may acknowledge or deny and the words of 23 Eliz 1. § 11. N. 1. being general are left to the construction of law where the Rule is that verba equivoca in dubio posita intelliguntur in digniori potentiori sensie And in this sense shall these words Court of Record be construed in all penal Statutes where the penalty is to be recovered in a popular suit so that the Informer qui tam c. cannot sue before Justices of Assize Goal-delivery or Oyer and Terminer or Justices of Peace as in Borrough or corporate Towns or in a Court of Pipowders Stannary Courts c. Jones 193. And such a construction hath been made of those words Court of Record upon several Statutes as 6 Co. 19.20 and Moor 600. pl. 827. Gregories Case on 4 and 5 Ph. Mar. 5. § N. of Woolen Cloathes In 1 Cro. 149. Green versus Guy on 21 11.8.13 § 11. N. 2. of Non-resid nee In 1 Cro. 112.113 and Hutton 99 Farrington and Keymer on 23 H. 8.4 § 5. N. 3. of Brewers In Stiles 340. Buck stone and Shurlock on 7 Ed. 6.5 § 6. N. 3. of selling wine without Licence In 3 Cro. 737. Barnabee versus Goodale and 2 Cro. 538. Millors Case and Styles 383. upon 5 Eliz. 4. § 13. N. 3. of Trades In Moor 421. pl. 581 upon the Statutes for Tanning of Leather and divers others 2. It was held Mich. 6 and 7 Ed. 6. Dyer 236. pl. by all the Justices but three that where a Statute appoints a penalty for any offence made thereby which was not an offence at the common law to be Recovered in any of the Queens Courts of record by Action of debt and no other Court is appointed The Statute intends the sour ordinary Courts of Record at Westminster and the offence and penalty cannot be punished and determined by Commissioners of Oyer and Terminer in Patriam But Dyer makes a Quaere hereupon and Sir Edward Coke in Scarlets Case 12 Co. 98. saith 10 Jac. that the opinion of Catlin Sanders and Whiddon which were the three dissenting Justices before c. is at this day held for good law and the opinion of the rest of the Justices that any Courts of Record are restrained to the ordinary Courts at Westminster of Record is not held for law Continual Experience saith he being against it for that Justices of Assize in respect of their Commission of Oyer and Terminer have alwaies enquired of offences where the penalties is appointed to be sued in any Court of Record as upon 33 H. 8.9 § 18. N. 1. of unlawful Games 35 H. 8.17 § 9. N. 2. of words and 5 and 6 Ed. 6.14 § 9. N. 2. of forfeitures and other Statutes But under favor altho Commissioners of Oyer and Terminer may take Indictments for the doing of that which is made malum prohibitum by a Statute Law yet that part of the opinion in Dyer 236 which relates to the Action of debt and the Courts of Record where such Action must be brought is good law and where only Courts of Record are named such Action cannot be brought in any other Court then the four ordinary Courts of record at Westminster as appears by the several Cases and resolutions before recited 3. Sir Edward Coke 3 Inst 193. and 4 Inst 174. saith that this exception of Recusancy in 21 Jac. 4. § 5. N. 1. doth not extend to the Courts 21 Jac. 4. § 1. N. 5. wherein the Informer is to sue but only to the County where 21 Jac. 4. § 2. N. 1. the offence is to be laid So that notwithstanding that exception 21 Jac. 4. § 5. N. 1. the Kings Bench Chancery C. B. Exchequer or Exchequer Chamber cannot relieve or hold plea of any Information for Recusancy either by the Kings Attorny or
that the Indictment was good enough notwithstanding it is not said of what Parish the Recusant was for the whole penalty of twenty pound per month is at first 23 Eliz. 1. § 5. N. 1. given to the Queen and the Inhabitants of the Parish where the offence was are by 23 Eliz. 1. § 11. N. 1. to sue in the Exchequer for their third part and surmile in their Bill that the offence was in their Parish and if it were so it shall be delivered to them as the Act directs LXXVIII Exchequer Page 71. Upon 23 Eliz. 1. § 11. N. 1. the principal Officers of the Court of Exchequer are the Treasurer and Barons but the principal Officers of the receit of the Exchequer are the Treasurer and Chamberlains Savile 38. pl. 87. LXXXIX Information Page 71. c. 82. on 23 Eliz. 1. § 11. N. 1. upon a penal Statute where part of the forfeiture is given to the King and part to him that will sue the Informer or Plantiff qui tam c. sequitur tam pro Domino Rege quam pro seipso and so it must be said in the Information or declaration and not only there but in the Joyning of Issue and the Venire facias it must be entred qui tam pro Domino Rege c. or the omission of it is Error 1 Cro. 336. pl. Mich. 9. Car. 1. 