but no particular cause for the recusants travel was expressed in the license and this seems to be a good exception for the inserting into the License that the Popish recusant hath urgent or necessary occasion or business answers only the former part of this Proviso 3 Jac. 5. § 7. N. 2. which gives the former Justices power to license him if he hath necessary occasion or business to travel out of the compass of five miles but withall it ought to be mentioned in the license particularly what that occasion or business is which is the cause of the License for so this Act here 3 Iac. 5. § 7. N. 3. expressly appoints and therefore that form of a License for a recusant to travel which Dalton 379 Cap. 124. tit licenses hath set down wherein no cause is mentioned but urgent and necessary business seems too short and general and is not to be relyed on Page 210 CCXXVIII First taking his Corporal oath 3 Iac. 5. § 7. N. 4. in Mansfiel ca. Moor 836. pl. 1127. there is another oath mentioned for a Popish recusant to take before he can be licensed to travel and that is the oath of Allegiance prescribed by 3 Jac. 4. § 25. N. 1. for in Moor 836. it 's said that in an Information brought against the recusant for travelling out of the compass of five miles the defendant pleaded a licence from four Justices of peace and his plea was disallowed because among other things that did not shew that before the licence he had taken the oath of Allegiance yet Quaere of this and by what Law the omitting to take that Oath makes the Licence void but I rather think it to be a mistake and that such an exception might be moved but the plea not disallowed for that reason Page 210 211. Before the said four Justices of the Peace or any of them 3 Jac. 5. § 7. N. 4. Master Shepherd in Sure Guide Cap. 14. Sect. 5. thinks that no less than two of the four Justices of the peace can minister this Oath to the recusant But I take it to be there that any one of the four Justices may minister the Oath in this Case And there is a great difference between any Justices for that denotes the Plural number as in the subsequent clause 3 Jac. 5. § 27. N. 1. where any Justices may imprison the Offender that is any two Justices or more and Any of the Justices are here 3 Iac. 5 § 7. N. 4. which denotes the singular number and the following words who shall have Authority by vertue of this Act to minister the same may be well enough applied to any one Justice of peace Page 211. CCXXX That he hath truly informed them of the Cause of his journey 3 Iac. 5. § 7 N. 4. If an information be brought against a Popish recusant for travelling out of his compass of five miles and he plead a licence from four Justices of peace it seems necessary that he averr in his plea that the cause contained in his licence was true and real Moor 836. pl. 1127. CCXXXI Ability Page 212. This clause 3 Iac. 5. § 8. N. 9. extends not to all sorts of recusants who are convicted or have Wives who are recusants convicted as is mistaken in the Additions to Dalton Cap. 81. Sect. 46. tit Recusants but at this day only to the Popish recusant convicted or having a Wife who is a Popish recusant convicted A Popish recusant not convicted hath a Wife who is convicted of recusancy but is no Popish recusant the Husband is not disabled by 3 Iac. 5. § 9. N. 1. to exercise any publick Office or Charge for that neither the Husband is a convicted recusant nor the Wife a Popish recusant A person who is convicted of recusancy but is no Popish recusant hath a Wife who is a Popish recusant but not convicted the Husband is out of this branch of the Statute 3 Iac. 5. § 9. N. 1. for that neither the Husband is a Popish recusant nor the Wife convicted CCXXXII Women Page 213 214 215. The Issues and Profits of two parts of her Dower 3 Iac. 5. § 10. N. 1. and not of two parts of her Joynture or Dower as Wingate Coron 134 For there are divers Cases where notwithstanding 27. H. 8.10 § 6 N. 3. the Wife shall have her Dower and Joynture both and if she offend against 3 Iac. 5. § 10. N. 1. she shall forfeit the profits of two parts of both and that not only where the Joynture made to her is not warranted by 27 H. 8.10 § 6. N. 1 But in some Cases where the Joynture is pursuant and according to the Statute she shall have her Dower and Joynture both If an Estate be made of Lands to the wife for the Life of another Dower 4 Co. 3 Vernons Case Or for a thousand years if she lives so long 1 Iust 36. Or if a Rent be granted to the Wife for the life of another or for years or any other way not pursuant to 27. H. 8.10 § 6. N. 1. Bickley's Ca. 1. Anderson 288. pl. 296. and 2 Anderson 30 pl. 2. Wentworth's Case Or if an Estate be made to others in Fee or for the Wives life upon trust for her benefit 1 Inst. 36. Or if a man covenant to stand feised to the use of himself in Tayl the Rem to the use of his Wife for life Pasch 16. Jac. B. R. Wood's Ca. Or if the Husband make a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life the Remainder to another for life or years the remainder to the Wife for her life 4 Co 2. Hutt 51. Shrewell's Ca. In all these Cases altho the Lands