the arrearages of twenty pounds monthly before such seizure due or payable shall ensue or be continued against such Offender so long as the same person shall continue in coming to Divine Service according to the intent of the said Estatute It was resolved by all the Judges Mich. 37 38 Eliz. That if a man had been convicted according to this Statute by Proclamation upon default and afterwards conformed himself Where Conformity discharges the penalty he should be discharged of the penalty due upon his Conviction notwithstanding these words and full satisfaction of all the Arrearages And the reason of this given by Coke Chief Justice B. R. in Dr. Fosters Case is for that this Statute saith That such Conviction should be as sufficient as if there were a Verdict recorded but 't is only a Judgment which converts the penalty into a Debt and not a Verdict And here all penalties are discharged upon Conformity unless such as are converted into a Debt But otherwise it would have been if there had been a Judgment against the Recusant upon Trial or Confession on the Statute of 23 Eliz. cap. 1. Stat. 23 Eliz. 1. For then his Conformity would have come too late to have saved the penalty incurred by his Conviction For by the Judgment the penalty was converted into a Debt Rolles 1. 94. C. 41. Quaere tamen Whether these words here due and payable are to be understood due and payable upon a Judgment only However now by the Statute of 1 Jac. cap. 4. 1 Jac. 4. if the Recusant conform either before or after Judgment he shall be discharged of all penalties But the profits of the Recusants Lands taken before his Conformity shall never be restored Savile 130. C. 201. The profits not to be restored It hath been questioned upon this Statute Where the penalty is discharged upon the death of the Recusant where not if a Recusant convicted by Proclamation upon default had died before seizure of two parts of his Lands whether his Lands might have been seized after his death for the Arrearages of the 20 l. per month or if they were seized in his life time whether they should have been discharged after his death without payment of such Arrears And the Opinion of those who held that the seizure should neither ensue nor continue after his death but that the Arrears were discharged was principally grounded upon the aforesaid construction of this Statute viz. that due and payable extended only to Arrearages due and payable upon a Judgment and converted into a Debt But when the Recusant was convicted by Proclamation the penalty was never converted into a Debt and therefore when he died there were no Arrearages due in the sense of this Statute for the heir to pay And yet that by such Offender here is generally intended all Recusants convicted as well by Proclamation upon default as upon Judgment and the heirs of either should have had the benefit of this Proviso viz. That upon the death of the Ancestor no seizure should ensue or be continued only in the Case of a Judgment the Arrears were to have been paid But there seems now to be no further need of this Question for the Statute of 1 Jac. cap. 4. Stat. 1 Jac. 4. meets with both these Cases For if there be no seizure of the Recusants Lands in his life time the discharge of the heir will depend upon his Conformity and if there were a seizure the two parts shall continue in his Majesties possession till the Arrears are paid and satisfied Intailed Lands when discharged and when not But this is not intended of intailed Lands For without any aid of this Proviso if a Recusant Tenant in Tail be convicted by Proclamation upon default and dies neither any seizure for the Arrears of the 20 l. per month shall ensue after his death nor if they were seized in his life time shall the seizure be continued after his death nor is the Heir in Tail bound to pay any such Arrears But if a Judgment be had against the Recusant Tenant in Tail in his life time the Heir is bound in that Case of which see farther in Stat. 1 Jac. cap. 4. Sect. 4. If a Judgment was had against the Recusant before the said Statute of 1 Jac. and he had died before seizure of the two parts of his Lands The question was whether after his death they might have been seized by force of this Statute of 29. for the Arrears of the penalty incurred in his life time For that the seizure here given is meerly in nature of a nomine poenae or penalty inflicted for his contempt in not paying the 20 l per month and should not have gone in satisfaction of the Debt But the Queen should have held the Land till the 20 l. per month were otherwise paid and satisfied And when this penalty of seizure was not executed in the Recusants life time by his death the contempt was gone and consequently the penalty inflicted for that contempt could not then be put in Execution Vide Lane 92 93. Beckets Case Ibid. 107. Halseys Case Stat. 1 Jac. 4. But now by the Statute of 1 Jac. 4. the seizure is not as a meer penalty for the contempt of non-payment but for the satisfying of the King of the Arrears of the 20 l. per month and the profits of the Land shall go towards the payment and satisfaction thereof so that now there is no question but the two parts of the Recusants Lands may be seized after his death Seizure after the Recusants death unless the Heir discharge himself by his Conformity Note Discharge upon Affidavit in all these Cases of seizure where the Land is to be discharged upon the death of the Recusant although an Affidavit be made of his death and a discharge obtained thereupon yet 't is a Rule in the Court of Exchequer Commission to enquire That a Commission shall be awarded first to enquire Savile 130. Case 201. And where by the said former Estatute Stat. Sect. 8. The third part of the forfeiture how to be disposed of the third part of the forfeitures for not coming to Divine Service is limited to the Poor Be it further Enacted by the Authority aforesaid That it shall and may be lawful to and for the Lord Treasurer of England Chancellor and Chief Baron of the Exchequer for the time being or two of them to assign and dispose of the full third part of the twenty pounds for every month paid or to be paid into the Receipt of the Exchequer as is aforesaid for the relief and maintenance as well of the Poor and of the Houses of Correction as of impotent and maimed Soldiers as the same Lord Treasurer Chancellor and Chief Baron or any two of them shall order or appoint Any thing in the said Estatute made in the said thrée and twentieth year of her Majesties Reign mentioned to