2. In an Information upon 23 Eliz. 1. § 11. N. 1. the usual way is that the Informer for himself petit inde tertiam partem juxta formam Statut ' 11 Co. 56. Dr. Fosters Case but then the Statute must be named for in an Information 2 Cro. 142. Mich. 4. Jac. by Broughton Qui tam c. against Moâ—re for the forbearing to come to Church Contra formam Statuti without naming which Statute in which Case the Informer demanded the third part for himself it was adjudged by the Court of B. R. to be ill for there are several Statutes against Recusancy and it did not appear which of them was meant 3. But if this Statute of 23 Eliz. 1. § 11. N. 1. be named in Certain and the party who sueth demands the whole forfeiture for the King and himself and Judgment be given that the King shall recover one moity and the Informer or Plantiff Qui tam c. the other moity in that Case the Judgment is well enough for the Information or declaration being Quod actio accrevit Domino Regi praefat A. ad habend ' exigend ' the full forfeiture the Judgment doth not vary there from when it saith that a moiety shall be to the King and a moiety to the Plantiff or Informer and altho the Statute 23 Eliz. 1. § 11. N. saith that he which will sue shall have but a third part yet thâ—t is by way of distribution only and such distribution if the penalty is an act subsequent to the Judgment and is to be made as well out of the moity given by the Judgment to the Informer or Plantiff Qui tam c. as out of the mony thereby given to the King and this I conceive to be the reason of the resolution in Chambers Case 2 Roll. 437. pl. where such a Judgment in Case of Recusancy upon this Statute was allowed to be good But if the whole forfeiture be not demanded in certain there altho the party who sues demands his own share 't is ill and so it was adjudged in an Information upon a poenal Statute 5 Eliz. 5. § 16. N. 1. which concluded Vnde petit advisamentum Curiae quod forisfaciat 5 l. pro qualibet offensunde ipse petit medietatem For the Informer doth not make his demand certain but leaves it to the Court or Jury to cast up the sum it Amounts to Hobart 245. Pie and Westly 4. If there be several Statutes Information and each of them prohibit one and the same thing and Inflict a penalty and give an Information for recovery of it the Information may conclude contra formam Statuti and good because the best shall be taken for the King 5 H. 7.17 So if one Statute make the offence and another Inflicts the penalty or forfeiture and the Information be for the offence only it may conclude contra formam Statuti which is to be understood of that Statute which makes the offence But if the Information both lay down the offence and demand the penalty there both Statutes must be recited or at least the Information must conclude contra formam Statutorum Owen 135. Wests Case supra 72. § 6. 5. In the late additions to Dalt 547. cap. 191. § 6. N. 3. it s said that Informations and saiâ—s on penal Statutes are stricti juris and excepted out of all the Statutes of Jeofailes which is a mistake for they are not excepted out of 32 H. 8.30 It s true they are out of 18 Eliz. 14. § N. and 21 Jac. 13. § N. and that as it seemeth in all Cases within those two Statutes see Styles 307. Theoballs against Newton And in the Case of Scot and Lawes Hob. 328. It seems to be intimated that they are excluded out of all three Where the Case was debt by an Informer Qui tam c. upon a penal Statute 21 H. 8.13 § 2. N. 4. the defendent pleads non debet praefato J. meaning the Informer and not the King and the Issue was found against the defendent in that Case it was resolved that this was a good Cause to stay Judgment and there it s said that it being upon a penal Statute the Statute of Jeofailes 32 H. 8.30 would not help it but that reason was Ex abundanti for 32 H. 8 30. seems to extend to all popular suits whatsover and in Wallers Case Dyer 346.347 in an Information brought against him 18 Eliz. by Topcliffe Qui tam c. upon 37 H. 8.9 of Usury it was adjudged that the mis-conveying of Process and mis-joyning of Issue in the said Information Dayes were aided by 32 H. 8.30 6. By 31 Eliz. 5. § 5. N. 2. an Informer Qui tam c. must begin his suit within one year after the offence committed