or rent were conveyed to the Wife for her Joynture yet the Estate not being within 27 H. 8.10 § 6. N. 1. her acceptance thereof shall not barre her Dower but she shall have such Joynture and her Dower also And the reason why in the two last Cases the Wife shall not be barred of her Dower altho there be an Estate limited to her for her life is because the Estate is not in its first Creation appoynted to take immediatly after the death of the Husband and no matter which ariseth ex post facto can salve this or make it a Joynture within 27 H. 8.10 § 6. N. 3. to barre her Dower And therefore if in Wood's Câ—â—â—â—… the Husband Tenant in Tayl dyeth without issue or if in Hutt 51. he in remainder dye before the Husband or the term for years determine in the Husband's life-time so that the Wife may enter presently after his death yet because the Estate to the wife for her life was not originally limited to take immediately after his death it shall not barre her Dower quod ab initio non valet c. And as in all the Cases befo-rementioned if the Estate were made for her Joynture the Wife shall have such Joynture and Dower both so if
the arrears CLII. Seizure Page 150. 151. Where any seizure shall be had 1 Jac. 4 § 5. N. 1. That is a seizure upon either a Judgment against the Recusant by Indictment on 23 Eliz. 1. § 5. N. 1. or an Indictment and Conviction by Proclamation and default of appearance according to 29 Eliz. 6. § 5 N. 5. for the seizure of two parts of the Recusants lands was given the King by 29 Eliz. 6. § 4. N. 3. upon default of payment of the twenty pound per month in either of those Cases Page 151. Go towards the satisfaction and payment of the twenty pound 1 Jac. 4. § 5 N. 1. CLIII Hereby a Principal Branch of 29 Eliz. 6. is altered for whereas by 29 Eliz 6. § 4. N. 3. supra 99. The Queen might for non-payment of the Forfeiture have seized two parts of a Convicted Recusants Lands Nomine poenae and as a gage or penalties until the 20 l. per month had been paid and yet the profits should not have gone towards the satisfaction of the said 20 l. per month 1 Jac. 4. § 5. N. 1. was made for ease and benefit of the Recusant in that point so that now if two parts of his Lands be seized for default of payment of the forfeiture the profits received to the Kings use shall go towards satisfaction thereof and when the forfeiture is paid out of the profits the Recusant shall have his Land again unless in such Case where the King by 3 Jac. 4. § 11. N. 4. make his Election and seizeth two parts in lieu of the twenty pound per month And therefore the Resolution or Judgment said to be 1 or 2 Jac. Grayes Case cited in Beckets Case Lane 93. and by Bridgman 16 Jac. in his argument of Parker and Webbs Case 2 Rol. 25. and applied thereunto viz. that if a Recusant Convicted failes of payment of the 20 l. per month the King shall have his Lands as a gage or penalty and the profits shall not go in satisfaction thereof However it were true as the Law stood upon 29 Eliz. 6. § 4. N. 3. and before the making of 1 Jac. 4. § 5. N. 1. yet 't is not Law at this day nor could be applicable to either of chose Cases Lane 93. of Becket or 2 Rol. 25. of Parker which came to be debated long after this Act was made and the Law altered in that point Page 151. CLIV. Where any such seizure shall be had c. 1 Jac. 4. § 5. N. 3. this relative such takes in both the Seizures before mentioned viz. A Seizure upon Indictment and Judgment thereupon by 23 Eliz. 1. § 5. N. 1. and a Seizure upon Conviction on Proclamation and default according to 29 Eliz. 6. § 4. N. 3. and as in both these Cases the Recusant who failes of the payment of the 20 l. 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 CLV Dayes Page 152 153. Two parts of the Lands c. Of any such Recusant This Clause 1 Jac. 4. § 5. N. 3. 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 20 l. 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 nature of a Verdict only and not of a Judgement as was hold in 1 Rol. 94. Dr. Fosters Case 2. 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 changed by general words in the Statute which gives the forfeiture or seizure an instance whereof we have in the Case of a Recusant Tenant in Tail Indicted Convicted and Adjudged upon 23 Eliz. 1. § 5. N. 1. for his intailed Lands shall remain after his death in the Kings possession until the Arrears be satisfied and that by force of 29 Eliz. 6. § 4. N. 3. and this Statute 1 Jac. 4. § 5. N. 3. Cooperating with the Statute 33 H. 8.39 § 66. 26. N. 1. which chargeth the Lands of the Heir in Tail with debts due to the King upon a Judgment had against the Ancestor But otherwise 't is in the Case of a Praemunire upon 16 Rich. 2.5 § 2. N. 6. which saith the Lands and Tenements of the offendor shall be forfeit to the King for there his entailed 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 13 Ed. 1. Cap. 1. § N. de donis Conditionalibus 1 Inst 130.391 and 11 Co. 63. Godbolt 308. pl. Sheffield and Ratelifs Case And therefore in 26 H. 8.13 § N and 5 and 6 Ed. 6.11 § N. which makes Intailed Lands forfeitable for Treason the word Inheritance was added any Estate of Inheritance which expresly denotes Lands in Fee Tail as well as Fee simple Now there being neither in this Act 1 Jac. 4. § 5. N. 3. or that of 29 Eliz. 6. § 4. N. 3. 