lieu of the Twenty pounds per month And therefore the Resolution or Judgment said to be given in the Case of one Gray Anno 1. or 2. Jac. and cited in Beckets Case 8 Jac. Lane 93. and by Sergeant Bridgman in his Argument of Parker and Webbs Case 16 Jac. Rolles 2. 25. and applied thereunto viz. That if a Recusant convicted fails of the payment of the Twenty pounds per month the King shall have his Lands as a gage or penalty and the profits shall not go towards satisfaction thereof However it were true as the Law stood upon 29 Eliz. and before the making of this Act of 1 Jac. yet 't is not Law at this day nor could be applicable to either of those Cases of Becket or Parker and Webb which came to be debated long after this Act was made and the Law of 29 Eliz. altered in that point Vide Stat. 29 Eliz. cap. 6. Sect. 7. Where any such seizure shall be had c. This Relative such takes in both the seizures beforementioned viz. a seizure upon Indictment and Judgment thereupon by force of the Statute of 23 Eliz. and a seizure upon Conviction on Proclamation and default according to the Statute of 29 Eliz. And What seizure is here meant Stat. 23 Eliz 1 29 Eliz. â— as in both those Cases the Recusant who fails of the payment of the Twenty pounds per month shall have the benefit to discount the profits received by the King so the King shall in the like Cases of seizure retain the two parts in his hands after the Recusants death until the residue of the Debt or Duty due and payable to the King be satisfied Where this extends not to Intailed Lands Two parts of the Lands c. of any such Recusant This Clause extends not to Intailed Lands unless where there is a Judgment for the King against the Ancestor for his Recusancy And therefore if the Recusant convicted upon Proclamation and default be Tenant in Tail and two parts of his Lands be seized in his Life time for non-payment of the Twenty pounds per month and he die the arrears not being satisfied to the King yet the heir in Tail shall have the Land out of the Kings hands without payment of the arrears For that such Conviction is in the nature of a Verdict only Conviction upon Proclamation no Judgment and not of a Judgment as was held in Doctor Fosters Case Rolles 1.94 C. 41. And where a Statute gives to the King a seizure or forfeiture of Lands it shall not be intended of Lands in Tail unless it be expresly so appointed by the Statute or by force of some other Statute cooperating therewith In which Case the Intailed Lands may be charged by general words in the Statute which gives the forteiture or seizure An instance whereof we have in the Case of a Recusant Tenant in Tail Indicted Stat. 23 Eliz. 1 Convicted and Adjudged upon 23 Eliz. 1. for his Intailed Lands shall remain after his death in the Kings possession until the arrears be satisfied 29 Eliz. 6 33 H. 8. 39 and that by force of 29 Eliz. c. 6. and this Statute cooperating with the Statute of 33 H. 8. cap. 39. which charges the Lands of the heir in Tail with debts due to the King upon a Judgment had against the Ancestor Praemunire Stat. 16 R. 2. 5 But otherwise 't is in the Case of a Praemunire upon the Statute of 16 R. 2. cap. 5. which saith the Lands and Tenements of the Offender shall be forfeit to the King for there his Intailed Lands shall be forfeit during his life only And the reason is for that general words in an Act of Parliament unless aided by some other Act of Parliament shall never take away the force of the Statute de donis conditionalibus Co. 1. Inst. 130. 391. Co. 11.63 Godbolt 308. Lord Sheffeild and Ratcliffe Treason Stat. 26 H. 8. 13 5 E. 6. 11 And therefore in the Statutes of 26 H. 8. cap. 13. and 5 E. 6. cap. 11. which make Intailed Lands forfeitable for Treason the word inheritance was added any Estate of Inheritance which expresly denotes Lands in Fee Tail as well as Feesimple Now there being neither in this Act or that of 29 Eliz. any express appointment that the two parts of all Lands seized in the Recusants life time wherein he had any Estate of Inheritance shall after his death continue in the Kings possession nor no other Statute which charges the heir in Tail with the forfeiture due to the King upon Conviction by Proclamation and Default the general words here that his Lands Tenements c. shall continue in the Kings possession shall not inforce a construction in prejudice of the Heir in Tail who claims by the Statute de donis conditionalibus but where there is no Judgment the Recusants Fee simple Lands shall after his death satisfie the intent of these Statutes And so was the Law in reference to intailed Lands upon the Statute of 29 Eliz. cap. 6. which speaks of the full satisfaction of Arrearages in Case of the death of the Recusant Arrears where to be paid by the Heir in Tail where not And the Arrears were to have been paid by the Heir in Tail only in such Case where there was a Judgment obtained by the King against the Ancestor for his Recusancy but not where the Ancestor Tenant in Tail was convicted only upon Proclamation and default for in this last Case the Heir in Tail was not bound by the Statute of 33 H. 8. cap. 39. because 't is not a Debt by Judgment as that Statute requires Moore 523. C. 691. And thus the Opinion of the two Chief Justices Trin. 43 Eliz. is to be understood for they held That if intailed Lands had been seized for non-payment of the 20 l. per month and the Tenant in Tail had died the issue in Tail should not have had the Land out of the Queens hands before the Debt were satisfied but should have been charged with the said Debt Cro. Eliz. 846. At the end of which Case is added a Dubitatur But yet the Opinion there held stands good if it be intended only of a Conviction of the Ancestor by Judgment upon Trial or Confession and not of a Conviction upon Proclamation and default And be it further Enacted by the Authority of this present Parliament Stat. Sect. 2. None shall go or send any other to a Seminary c. That all and every person and persons under the Kings Obedience which at any time after the end of this Session of Parliament shall pass or go or shall send or cause to be sent any Child or any other person under their or any of their Government into any the parts beyond the Seas out of the Kings Obedience to the intent to enter into or be resident in any Colledge Seminary or House of Iesuits Priests or any other Popish Order