otherwise he shall not have any part of the penalty 2 Co. 366. Hill 12 Jac. Godbolt 158. pl. 216. Sivedale versus Sir Edward Lenthal But popular suits upon the Statute 39 Eliz. 2. § N. of Tillage are excepted and not upon the Statute of Tallage as is mistaken in the the late additions to Dalt 546. cap. 191. § 3. In Dr. Fosters Case 11 Co. 65. it s said that the Informer hath no Remedy for recovery of the forfeitures for Recusancy after the year and day is expired for that time is limited in certain by 23 Eliz. 1. § 8. N. 1. but yet with submission it seems that 23 Eliz. 1. § 8. N. 1. relates to Indictments only and so it was held in this very Case of Dr. Foster 11 Co. 60. and 1 Rol. 93.
any Common Informer but the matter shall be heard and determined before Justices of Assize Nisi prius Goal-delivery or Oyer and Terminer or Justices of Peace in their general Sessions according to 21 Jac. 4. § 1. N. 3. but the Informer if it be for Recusancy may by force of that exception 21 Jac. 4. § 5. N. 1. lay or alledge such offence in what County he will for the said exception extends only to the County 21 Jac. 4. § 2. N. 1. and not to the Courts 21 Jac. 4. § 1. N. 5. where the Informer is to sue Which opinion of his touching the extensiveness of the exception is probable enough viz. that 21 Jac. 4. § 5. N. 1. extends only to the County and not to the Courts where the Informer is to sue for the latter part of it speaks only of the County but this is unaptly applied to popular Informations upon 23 Eliz. 1. § 11. N. 1. for they are not within the meaning of that branch of 21 Jac. 4. § 1. N. 5. touching the Courts where the Informer is to sue for 21 Jac. 4. § 1. N. 5. medles not with those Informations upon those penal Laws which give the Informer no other remedy for recovery of the penalty but by Debt Bill plaint or Information in the Courts of Record at Westminster Nor doth 21 Jac. 4. § 1. N. 3. give the Justices of Assize or other Justices there named any new or further power than they had before but only appoints that where Informations might have been brought before them or in the Courts of Westminster at the Election of the Informer now they shall be brought before Justices of Assize Nisi prius Goal delivery or Oyer and Terminer or at the Sessions of the Peace in the County where the offence was committed for the ease of the Subjects who are defendents and not in the Courts at Westminster 4 Co. 1. 1 Cro. 112.113 But in our Case of Recusancy there is no such Election given the Informer by 23 Eliz. 1. § 11. N. 1. but he is strictly tyed to take his remedy by debt Bill plaint or Information in one of the Courts at Westminster and therefore 21 Jac. 4 § 1. N. 5. extends not to it in that branch touching the Courts where the Informer is to sue And as for Sir Edward Cokes Opinion that since 21 Jac. 4. § 1. N. 5. the Courts at Westminster cannot receive or hold Plea of any Information brought by a Common Informer not only common Experience ever since that Statute is against it but the Judgments and resolutions both of B. R. Mich. 4. Car. 1. Greene and Guy 1 Cro. 146. pl. upon 21 H. 8.13 § 11. N. 2. and Fentons Case Mich. 27. Car. 2. upon this Statute of 23 Eliz. 1. and of C. B. in Farrington and Leymer 1 Cro. 112. Hutton 99. Trin. 4 Car. 1. upon 23 H. 8.4 § 5. N. 3. Are directly in point Contrary thereunto and so is the opinion of Rolls in Styles 340. Buck stone and Shurlock 7 Ed. 6.5 § 6. N. 3. and the resolution in Jones 193. And yet altho in penal Statutes any Court of Record shall be restrained to the ordinary Courts of Record at Westminster possibly in other Statutes those words may admit of a larger Construction 1 Rol. 51. pl. 21. Floyd and Best LXXXI Information Page 85 86. Upon 23 Eliz. 1. § 11. N. 1. by Action of debt Bill plaint or Information by 18 Eliz. 5. § 1. N. 3. it is enacted that none shall be admitted or received to prosecute against any person upon any penal Statute but by way of Information or original Action and not otherwise 6 Co. 19.20 Moor 412. pl. 565. and 600. pl. 827. Gregories Case 3 Cro. 544. Gadley versus Whitecote And this seems to extend as well to penal Statutes made afterwards as to those that were in force when 18 Eliz. 5. § 1. N. 3. was made for t is usual for a latter act of Parliament to be guided by a former as 4 Co. 4. Vernons Case But then it must be in such Cases where there are not express words in the latter act to controule the former