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 chargeth the Heir in Tail with the forfeiture due to the King upon Conviction by Proclamation and default the general words here 1 Jac. 4. § 5. N. 3. that his Lands Tenements c. shall continue in the Kings possession shall not inforce a construction in prejudice of the Heir in Tail who claimes by 13 Ed. 1.1 de donis conditionalibus 3. 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 entailed Lands upon 29 Eliz. 6. § 6. N. 1. which speaks of the full satisfaction of Arrears in Case of the death of the Recusant And the Arrearages were to be 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 here in this last Case the Heir in Tail was not bound by the Statute
can be taken to be of such Laws only as are in force in Ireland And in this Case the Offender may be tryed here in England altho his offence was committed in Ireland and that by force of 35. H 8 2. § 1. N. 2. notwithstanding the Statute of 1. and 2. Ph. and Mar. 10. § N. For it was resolved 1. Anderson 263. pl. 269. in Ororkes Case by all the Judges of England 33. Eliz. that Treason committed in Ireland may be tried in England and the like resolution was in Sr. John Perrots Case 34. Eliz. 7 Co. 23. Calvins Case 1. Inst 261.3 Inst 11. Dyer 298. Dr. Stories Case 13. Eliz. And if a Subject of England who is a Peer of Ireland be sent to any such Colledg or Seminary and offend as 27. Eliz. 2. § 5. N. 1. aforesaid he may be tryed in England by a common Jury notwithstanding the offence was in Ireland where he is a Peer contrary to 19 and 20 Eliz. Dyer 360. Where it is said that Wray Dyer and Gerard Attorny general were of opinion that a Peer in Ireland cannot be tryed in England for Treason done in Ireland because he cannot have his trial by his Peers But this is not Law and Sr. Christopher Wray protested he never gave any such opinion but held the contrary 1. Inst 261. LXXXIX◠Accessary Page 93. Upon 27 Eliz. 2. § 6. N. 1. Convey Deliver c. So that he that is barely a Messenger or Instrument to convey or deliver such mony or other releif is within the Danger of this Law as well as the Lender or Giver Page 93.94 This Clause 27 Eliz. 2. § 6. N. 4. Extends not to every person brought up in such Colledge or Seminary XC as Wingate Crown 54. mistakes For if such person afterwards quits his Colledg or Seminary and hath no longer any relation thereunto but abides elsewhere beyond the Seas he who gives or conveys releif or maintenance to him is not within this branch of the Statute because the person releived or maintained is not then of or in any Colledg or Seminary and yet perhaps this may be an offence within 3 Car. 1.2 § 1. N. 2. Page 97. Upon 27 Eliz 2. § 10 N. 1. The taking of the Oath by such Jesuit Priest or other Ecclesiastical person and his Acknowlidgment of his due obedience doth not exempt him from the danger of this Law as Wingate Crown 57. mistakes But he must continue his due obedience to the Laws made in Cases of Religion and this seems to be clearly the meaning of the Makers of this Law 27 Eliz. 2. § 10. N. 1. So that if afterwards he shew his disobedience to any of these Laws by forbearing to come to Church c. he may be Indicted as a Traytor for coming into the Realm as if he had never made any such submission and acknowledgment Page 95. Her Highness Laws 27 Eliz. 2. § 10. N. 1. That is the Laws of her and her Successors XCII Prerogatives and not only those which were made in her own time But such likewise as should be made afterwards For in Acts of Parliament King or Queen if a Soveraign Includes Successors unless there be express words of restraint to that individual person Com. 176. Hill and Grange 6 Co. 27. the Souldiers Case 12 Co. 109.1 Inst 9. and 2. Inst 742. and 3. Inst 6.4 Inst 352. And so it is of the Kings Grants if in his politick Capacity for there his Successor shall be charged tho the Grant mention neither Heir or Successor as it was adjudged in the Case of an Annuity granted to Sir Thomas Wroth during his Life Com. 457. Page 97. Being Subject of this Realm 27 Eliz. 2. § 13. N. 1. XCIII And not any person as Wingate Crown 59. mistakes Page 97. At the Queens pleasure 27. Eliz. 2. § 13. N. 1. In this Case the Offender must be proceeded against according to the course of Law XCIIII Prerogatives For he cannot be Fined or Imprisoned at the Kings pleasure by force of this Statute before he be Indicted Convicted and Judgment given against him and so were the Proceedings against Sir Thomas Figet Tit. Contempts Br. 6. do not say he was first Arraigned c. for going Armed contrary to 2 Ed. 3 § N. for 24. Ed. 3.33 saith that he was Arraigned And if in this Case on 27 Eliz. § 13. N. 1. the Offender be committed to Prison in order to his Trial and Conviction yet before Judgment or at least before Conviction he may be let to mainprize and the Fine shall be Imposed by the Justices before whom he is Convicted Justiciarii per corum