it directly by express words yet they both conceived they were within the intent of the Act by reason as Manwood said of these words all other the Lands c. liable to such seizure or to the penalties aforesaid But it was granted on all hands that by these general words here the King hath not any estate given him in the Recusants Copyhold Lands but only a right or title to two thirds of the profits By the Kings receiving of which the Lord cannot be impeached of his Customs and Services as he would be if the King should seize the Land it self And a difference was there taken between an Act of Parliament which transfers an Estate to the King and an Act of Parliament which gives him only the profits of the Estate For in the first Case the Rule in Heydons Case that Copyhold Lands shall not pass by general words shall stand good for the prejudice that may otherwise accrew to the Lord But where the Lords Seigniory Customs and Services are not to be Impeached or taken away as here they will not by the Kings bare receiving of the profits there it was said Copyholds shall be included within the general words of Lands Tenements and Hereditaments Leonard 1. 97. C. 126. And yet Vide Owen 37. where this Case is otherwise reported and that it was at length after great debate adjudged that Copyhold Lands are not within this Statute nor are seizable for the Kings two parts And according to this Judgment I take the modern practice of the Exchequer to have been that neither the Land it self nor the profits of Copyhold Lands are liable to such seizure And for the more spéedy conviction of such Offender Stat. Sect. 5. The Indictment sufficient though it be not mentioned that the party is within the Realm in not repairing to Divine Service but forbearing the same contrary to the said Estatute Be it Enacted by the Authority aforesaid That the Indictment of every such Offender mentioning the not coming of such Offender to the Church of the Parish where such person at any time before such Indictment was or did keép House or Residence nor to any other Church Chappel or usual place of Common Prayer shall be sufficient in the Law And that it shall not be neédful to mention in any such Indictment that the party Offender was or is inhabiting within this Realm of England or any other the Queens Majestis Dominions But if it shall happen any such Offender then not to be within this Realm or other her Majesties Dominions that in such case the party shall be relieved by Plea to be put in in that behalf and not otherwise And that upon the Indictment of such Offender Stat. Sect. 6. A Proclamation that the party Indicted shall render his Body to the Sheriff a Proclamation shall be made at the same Assizes or Goal delivery in which the Indictment shall be taken if the same be taken at any Assize or Goal delivery by which it shall be commanded that the body of such Offender shall de rendred to the Sheriff of the same County before the said next Assizes or general Goal delivery to be holden in the same County And if at the said next Assizes or Goal delivery the same Offender so proclaimed shall not make appearance of Record that then upon such default Recorded the same shall be as sufficient a conviction in Law of the said Offence whereof the party so standeth Indicted as is aforesaid as if upon the same Indictment a Trial by Verdict thereupon had proceeded and been recorded If the same be taken at any Assize or Goal delivery For if the Indictment had been taken before Justices of Peace Proclamation by whom to be made no Proclamation thereupon could have been made upon this Statute by the Justices of Assize or Goal delivery as was resolved in the Case of Edward Plowden And therefore upon such an Indictment for Recusancy taken before Justices of Peace the Court was to remove the Indictment into the Kings-Bench And there process might have been made out against the Recusant and he convicted For the Justices of Peace could do no more then Indict all other proceedings being taken away from them by this Statute Co. 11. 63. Dr. Fosters Case Rolles 1. 94. C. 41. the same Case But now by the Statute of 3 Jac. cap. 4. the Law is altered in this point Stat. 3 Jac. 4. and the Justices of Peace upon Indictments taken before them may proceed to proclaim and convict the Recusant as well as Justices of Assize and Goal delivery Shall be rendred to the Sheriff Vide Stat. 3 Jac. cap. 4. Sect. 5. Before the said next Assizes or general Gaol delivery Vide Stat. 3 Jac. cap. 4. Sect. 5. Appearance Make appearance of Record What appearance will serve in this Case Vide Stat. 3 Jac. cap. 4. Sect. 5. Vpon such default That is upon his default of appearance of Record at the next Assizes or Goal delivery For if he makes such appearance Default saved that shall save his default of not rendring his Body to the Sheriff and the not rendring himself to the Sheriff shall be no conviction as Wingate would make it to be Tit. Crowne numb 66. As sufficient a Conviction in Law That is as if he were convicted by Verdict Conviction upon Proclamation no Judgment but not as sufficient as if a Judgment were had against the Recusant For although by force of this and other Statutes the conviction upon Proclamation and default of appearance make the Recusant liable to divers penalties and incapacities and is in those respects as forceable as a Judgment yet it shall not in other Cases have the force or effect of a Judgment And therefore it was resolved 37 38 Eliz. in the Case of the general pardon Anno 35 Eliz. where there is an exception of all penalties and forfeitures due to the Queen and converted to a debt by Judgment that notwithstanding that exception a Recusant convicted upon Proclamation was within the pardon and the forfeitures due upon such conviction were thereby pardoned For the debt was not due to the Queen by Judgment but upon conviction only But otherwise it had been if he had been convicted according to the Statute of 23 Eliz. cap. 1. Stat. 23 Eliz. 1 without Proclamation and Judgment had been given thereupon Vide Co. 11. 65. Dr. Fosters Case Stat. Sect. 7. Provided always That whensoever any such Offender as is aforesaid shall make submission and become conformable according to the form limited by the same Estatute made in the thrée and twentieth year of the Quéens Majesties Reign The Offender submitting or dying no forfeiture shall ensue or be continued or shall fortune to die that then no forfeiture of twenty pounds for any month or seizure of the Lands of the same Offender from and after such Submission and Conformity or Death and full satisfaction of all