and therefore altho the word of 18 Eliz. 5. § 1. N. 3 that the Informer shall not prosecute otherwise then by Information or original action yet the Affirmative words of this subsequent Statute 23 Eliz. 1. § 11. N. 1. that the Informer may sue by Bill hath taken away the force of that negative in 18 Eliz. 5. § 1. N. 3. in relation to the offence mentioned in 23 Eliz. 1. and the prosecutor qui tam c. upon 23 Eliz. 1. § 11. N. 1. may sue by Bill in B. R. as well as by Information which otherwise had there been no direct words here to that purpose he could not do as it seems by the resolution 3 Inst 194. in Woodson and Clerks Case In a suit brought by Bill in B. R. upon 23 H. 6.10 § 1. N. 12. of Sheriffs and in Moor 248. pl. 390. Vdeson and the Major of Nottinghams Case contrary to the opinion in Styles 381. Hill and Dechair LXXXII Imprisonment Page 86. Upon 23 Eliz. 1. § 11. N. 2. Qui non habet in aere luet in corpore And yet in this Case the Judgment shall be absolute that the King and the Informer recover c. 1 Anderson 140. pl. 190. Vachels Case 2. A Feme Covert Recusant if the forseiture be not paid within the time limited 23 Eliz. 1. § 11. N. 2. may be imprisoned by force of this Statute until she pay or conform 11 Co. 61. Dr. Fosters Case Hob. 97. Moor and Hussey And if she be convicted upon Indictment at the Kings suit in which Case the Husband is not bound to pay the penalty she ought by the opinion of Manwood to have hard and close Imprisonment and sequestred from all Company until she conform or forfeiture be paid Savile 25. pl. 59. But if the Husband and Wise be sued upon 23 Eliz. 1. § 11. N. 2. in a popular Action or Information for the Recusancy of the Wife and Judgment be had against them and the forfeiture is not paid within the three months the Husband in that Case may be Imprisoned likewise LXXXIII Assurances Page 87. Upon 23 Eliz. 1. § 13. N. 1. since the beginning of this Session of Parliament and yet a Covenons Conveyance tho made before that Session of Parliament should not have defeated the Interest right or Title which was given to the Queen by this Statute and therefore in the Case of Sir John Southwell 3 Leonard 147.148 pl. who in Anno 19 Eliz. Conveyed his lands to certain Feoffees and their heirs in trust for the maintenance of him and his Family Marriage of his Daughters payment of his debts c. and to answer him the surplusage of the mean profits with a Clause of revocation after which he granted Trees took Fines for leases c. And then
there is a great difference between the penning of this Statute 35 Eliz. 2. § 15. N. 1. and 35 Eliz. 1. § 1. N. 5. for in 35 Eliz. 1. § 1. N. 5. there is an express designation of the place where such Submission and Declaration shall be viz. in any Church Chappel or usual place of Common prayer whither the Offender comes and this shall free him from his Imprisonment supra 112 But 35 Eliz. 2. § 8. N. 3. Where 't is said that he shall abjure unless he comes usually to Church and make such Confession and Submission c. His coming usually to Church cannot be applied to his Confession and Submission for that is to be made but once and not usually and therefore there being no place appointed where this Confession and Submission shall be made we must necessarily have recourse to 35 Eliz. 2. § 15. N. 1. where a place is appointed viz. some Parish Church So that the coming usually to Church without this formal Submission and Confession or Declaration in some Parish Church frees not the Offender here in any Case from abjuration Altho the coming to any Church Chappel or usual place of Common-prayer and hearing Divine service and making open Submission and Declaration there shall free an Offender within 35 Eliz. 1. § 1. N. 5. from Imprisonment Page 144 145. CXLVI Submission 35 Eliz. 2. § 15. and 16. If a Popish Recusant Indicted upon this Statute makes his Submission and brings with him into B. R. a testimonial thereof it is the Course of that Court to cause him there to make his Submission again upon his knees which the Clerk of the Crown reads to him and so was it done Pasch 2. Car. 1. Latch 16. in the Case of one Throgmorton but Jones Justice said there was no Statute to compel him to this second Submission and Throgmorton complained that he was not therein dealt with according to Law 2. 