Descretionem Assessent finem et non Dominus Rex per se in Camera sua neo aliter Coram se nisi per Justiciarios suos et haeo est voluntas Regis viz. per Justiciarios suos et legem suam unum est dicere 2 R. 3.11 see 4. Inst 71.179 29 Eliz. 6. Of PROCLAMATIONS XCV Courts PAge 100 101 Sir Edward Coke in Dr. Foster's Case 11 Coke 61. saith that by this Clause 29 Eliz. 6. § 2. N. 2. as hath been well observed 23 Eliz. 1. § 11. N. 1. is altered in a material point viz. that whereas by 23 Eliz. 1. § 11. N. 1. The Informer might sue the Recusant for the penalty in any Court of Record he is now by 29 Eliz. 6. § 2. N. 2. restrained from suing in the C. B. or Exchequer But this is utterly denyed to be Law as the constant practice and experience ever since 29 Eliz. 6 § 2. N. 2 sufficiently testifies and Hob. Ch. J. 204. in Pie and Lovel's Case saith that that Observation was made as he takes it by Sir Edward Coke himself But however Serjant Rol. in Dr. Fosters Case 1 Rol. 93. pl. 41. brings him in speaking in another Language and more consonant to Law viz. That the Conviction here mentioned 29 Eliz. 6. § 2. N. 2. is intended of Convictions upon Indictments only and that no other sort of Convictions or Proceedings upon 23 Eliz. 1. are mentioned or intended throughout this whole Act 29 Eliz. 6. And if so then the Informer is not concerned in this Act 29 Eliz. 6. § 2. N. 2. nor restrained thereby as to the Courts wherein he is to sue but that he may sue still in C. B. or Exchequer and so was it resolved in point in Hob. 204.205 Pie and Lovels Case where the opinion of Sir Edward Coke 1 Rol. 93. is confirmed and allowed for Law and 11 Co. 61. exploded 29 Eliz. 6. § 2. N. 2. being made only for the benefit of the Queen in her suits by Indictment Infra 118 165. 2. And the true reason is there Juices given Hob. 204.205 why those negative words and not elsewhere were added 29 Eliz. 6. § 2. N. 2. viz. not to exclude the Informer out of the C. B. or Exchequer but to restrain Justices of Peace from proceeding to
receiving of the profits there it was said Copy-holds shall be included within the general words of Lands Tenements and Hereditaments 3. And yet see Owen 37. where this Case of Sulhard and Everet is otherwise reported and that it was at length after great debate adjudged that Copyhold Lands are not within 29 Eliz. 6 § 4. N. 3. 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 lyable to such seizure CIII Process Page 107 108. If the same be taken at any Assize or Goal-delivery 29 Eliz. 6. § 5. N. 6. for if the Indictment had been taken before Justices of Peace 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 Sir Edward Plowden And therefore upon such an Indictment for Recusancy taken before Justices of Peace the Court was to remove the Indictment in B. R. and there process might have been made out against the Recusant and he Convicted for the Justices of Peace could do no more than Indict all other proceedings being taken away from them by this Statute 29 Eliz. 6 § 2. N 2.11 Co 63. and 1 Rol. 94. but now by 3 Jac. 4. § 7. N. 1. the Law is altered in this point and the Justices of Peace upon Indictments taken before them may proceed to proclaime and convict the Recusant as well as Justices of Assize and Goal delivery supra 95. N. 2. Page 108 CIV Upon such default 29 Eliz. 6. § 5. N. 6. that is upon his default of appearance of record at the next Assizes or Goal delivery For if he make such appearance 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 Crowne 66. would make it Page 108. CV As sufficient a Conviction in Law 29 Eliz. 6. § 5. N. 6. that is as if he were Convicted by Verdict but not as sufficient as if a Judgment were had against the Recusant For altho by force of 29 Eliz. 6. § 5. N. 5. and other Statutes the Conviction upon Proclamation and default of appearance make a Recusant lyable 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 and 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 23 Eliz. 1. § 5. N. 1. without Proclamation and Judgment had been given thereupon 11 Co. 65. Dr. Fosters Case Page 109 110 111. CVI. Upon 29 Eliz. 6. § 6. N. 1. It was resolved by all the Judges Mich. 37 and 38 Eliz. 1 Rol. 94. in Dr. Fosters Case that if a man had been Convicted according to this Statute 29 Eliz. 6. § 5. N. 5. by Proclamation upon default and afterwards conformed himself he should be discharged of the penalty due upon his Conviction notwithstanding these words 29 Eliz. 6. § 6. N. 1. and full satisfaction of all the Arrearages and the reason of this is given by Coke Chief Justice B. R. for that 29 Eliz. 6. § 5. N. 6. 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 the penalties are discharged upon Conformity unless such as are Converted into a debt 29 Eliz. 6. § 6. N. 1. But otherwise it would have been if there had been a Judgment against the Recusant upon Tryal or Confession upon 23 Eliz. 1. § 5. N. 