she should not be doubly punished both that way and at the Suit of the Informer And for the same reason it was urged that this Information would not lye against the Husband and Wife for after the Husbands death she would be liable to pay into the Exchequer all the arrears after the rate of Twenty pounds per month from the time of her Conviction and her goods and two parts of her Lands might be then seized for non-payment thereof And if the Husband and Wife should in the mean time at the Suit of the Informer pay Twenty pounds per month for part of the same time for which the Wife was liable to pay after the Husbands death this would be a double punishment for one and the same offence and it was further said that it was usual where the Wife was Indicted and Convicted for Recusancy Seizure of the Wives Lands and Leases to seize by Exchequer Process the Lands and Leases which the Husband had in her right and one Woods Case was cited to this purpose which proves that a Feme Covert is within the meaning of the Act and therefore after she is once Convicted upon Indictment shall be no more subject to the Informers popular Suit then a Feme sole Cro. Pasch 16 Jac. 481.482 But this last point is much to be questioned for the Lands and Leases of the Wife are the Husbands during the Coverture and 't is a general rule that his Goods or Lands cannot be seized for the forfeiture or penalty where the Wife only is Indicted and Convicted of the Offence See more of this matter antea Stat. 23 Eliz. cap. 1. Stat. 23 Eliz 1 Sect. 9. A Recusant is Indicted for absenting himself from Church for 12 months and afterwards is Convicted upon that Indictment Where an Informer may sue after Conviction upon Indictment Quaere whether nevertheless the Informer Qui tam c. may not sue him for his absence for the months intervening between the time laid in the Indictment and the time of his Conviction For these words here viz. after such Conviction seem to relate to the proximum antecedens every month and to imply that the penalty here appropriated to the King is only the penalty due for the months which incur after such Conviction upon Indictment at the Kings Suit but not to hinder the Informer after Conviction from suing for the months incurred before Conviction Except in such Cases where the King shall c. refuse the same The King may seize two parts presently after Conviction If a man be Indicted and Convicted of Recusancy the King is not bound to stay till the next Easter or Michaelmas Term to see whether the Recusant will tender twenty pounds for every month contained in the Indictment and incurred after such Conviction for the King having his Election whether he will accept thereof or seize two parts of the Recusants Lands A Commission for seizure of the Lands may issue out presently if the King will wave the twenty pounds per month For he may take his Election as soon as he will after Conviction By Jones Justice in the Case of Standen and the University of Oxford Jones 24. Stat. Sect. 7. Every Conviction shall be certified into the Exchequer And that every Conviction recorded for any Offence before-mentioned shall from the Iustices before whom the Record of such Conviction shall be remaining be certified into the Kings Majesties Court of Exchequer before the end of the Term following such Conviction in such convenient certainty for the time and other circumstances as the Court of Exchequer may thereupon award out Process for the seizure of the Lands and Goods of every such Offender as the Cause shall require And if default shall be made in any part of any payment aforesaid contrary to the form herein before limited that then and so often the Kings Majesty his Heirs and Successors shall and may by process out of the said Exchequer take seize and enjoy all the Goods and two parts as well of all the Lands Tenements and Hereditaments Leases and Farms of such Offender as of all other the Lands Tenements and Hereditaments liable to such seizure or to the penalties aforesaid by the true meaning of this Act leaving the third part only of the same Lands Tenements and Hereditaments Leases and Farms to and for the maintenance and relief of the same Offender his Wife Children and Family Timber Trees All the Goods A Recusant convicted is Tenant for Life the Remainder to a Stranger in Fee He in the Remainder with the Recusants assent cuts down Timber Trees and sells them In this Case the King can be no ways intitled to the Trees Bulstrode 1.133 Vide Stat. 29 Eliz. cap. 6. Sect. 4. Aswell of all the Lands c. Leases and Farms of such Offender Lease in trust for another Elizabeth Bowes was convicted of Recusancy and she standing so Convicted a Lease was made to her in trust which she conveyed over according to the trust The question was whether the King might seize this Lease And the reason given in Lane 39. why the King should have the Term is because the Recusant after she was Convicted was not capable of any trust and therefore the Conveyance made by her was as if it had been voluntary without relation to the Trust Tamen quaere by what Law a Recusant meerly for the matter of Recusancy is incapable of any Trust although Convicted All other the Lands c. liable to such seizure Copyhold Lands Stat. 29 Eliz. 6. or to the penalties aforesaid Whether Copyholds be liable to such seizure vide Stat. 29 Eliz. cap. 6. Sect. 4. Lands are conveyed to A. in trust for B. a convicted Recusant Lands in trust for a Recusant Quaere whether the King may seize such Lands for the Recusants non-payment of the twenty pounds per month for if he make his Election and accepts of two thirds in lieu of the twenty pounds per month there is no question but such Lands are liable to seizure For the words of the subsequent Clause are That the King may seize two parts of all Lands that shall come to any other person to the use of or in Trust for such Recusant But in this Clause which relates to the seizure of two parts for non-payment the words seem to be more restrictive Vide Lane 105. 106. Halseys Case And whereas by an Act made in the Session of Parliament holden by Prorogation at Westminster in the thrée and twentieth year of the Reign of the late Queén Elizabeth entituled Stat. Sect. 8. The Stat. of 23 Eliz. 1. touching a Recusants monthly forfeiture An Act to retain the Subjects of the said late Quéen in their due Obedience It was amongst other things Enacted by Authority of the said Parliament That every person above the age of sixtéen years which should not repair to some Church Chappel or usual place of Common Prayer