35 Eliz. 2. § 16. N. 2. Is Over her Majesty or within any her Majesties Realms or Dominions And not over her Majesty within any her Dominions as Wingate Crown 85. grosly misrecites for that denies only Popes or See of Romes Authority over her Majesty but not any other ther Authority which they might claim over her Subjects And 't is clear by the disjunctive or which Wingate omits that both these Authorities are intended to be denied by this Submission these words or any Colour or means of any Dispensation which are a very material part of the Submission are likewise omitted by Wingate CXLVII Certificate Page 145. Such Relaps 35 Eliz. 2. § 18. N. 1. with the Indictment thereof is to be certified into the Court of Exchequer as was done by the Justices of B. R. 1 Bulstrode 133 in the Case of Francis Holt Pasch 9 Jac. 1 Iac. 4. Of SEIZVRES CXLVIII Oath PAge 147. By the Oath of Obedience is here 1. Jac. 4. § 1. N. 2. meant the Oath of Supremacy in 1. Eliz. 1. § 19. N. 4. supra and by that name it is here called afterwards 1 Jac. 4. § 3. N. 2. Crompt 13. Page 148. CXLIX It hath been doubted on 1 Jac. 4. § 2. N. 1. whether these words Accodring to the true meaning of the Statutes in that behalf do refer only to the manner of the Recusants Conformity or to the time likewise when it is to be done as well as to the manner For if they refer to the time then the Recusant is still bound notwithstanding this Statute to Conform before Judgement according to 23 Eliz. 1. § 10. N. 1. or his Conformity afterwards shall not discharge him of the penalty But the better opinion is that by these words according to the true meaning of the Statutes 1 Jac. 4. § 2. N. 1. is to be Intended only that the Recusant must Conform in such manner as is there appointed But as to the time the general words 1 Jac. 4. § 2. N 1. have enlarged the time limited by 23 Eliz. 1. § 10. N. 1. For this Statute 1 Jac. 4. § 2. N. 1. is made in further favour of the Recusant So that now if he Conforms after Judgment 't is time enough and he shall be discharged of all penalties in respect of his Recusancy 2. And if an Information tam pro Domino Rege quam pro seipso be brought upon 23 Eliz. 1. § 11. N. 1. against the Recusant and after Judgment had against him thereupon he Conforms he shall be discharged of the Judgment but first his Conformity must appear of Record otherwise the Court cannot take notice of it and as for that his Remedies against the King and the Informer must be several for against the Informer he must bring his Audita Querela and against the King he must plead his Conformity which he may do in this Case after Judgment for that no Audita Querela lieth against the King 11 H. 7.10 and it he should not be admitted to plead he would be without any legal Remedy to discharge himself of the forfeiture and Judgement as to the Kings part whose Execution will not be hindered by the Audita Querela against the Informer But if the Defendant neglect to put in his Plea and Execution issueth for the King and he be taken in Execution he comes too late to plead his Conformity and hath then no other way left to releive himself as to the Kings part but by his Petition to the King to pardon the Debt 2 Bulstrode 324 1. Rol. 95. Dr. Fosters Case Savil 23. pl. 56. Tiringhams Case CL. Heir Page 149. If any Recusant shall hereafter die 1 Jac. 4. § 3. N. 1. that is a Recusant either Convicted upon Proclamation and default or Convicted by Verdict Confession c. and adjudged for in both those Cases if the Recusant die the discharge of the Heir depends upon his Conformity CLI Forfeiture Page 149 150. Of all and singular the penalties Charges and Incumbrances 1 Jac. 4. § 3. N. 1. If Judgment be had at the Kings suit against a Recusant Tenant in Tail for Recusancy this is a charge and Incumbrance within this Stature of which the Heir in Tail shall not be discharged unless he conforms but must satisfie all the Arrears incurred in the life time of his Ancestor For it being a debt to the King upon a Judgment the entailed Lands are lyable thereto by 33 H. 8.391 § N. But these two Clauses 1 Jac. 4. § 3. N. 1. discharge the Arrears of the 20 l. per month Incurred in the Recusants life time upon the Conformity of the Heir in such Cases only where the two parts of the Recusants Lands were not seized before his death For if they are seized in his life time and continue so till his death neither his fee simple Lands nor his Intailed Lands if a Judgment were had against him for his Recusancy at the Kings suit shall be discharged upon the Heirs conformity without payment of