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 Quaere tamen Whither these words here 29 Eliz. 6. § 6. N. 1. Due and payable are to be understood due and payable upon a Judgment only However now by 1 Jac. 4. § 1. N. 1. if the Recusant confirm either before or after Judgment he shall be discharged of all penalties 2. But the profits of the Recusants Lands taken before his Conformity shall never be restored 3. It hath been questioned upon 29 Eliz. 6. § 6. N. 1. if a Recusant Convicted by Proclamation upon default had died before seizure of two parts of his Lands whither 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 whither 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 pricipalpally grounded upon 29 Eliz. 6. § 6. N. 1. 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 Arrearges due in the sense of 29 Eliz. 6. § 6. N. 1. for the heir to pay and yet by such offendor here is generally intended all Recusants Convicted as well by Proclamation upon default as upon on 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 4. But there seems now to be no further need of this Question for 1 Jac. 4. § 3. N. 1. 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 seizure the two parts shall continue in his Majesties possession till the Arrears are paid and satisfied But this 29 Eliz. 6. § 6. N. 1. is not intended of entailed Lands For without any aid of this Proviso if a Recusant Tenant in Tail be convicted by Proclamation upon default and dieth 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
contrary to Law Whether they be Popish or other or perswades others so to do or to forbear the Church or to impugne the Kings authority in Causes Ecclesiastical she shall be imprisoned by force of this Act 35 Eliz. 1. § 1. N. 5. until she conform and submits her self but she cannot be further proceeded against so as to require her to abjure A married Woman by this Act 35 Eliz. 1. § 10. N. 2. with her husband is likewise punishable for her Recusancy by action of of Debt c. brought against her and her Husband at the Kings Suit so that 't is a great mistake to say she is not punishable by this Statute CXXIII Exile Page 124 125. Upon 35 Eliz. 1. § 13. N. 1. Every abjuration as well as that for Felony is an Exile or Banishment and if perpetual and by authority of Parliament amounts to a Civil death and therefore the Wife of a man banished or abjured for ever might sue or be sued without her Husband as was ruled in the Case of the Lady Maltravers 10 Edw. 3. and of the Lady Belknap 1 H. 4.1 and 2 H. 4.7 2. And if a man be perpetually banished by Authority of Parliament unless it be for Felony or by force of this Act 35 Eliz. 1. § 13. N. 3. his Wife shall be endowed living the Husband 3. And if he had been perpetually banished or abjured for felony the Wife should have had her joynture presently altho not her dower as was resolved 19 Edw. 1. in Weylands Case and the reason is because tho the Husband be naturally living yet he is civilly and in the eye of the Law as a dead man 4. But yet these Cases are to be understood of a Banishment or abjuration for ever and not of a Relegation or Exile for a time for in such Case neither could the Wife sue or be sued without her Husband nor could she have her Dower or Joynture during the natural life of her Husband 1 Inst 132. 2 Inst 47. and 3 Bulst 188. Wilmotes Case 1 Rol. 400. pl. 27. Moor 851. pl. 1159. 5. But if a Man be abjured by force of this Act the Wife shall not have her Dower or Joynture during the natural life of her Husband altho he be abjured for ever but she is in a worse Case than the Wife of a person perpetually banisht was at the Common Law For this Act 35 Eliz. 1. § 13. N. 2. by express words gives his Lands Tenements and Hereditaments to the Queen during his life which is to be understood of his natural life and the saving here of the Wives Dower 35 Eliz. 1. § 13. N. 3. is not intended of the Dower which she might claim at Common Law presently upon the abjuration of her Husband nor shall make void the former words of the Act by which all his Lands are given to the Queen during his natural Life but his only the usual provision made in Acts of of Parliament which create any new felony for the saving of the Dower of the Wife after the death of the Husband so that the meaning of this branch 35 Eliz. 1. § 13. N. 3. is that if the Husband refuse to abjure or abjure and refuse to depart according to this Act or return without license yet the Wife shall be indowed and the Heir inherit his lands after he is naturally dead CXXIV Days Page 125 126. Note that this Act 35 Eliz. 1. § 13. N. 4. being at first but temporary was afterwards discontinued Hutt 61 62. But is since renewed by 3 Car. 1.4 5 § 21. N. 1. and declared to be in Esse 16 Car. 2.4 § 1. N. 1. and is in full force at this day 2. And in such Case it hath been questioned if a Statute be discontinued and afterwards revived Parliament how an Indictment thereupon shall conclude whither contra formam Statuti or Statutorum For if a Statute be temporary and afterwards continued for a longer time or made perpetual and never discontinued there without doubt it shall be contra formam Statuti But it hath been held by some that where it was once discontinued and then revived there it is as if there were two several and distinct Statutes and the Indictment shall conclude