proved that it was for her Joynture or if a man devise Lands by his last Will to his Wife generally and there is no mention in the Will that 't is for her Joynture for in this Case an Averment that it was so intended will not serve unless there be express words in the Will to that purpose These Estates so gained by the Wife as they do not bar her Dower out of the residue of her Husbands Estate but that she shall enjoy both the one and the other Co. 4. 4. so they are not within the meaning of this Act because not made for her Joynture And she shall not forfeit the profits of two parts of them although she may forfeit the profits of 2 parts of her Dower which she hath out of the residue of her Husbands Estate If Lands be conveyed to the Wife before marriage for part of her Joynture and other Lands are conveyed to her after Marriage in full satisfaction of her Jointure and she refuse those conveyed after Marriage in this Case she may retain those conveyed before Marriage and yet be endowed of the residue of her Husbands Estate For that the Lands first setled on her were not for her whole Joynture Co. 1. Inst 35. Co. 4. 3. Forfeiture of the profits of part of her Jointure And if she be a Popish Recusant Convict and her Husband none and she conform not within the year next before his death she shall forfeit the profits of two parts both of such Dower and of the Estate so conveyed to her before her Marriage And as the Wife shall have her Joynture and Dower both Where the Jointure is pursuant to the Statute in such Cases where the Joynture is not pursuant to the Statute of 27 H. 8. so in some Cases likewise where she hath a Joynture pursuant to that Statute As where she hath such a Joynture made to her by the Husband before Marriage and he afterwards endow her ad ostium Ecclesiae or if she hath a Joynture made by the Husband in his life time and after his death his Heir or Feoffee assign other Lands to her in Dower or the Heir plead to her in a Writ of Dower ne unque seisi que Dower c. or nient accouple in Loyal Matrimony or any other Plea save Joynture in bar of Dower and it be found against him In these Cases the Wife shall hold her Joynture and yet be endowed and if she be an Offender within this branch of the Act shall forfeit the profits of two parts of her Joynture and Dower both But if a Widow Dower not forfeited who is indowed of the Lands of her deceased Husband takes a second Husband who is no Popish Recusant Convicted by whom she hath a Jointure and she becomes a Popish Recusant Convict and the second Husband dies and the Wife is an Offender within this Act In this Case she shall not by force thereof forfeit the profits of two parts of such Dower and Jointure both but only of her Jointure For that her Dower is not out of the Lands of her said Husband that is of the Husband in whose life time she stood convicted and after such Conviction forbore to conform c. within the year next before his death And be it further Enacted by the Authority aforesaid Stat. Sect. 12. A Popish Recusant shall be disabled as an Excommunicate person That every Popish Recusant which is or shall be convicted of Popish Recusancy shall stand and be reputed to all intents and purposes disabled as a person lawfully and duly Excommunicated and as if he or she had béen so denounced and excommunicated according to the Laws of this Realm until he or she so disabled shall conform him or her self and come to Church and hear Divine Service and receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper according to the Laws of this Realm and also take the Oath appointed and prescribed in one other Act made this present Session of Parliament Intituled An Act for the better discovering and repressing of Popish Recusants And that every person or persons sued or to be sued by such person so disabled shall and may plead the same in disabling of such Plaintiff as if he or she were Excommunicated by Sentence in the Ecclesiastical Court What Conviction disables him Convicted of Popish Recusancy The Conviction mentioned here and in the other branches of this Statute seems to be intended not only of a Conviction according to the Statute of 29 Eliz. 6. or 3 Jac. 4. Stat. 29 Eliz. 6. 3 Jac. 4. upon Proclamation and default of appearance but of a Judgment likewise upon an Indictment or popular Suit on the Statute of 23 Eliz. 1. or an Action of Debt c. by the King alone by force of the Statute of 35 Eliz. 1. 35 Eliz. 1. For Convicted in relation to these three last mentioned remedies is to be taken for adjudged or attainted Vide for this the Statute of 23 Eliz. 1. Sect. 5. And the Popish Recusant who is either convicted upon Proclamation and default of appearance or against whom Judgment is had upon an Indictment popular Suit or Action of Debt c. at the Kings Suit is hereby disabled as an Excommunicate person and liable to all other the penalties and incapacities inflicted by this Act on a Popish Recusant convicted To what intent as excommunicate Reputed to all intents and purposes disabled as a person c. Excommunicated And not reputed to all intents as an Excommunicate person as Wingate tit Crown numb 135. misrecites the Statute For as it seems by the words of the Statute the Popish Recusant convicted is not to be reputed as a person Excommunicate in any other respect or to any other intent but as to his disability only And yet the Opinion of the Court of Kings Bench Mich. 11 Jac. in the Case of Griffith and others seems to be to the contrary and that a Popish Recusant convicted may by force hereof be attached upon a Writ of Excommunicato capiendo Excommmnicato capiendo Bulstrode 2. 155. Tamen Quaere whether this Statute being a penal Law and speaking only of the point of disability shall be extended by Equity to other Cases or the Recusant be attached upon an Excommunicato capiendo unless he be first actually Excommunicated A Popish Recusant Convict is disabled as an Excommunicate person Witness to be a Witness in any Cause between party and party By Coke Chief Justice Bulstrode 2. 155. This disability but quousque May plead the same in disabling of such Plaintiff This disability in the Popish Recusant convicted is but quousque c. until he Conform c. and take the Oath of Allegiance And the Defendant must in this Case plead the Conviction at large and must as in a Plea of Excommengement demand if the Plaintiff shall be answered Hetley 18. which is the legal conclusion of a Plea in disability of