contra formam Statutorum 9 Eliz. Palmers Case But others have held the contrary and that there is not any difference in the Case of a Statute at first temporary and afterwards before any discontinuance continued for a longer time or made perpetual and a Statute discontinued and then revived but that it shall in both Cases be held but as one Statute and that the conclusion shall be contrà formam Statuti and not Statutorum unless where the Act of reviver makes any addition to the former Act or increaseth the penalty or forfeiture for then there is no doubt but they are two distinct Acts of Parliament and according to this latter opinion hath the practice been in Informations upon 5 Eliz. 9. of perjury which determined 14 Eliz. and was revived 29 Eliz. 5. § 2. N. 3. and yet all Informations thereupon conclude contra formam Statuti And so as it seems ought all Indictments upon this Statute of 35 Eliz. 1. § 13. N. 4. notwithstanding its discontinuance and reviver Owen 135. Wests Case 35 Eliz. 2. Of CONFINEMENT CXXV Alien PAge 128 129. Born within any her Majesties Realms or Dominions or made denizen 35 Eliz. 2. § 2. N. 1. So that all Popish Recusants are not within this branch as Wingate Crown 78. mistakes for it extends not to an Alien who is born out of the Kings Legelance unless he be made Denizen In the late Additions to Dalt cap. 81. Sect. 14. this Clause 35 Eliz. 2. § 2. N. 1. is restrained to such as are born in England but it is clear that is extends to all the Kings Natural Subjects if they live in England altho they were born in Ireland or any other of the late Queens dominions besides England By Denizen is here to be understood an Alien who owes to the King an acquired Subjection or Allegiance whether he be made Denizen by the Kings Letters Patents or be Naturalized by Act of Parliament for Naturalization includes all the priviledges of a Denizen and something more and every one who is naturalized is thereby made a Denizen altho he that is made a Denizen by the Kings Letters Patents is not thereby Naturalized CXXVI Recusant Page 129 130. Which being then a Popish Recusant this 3.5 Eliz. 1. § 3. N. 1. is the first Penal Statute which was made against Popish Recusants by that name and as distinguished from other Recusants In the late additions to Dalt cap. 81. Sect. 7. It s said that the matter of Recusancy stands in two particulars First absenting from the Church Secondly refusing the Oaths prescribed 1 Eliz. 1. § 19. N. 4. and 3 Jac. 4. § 15. N. 1. but this description of Recusancy is either too
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
Goods or Lands cannot be seized for the forfeiture or penalty where the Wife only is Indicted and Convicted of the offence 4. A Recusant is Indicted for absenting himself from Church for twelve months and afterwards is Convicted upon that Indictment Quaere whither 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 Conviction For these words here 3 Jac. 4. § 8. N. 2. 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 Incurre 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 CLXXIV Forfeitures Page 168. Except in such Cases where the King shall c. Refuse the same 3 Jac. 4. § 8. N. 3. Jenes 24. in Standens Case if a man be Indicted and Convicted of Recusancy the King is not bound to stay till next Easter or Michaelmas Term to see whither the Recusant will tender twenty pound for every month contained in the Indictment and incurred after such Conviction for the King by 3 Jac. 4. § 11. N. 4. having his Election whither 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 waive the twenty pound per mouth for he may take his Election as soon as he will after Conviction by Jones Justice Page 168 CLXXV 169. All the Goods 3 Jac. 4. § 9. N. 2. A Recusant Convicted is Tenant for life the remainder to a stranger in Fee he in Remainder with the Recusants Assent cuts down Timber Trees and sells them in this Case the King can be no wayes entitled to the Trees 1 Bulstrode 133. Page 169. CLXXVI All other the lands c. lyable to such seizure or to the penalties aforesaid 3 Jac. 4. § 9. N. 2. Lane 105 106. Halseyes Case Lands are Conveyed to a trust for B. a Convicted Recusant Quaere whither the King may seize such Lands for the Recusants non-payment of the twenty pound per month for if he make his Election and accepts of two thirds in lieu of the twenty pound per month there is no question but such Lands are lyable to seizure for the words of 3 Jac. 4. § 11. N. 4. 