which the King hath already done or in respect of what the Recusant after his conviction hath omitted to do And therefore if a man be convicted of recusancy upon a popular Suit or an Action of Debt at the Kings Suit alone in which Cases the penalty of Twenty pounds per month is not appropriated to the King for the time to come and he pays the penalty recovered or if he be Convicted upon Indictment and after such Conviction duly pays the Twenty pounds per month into the Exchequer and the King makes no Election to take the two third parts of his Estate in lieu thereof such Recusant may by this Proviso in either of those Cases Sue or Prosecute for any of his Lands Tenements Leases Rents Annuities or Hereditaments whatsoever notwithstanding his Conviction For when the penalty recovered is satisfied or the forfeiture appropriated to the King is duly paid into the Exchequer his Lands c. are not to be seized by force of any Law for Recusancy unless the King make his Election to have the two parts And until that Election they cannot in the sense of this Proviso be said to be Lands to be seized or taken into the Kings hands for that the King cannot have the two parts and the Twenty pounds per month both But if the King make no such Election and the Twenty pounds per month be duly paid into the Exchequer the Recusant is to hold and enjoy all his Lands Tenements c. as if he had never been convicted And during that time there can be no distinction made between the two parts and the Recusant's third part so that in this Case the Recusant must either be enabled to Sue and Prosecute for all his Lands c. or none and to think the latter of these were to render this Proviso nugatory and vain But when once the King hath seized the two thirds for recusancy either by way of Election or for nonpayment of the penalty then the Recusant is enabled to Sue only for the other third part whether in the hands of the King or of a common person Stat. Sect. 14. And for that Popish Recusants are not usually Married nor their Children Christned nor themselves Buried according to the Law of the Church of England but the same are done superstitiously by Popish Persons in secret whereby the days of their Marriages Births and Burials cannot be certainly known Stat. Sect. 15. Marriages of Popish Recusants Be it further Enacted by Authority of this present Parliament That every man being or which shall be a Popish Recusant convicted and who shall be hereafter Married otherwise then in some open Church or Chappel and otherwise then according to the Orders of the Church of England by a Minister lawfully Authorized shall be utterly disabled and excluded to have any Estate of Fréehold into any the Lands Tenements and Hereditaments of his Wife as Tenant by the Courtesie of England And that every Woman being or which shall be a Popish Recusant convicted and who shall be hereafter Married in other form then as aforesaid shall be utterly excluded and disabled not only to claim any Dower of the Inheritance of her Husband whereof she may be endowable or any Iointure of the Lands and Hereditaments of her Husband or any of his Ancestors but also of her Widows Estate and Frank-bank in any Customary Lands whereof her Husband died seized and likewise be disabled and excluded to have or enjoy any part or portion of the goods of her said Husband by vertue of any custom of any County City or Place where the same shall lie or be And if any such man shall be Married with any Woman contrary to the intent and true meaning of this Act which Woman hath or shall have no Lands Tenements or Hereditaments whereof he may be intituled to be Tenant by the Curtesie Then such man so Marrying as aforesaid shall forfeit and lose One hundred pounds the one half thereof to be to the Kings Majesty his Heirs and Successors and the other moiety to such person or persons as shall Sue for the same by Action of Debt Bill Plaint or Information in any of the Kings Majesties Courts of Record wherein no Essoin Protection or Wager of Law shall be admitted or allowed Where the Husband is no offender Every man being or which shall be a Popish Recusant Convicted A Man who is no Popish Recusant Convicted marries a Woman who is a Popish Recusant Convicted in other form then is here appointed He shall not forfeit any thing or be disabled by this Act. By a Minister lawfully Authorized Minister lawfully Authorized In an Information upon this Statute for being married otherwise then is here appointed it is sufficient for the Defendant to say that he was married c. by a Minister lawfully Authorized without shewing in particular how or where or when but if a Traverse come of the other side then the Defendant is in his Rejoynder to shew the time and place Vide Bulstrode 2. 50. 52. Creswich against Rookesby Every Woman being or which shall be a Popish Recusant Convicted A Woman who is no Popish Recusant Convicted Where the Wife is no offender marries a Man who is a Popish Recusant Convicted in other form than is here appointed she shall not be disabled by this Branch of the Act For the forfeiture or disability extends only to the Popish Recusant Convicted and as in the Case before recited the Woman only shall be disabled so in this Case the Man only shall forfeit or be disabled Or any Ioynture of the Lands and Hereditaments of her Husband or any of his Ancestors Joynture A Feme who is a Popish Recusant Convicted and married otherwise then is appointed by this Act is not therefore disabled to have any sort of Joynture as Wingate tit Crowne n. 136. mistakes but only such Joynture as is of the Lands or Hereditaments of her Husband or some of his Ancestors and therefore if in consideration of some service done or for some other consideration and for the advancement of A. in marriage Lands are setled upon his intended Wife for her Joynture by some person besides A. who is not any of the Ancestors of A. such Joynture is not within this Act nor shall the Wife although a Popish Recusant Convicted and married otherwise c. be disabled by any strained construction of this Law to enjoy the Lands after her Husbands death For a penal Law shall be taken strictly and not by equity or intendment especially where the intent of the Lawmakers doth not appear to the contrary and the Case such as doth but rarely happen And 't is a good Rule in the construction of Statute Laws which the late Lord Chief Justice Vaughan hath laid down in his Argument of Bole and Hortons Case Mich. 25. Car. 2. viz. when the words of a Law extend not to an inconvenience rarely happening and do to those which often
happen it is good reason not to strain the words farther then they reach but to say it is casus omissus and that the Law intended quae frequentius accidunt Vaughan 373. And yet there is no question but such Lands are a Joynture The extent of the word and if made with the Wives assent before marriage shall bar her Dower by the Statute of 27 H. 8. cap. 10. which speaks of an Estate or purchase made to the Wife for her Joynture generally not saying by whom Mr. Sheapard therefore in his Epitome p. 523. falls very short of the full description of a Joynture when he limits it only to be of the Franktenement of her Husband which restriction dayly experience confutes For that it is commonly made by the Ancestor of the Husband of Lands in which the Husband never had any Franktenement nor perhaps ever shall have Custom By vertue of any custom of any County City or Place And not of Cities only as 't is restrained in the late additions to Dalton cap. 85. tit Recusants Sect. 48. Where in force The Custom here mentioned viz. that the Wife shall have a certain portion of her Husbands goods after his decease is of force throughout the whole Province of York and in divers other places of England and if he gives them away from her by his Will the bequest is void Vide Swinburne Part 3. cap. 14. p. 151. 152. What goods are not within the Act. A Woman is an offender within this Branch and her Husband by his last will gives her all or part of his goods not claimable by custom she is not by this Act disabled to enjoy them after his death For the words here are plainly restrictive to such goods as she claims by custom Where not Tenant by Curtesie not One hundred pounds forfeited Whereof he may be intituled to be Tenant by the Curtesie A Popish Recusant convicted marries an Inheritrix in other form then is appointed by this Act The Wife dies without issue born alive of the marriage In this Case although the Husband is not intituled to be Tenant by the Courtesie yet the possibility which he once had to be so intituled seems to satisfie the intent of the Act and he shall not forfeit the hundred pounds So that here is another Casus omissus For it may so happen that a Popish Recusant Convict may have a great Portion in money with his Wife and but a small Estate in Lands with her perchance but a few Acres yet if he be an Offender within this branch the Lands for that he may be intituled to be Tenant of them by the Courtesie shall save his hundred pounds and if his Wife die having had no issue born alive he is wholly exempted out of the Act and cannot be punished either way Stat. Sect. 16. Baptism of Popish Recusants Children And that every Popish Recusant which shall hereafter have any Child born shall within one month next after the Birth thereof cause the same Child to be baptized by a lawful Minister according to the Laws of this Realm in the open Church of the same Parish where the Child shall be born or in some other Church near adjoyning or Chappel where Baptism is usually administred or if by infirmity of the Child it cannot be brought co such place then the same shall within the time aforesaid be baptized by the lawful Minister of any of the said Parishes or places aforesaid upon pain that the Father of such Child if he be living by the space of one month next after the Birth of such Child or if he be dead within the said month then the Mother of such Child shall for every such Offence forfeit one hundred pounds of lawful money of England one third part whereof to be to the Kings Majesty his Heirs and Successors one other third part to the Informer or him that will sue for the same and the other third part to the Poor of the said Parish to be recovered by Action of Debt Bill Plaint or Information in any of the Kings Majesties Courts of Record wherein no Essoign Protection or Wager of Law shall be admitted or allowed And if any Popish Recusant man or woman Stat. Sect. 17. Burial of Popish Recusants not excommunicate not being Excommunicate shall be buried in any place other than in the Church or Churchyard or not according to the Ecclesiastical Laws of this Realm That the Executors or Administrators of every such person so buried knowing the same or the party that causeth him to be so buried shall forfeit the sum of twenty pounds the one third part whereof shall be to our Soveraign Lord the King the other third part to the Informer or him or them that will sue for the same and the other third part to the Poor of the Parish where such person died to be recovered by Action of Debt Bill Plaint or Information in any of the Kings Majesties Courts of Record wherein no Essoign Protection or Wager of Law shall be admitted or allowed The Exception here of a Popish Recusant Excommunicate That is not actually Excommunicate is intended only of one actually Excommunicated and not of him who is a Popish Recusant convicted who shall not be reputed as a person Excommunicate to this intent but only as to the point of a disability as hath been said Sect. 12. So that if any Popish Recusant not actually Excommunicate be buried elsewhere or otherwise then is here mentioned although he were convicted yet 't is an Offence punishable by this Law And be it further Enacted by this present Parliament Stat. Sect. 18. Children departing the Realm That if the Children of any Subject within this Realm the said Children not being Soldiers Mariners Merchants or their Apprentices or Factors to prevent their good Education in England or for any other cause shall hereafter be sent or go beyond Seas without Licence of the Kings Majesty or six of his Honourable Privy Council whereof the principal Secretary to be one under their Hands and Seals The forfeiture of such as depart That then all and every such Child and Children so sent or which shall so go beyond the Seas shall take no benefit by any gift conveyance descent devise or otherwise of or to any Lands Tenements Hereditaments Leases Goods or Chattels until he or they being of the age of eighteén years or above take the Oath mentioned in an Act of Parliament made this present Session Intituled An Act for the better discovering and repressing of Popish Recusants before some Iustice of Peace of the County Liberty or Limit where such Parents of such Children as shall be so sent did or shall inherit and dwell And that in the mean time the next of his or her kin which shall be no Popish Recusant shall have and enjoy the said Lands Tenements Hereditaments Leases Goods and Chattels so given conveyed descended or devised until such time