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 Recusants but in 3 Jac. 4. § 9. N. 2. which relates to the seizure of two parts for non-payment the words seem to be more restrictive Page 171. CLXXVII Tho it be tendered or ready to be paid 3 Jac. 4. § 11. N. 4. by this branch of the Act a new advantage is given to the King against the Recusant for whereas by 29 Eliz 6. § 4. N. 2. the Convicted Recusant had his Election to pay the King twenty pound per month and so prevent the Seizure of the two third parts of his Lands now by 3 Jac. 4. § 11. N. 4. that Election is taken away and the choice is given to the King whether he will accept of the twenty pound per month or refuse it and seize two third parts of the Recusants Lands in lieu thereof and if the King chuseth the Lands the tender of the twenty pound per month at the Exchequer will not save the Seizure but the King shall enjoy the Lands notwithstanding Jones 24 25. Standens Case Page 171 172 173. CLXXVIII Hereditaments 3 Jac. 4. § 11. N. 4. An advowson is an Hereditament and passeth by that word 18 Eliz. Dyer 351. and is demisable by 32 H. 8.1 § N. as an Hereditament And if it be an Advowson in gross yet it may be seized by the King by 3 Jac. 4. § 11. N. 4. as part of his two parts of the Recusants Hereditaments Jones 23 24. for t is a thing valuable and shall be Assets and is extendable for the Kings debt and upon a writ of right of an Adowson there shall be a Recovery in value 9. 11. scil for every mark twelve pence Hob. 304. Britton 185. 1 Inst 185. 2. In the late additions to Dalt cap. 81. Sect. 23. 't is said that the King may refuse the twenty pound per month and take to two parts of the Recusants Lands and all the goods c. And an Advowson is not of 3 Jac. 4. § 11. N. 4. and Standens Case cited But this is a mistake as to the Clause it self and as to the point in Law and the Authority brought for it for in truth there is no such Clause in this Statute nor in any other that the King upon the refusal of the twenty pound per month should take the Recusants goods for the seizure of the Goods is given 3 Jac. 4. § 9. N. 2. where the offendor failes of payment of the twenty pound per month but not where the King dischargeth him of that payment by refusing it so that where the King refuseth the twenty pound per month the Recusants Goods cannot be seized but only two parts of his Lands The Law likewise is mistaken for if the King refuseth the twenty pound per month he may seize an Advowson as part of his two parts as hath been said so that an Advowson is within 3 Jac. 4. § 11. N. 4. and not without it And the Case of Standen is quite contrary to that opinion in the late Additions to Dalt cap. 81. Sect. 23. for Justice Jones held strongly that an Advowson was within 3 Jac. 4. § 11 N. 4 and Hobart Chief Justice and Winch declared themselves to be of the same mind and Justice Hutton denyed not that an Advowson was within it only held that the force of 3 Jac. 4. § 11. N. 4. as to an Advowson in gross is taken away by 3 Jac. 5. § 19. N. 1. which gives the presentation to the University but the three other Justices were against him and held that where the King had seized it as part of his two parts and the Incumbent dyed the King should present and not the University Infrà 250. N. 5. 3. If the King seize by Inquisition two parts of a Mannor belonging to a Recusant Convict to which an Advowson is appendant by such seizure two parts of the Advowson are likewise seized by consequence altho it be not named in the Inquisition as was resolved in the Case of the Chancellor of Cambridg and Walgrave Hob. 126.127 Moor 872. pl. 1214. And there altho the King hath title but to two parts of the Advowson yet he shall present alone by his Prerogative and so he should have done where there were three Coparceners of an Advowson two of full age and one under age and in ward to
she be an Offender within 3 Jac. 5. § 10. N. 1 and conform not within the year next before her Husband's death she shall forfeit the profits of two parts of both But otherwise it is where an Estate is given or limited by the Husband to the Wife and it 's neither expressed nor can be averred and proved to be given or limited for her Joynture or in recompense of her Dower and therefore if any of the Estates before-mentioned which are not within 27 H. 8.10 § 6. N. 1. be granted or limited to the Wife by the Husband or any other Estate for her life or otherwise which would be a good Joynture within the said Statute if it were intended for a Joynture as if a man before or after Marriage covenants to stand seised of Lands to the use of himself for life the remainder to his Wife for her life and it is neither expressed in the deed nor can be averred and 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 barre her Dower out of the Residue of her Husband's Estate but that she shall enjoy both the one and the other 4 Co. 4. So they are not within the meaning of this Act 3 Jac. 5. § 10. N. 1. because not made for her Joynture and she shall not forfeit the Profits of two parts of them altho she may forfeit the Profits of two parts of her Dower which she hath out of the residue of her Husband's 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 Joynture 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 Husband's Estate for that the Lands first settled on her were not for her whole Joynture 1 Inst 35. and 4 Co. 3. 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 in such Cases where the Joynture is not pursuant to 27 H. 8.10 § 6. N. 1. 