as the person so sent or gone beyond the Seas shall conform him or her self and take the aforesaid Oath and receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper And after such Oath taken and conforming of himself and receiving the Sacrament of the Supper of the Lord he or they which have so received the profits of the said Lands Tenements Hereditaments Goods and Chattels or any of them shall make account of the profits so received and in reasonable time make payment thereof and restore the value of the said Goods to such person as shall so conform him or her self as aforesaid And of him that sendeth them And that all such persons as shall send the said Child or Children over Seas without Licence as aforesaid unless the said Child or Children be Merchants or their Apprentices or Factors Marriners or Soldiers shall forfeit one hundred pounds to be divided had and recovered in thrée equal parts whereof the one third part shall be to the King his Heirs and Successors the other third part to such as shall sue for the same and the other third part to the Poor of such Parish where such Offender doth inhabit or remain by Action of Debt Bill Plaint or Information in any the Kings Majesties Courts of Record wherein no Essoign Protection or Wager of Law shall be admitted or allowed Next of kin who The next of his or her kin It hath been a great Question formerly whether the Mother can be said to be of kin to the Child and it hath been held in the negative as well by the Common Lawyers as Civilians as appears by the Case in 5 E. 6. called the Duke of Suffolks Case and that of Browne and Shelton Bro. tit Administr ' 47. But the Law is now held to be otherwise viz. That the Mother shall be taken to be of kin to the Child and that in a nearer degree then is the Brother or Sister And that she shall be preferred in the Case of an Administration upon the Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 5. and of Guardianship by the Statute of Marlebridge where a man dies seized of Lands holden in Socage Which later Opinion agreeth with that of Littleton in his tenures fo 1. where he saith That the Parent is nearer of blood to the Child then the Uncle vide Co. 1. Inst 88. And in Ratcliffes Case Co. 3.40 the Duke of Suffolks Case is denied to be Law So that if any Child be sent or go beyond the Seas contrary to this Act his Mother shall be preferred before his Brother or Sister and as next of kin may have and enjoy his Lands c. unless she be a Popish Recusant For next of kin And who not or next of blood shall not be accounted here by course of descent but as in the Case of a purchase where a Remainder is limited to the next of blood or kin And therefore if a man hath issue three Sons A. B. and C. and dieth A. and B. have issue each of them a Son and die The Son of B. goeth beyond the Seas contrary to this Act In this Case C. the youngest Uncle shall by force of this Act have and enjoy the Lands of the Offender until his Conformity and not the Son of A. the elder Uncle For that C. hath in him jus propinquitatis as being the Uncle and so nearer of kin then the Cousin german And yet the Son of A. is heir at Law jure representationis as being the Son of the eldest Brother Vide Co. 1. Inst 10. Palmer 304 305. Periman versus Pierce Shall have and enjoy the said Lands c. What is forfeited It was held by Montague and Hobart Chief Justices Pasch 15 Jac. in Tredway's Case That if a person goes beyond the Seas contrary to this Act yet the State of the Land is not forfeited nor setled in the next of kin but vests in the heir himself who is the Offender For the Statute saith not that he shall not take by descent but only that he shall take no benefit by descent and that therefore this Statute differs from those of 5 R. 2. of consenting to Ravishment Stat. 5 R. 2. 11 H. 7. Sale by the heir and 11 H. 7. of discontinuances by Women And Hobart said That if the Heir beyond Sea bargain and sell the Land descended to him he shall prevent the next of kin if he hath not entred And if he hath entred the Land shall be taken from him Quaere of this for Tanfeild Chief Baron seemed to be of a contrary Opinion in the main point and held that the State of the Land is setled by this Act in the next of kin Ley 59. Note in the Report of this Case of Tredway it s said to be the meaning of this Act that the profits of the Land should be received by the next of kin during the Offenders Non-conformity But these words have and enjoy seem to imply some what more and that the next of kin shall have the Land it self All such persons as shall send the said Child or Children c. Here Wingate tit Crown numb 139. mistakes the person who shall forfeit the hundred pounds Forfeiture of 100 l. applying it to the Child who goes beyond Sea and not to the person who sends him Stat. Sect. 19. The forfeiture of those already gone beyond the Seas And for that many Subjects of this Realm being neither Merchants nor their Factors nor Apprentices Soldiers nor Marriners are of late gone beyond the Seas without Licence and are not as yet returned Be it further Enacted by the Authority of this present Parliament That if any of the said persons so gone beyond the Seas without Licence which are not yet returned shall not within six months next after their return into this Realm then being of the age of Eighteén years or more take the Oath above specified before some Iustice of Peace of the County Liberty or Limit where such person shall inhabit or remain that then every such Offender shall take no benefit by any gift conveyance descent devise or otherwise of or to any Lands Tenements Hereditaments Goods or Chattels until he or they being of the said age of Eightéen years or above take the said Oath and that likewise in the mean time the next of kin to the person so offending which shall be no Popish Recusant shall have and enjoy the said Lands Tenements Hereditaments Goods and Chattels so given conveyed descended or devised until such time as the person so offending shall conform himself and take the aforesaid Oath and receive the said Sacrament of the Lords Supper And after such conforming taking of the said Oath and receiving of the said Sacrament he or they that shall have so received the profits of the said Lands Tenements Hereditaments Goods and Chattels shall make account of the profits so received and in reasonable time make payment thereof and of the value of such Goods and Chattels to