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 assigne other Lands to her in Dower or the Heir plead to her in a Writt of Dower ne unques seisie que Dower c. or nient accouple in Loyal Matrimony or any other plea save Joynture in Barre 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 3 Jac. 5. § 10. N. 1. shall forfeit the profits of two parts of her Joynture and Dower both But if a Widow who is endowed of the Lands of her deceased Husband takes a second Husband who is no Popish Recusant convicted by whom she hath a Joynture and she becomes a Popish Recusant convict and the second Husband dyeth and the Wife is Offender within 3 Jac. 5. § 10. N. 1. In this Case she shall not by force thereof forfeit the profits of two parts of such Dower and Joynture both but only of her Joynture 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 CCXXXIII Judgment Page 216. Convicted of Popish Recusaney 3 Jac. 5. § 11 N. 1. The conviction mentioned here and in the other Branches of this Statute seems to be intended not only of a Conviction according to 26 Eliz. 6 § 5. N 5. or 3 Jac. 4. § 7. N. 2. upon Proclamation and default of appearance but of a judgment likewise upon an Indictment or popular suit on 23 Eliz. 1. § 5. N. 1. and 11. N. 1. for Conviction in relation to these three last mentioned Remedies is to be taken for adjudged or attainted supra 63. N. 2. 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 King's suit is hereby disabled as an excommunicate person and liable to all other the penalties and incapacities inflicted by this Act 3 Jac. 5. on a Popish Recusant convicted CCXXXIV Excomgent Page 216 Reputed to all intents and purposes disabled as a person c. excommunicate 3 Jac. 5. § 11. N. 1. and not reputed to all intents as an excommunicate person as Wingate Coron 135 mis-recites 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 infra 243. and yet 2 Bulstr 145.155 the opinion of the Court in B. R. Mich. 11. Jac. Griffith's Ca. seems to be to the contrary that a Popish Recusant convicted may by force of 3 Jac. 5. § 11. N. 1. be attached upon a Writ de excommunicato capeindo 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 to be a witness in any Cause between Party and Party by Coke Ch. Inst 2 Bulstr 155. Page 216 217 218. CCXXXV May plead the same in disabling of such Plaintiff 3 Jac. 5. § 11. N. 2. this disability in the Popish Recusant convicted is but Quousque c. untill he conform c. and take the Oath of Allegeance 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 the person The Defendant in debt upon an Obligation pleads that the Plaintiff is a Popish Recusant convict who replyeth nul tiel record such plea in disability of the person is peremptory and nul tiel record is an issue and judgment shall be given
two Justices Hutton and Iones were divided in opinion upon this point For Hutton held that that which is given to the University by 3 Iac. 5. § 19. N. 1. is a settled Estate and Interest and compared it to the Interest or Estate of the Lord who was to hold the Land until he was satisfied the value of the Marriage of the Heir 52 H. 3.6 § N. and to that of the Counsel by action Burnell 11 Ed. 1. pag. 35. § N. and to an Estate given to a man until C. lib. be paid In all which Cases the party hath a settled Estate and Interest in the Land But Iones contrary that the University by 3 Iac. 5. § 19. N. 1. hath only a power or liberty to present when the Church becomes void and compared it to the power given to the Bishop to present by lapse after the six months 13 Ed. 1.5 § N. and to that given by 25 Ed. 3. St pog 121. § N. of Proviso's where the Pope provides and to that given to the King by 31 Eliz. 6. § N. of Symony In which Cases no Estate or Interest is transferred but only a power or liberty granted to present For this Act 3 Jac. 5. § 19. N. 1. doth not remove the patronage from the Popish Recusant but that continues still in himself and he is Patron notwithstanding his Conviction and as Patron shall confirm a lease made by the Incumbent as he might have done before his Conviction which proves that the Interest of the Patronage is not divested out of him nor consequently settled in the University Note Altho this 3 Jac. 5. be a general Statute and 3 Jac. 5. § 18. N. 1. be general of which the Judges ought to take notice yet this part of it 3 Jac. 5. § 19. N. 1. is Special and private for that it concerns only particular persons and must be pleaded or specially found or otherwise the Judges cannot take notice of it Hob. 227. An. Needlers Case and 10 Co. 57. and 4 Co. 76. Hollands Case 13 Ed. 4.8 Page 230 231 232 233. During such time as the Patron thereof shall be and remain a Recusant convict 3 Jac. 5. § 19. N. 1. If the University bring a second Impediment upon this Statute they must averr that the Popish Recusant Convict was and remained such at the time when the Church became void For without that they do not enable themselves to present But they need not averr that he remains a Popish Recusant Convict at the time of the bringing of the second Impediment for when the presentment hac vice is once vested in the University altho the Recusant conform or dye yet the University shall present These words 3 Jac. 5. § 19. N. are words of Restraint and the Statute gives only a limited power to the University scilicet so long as the Recusant shall be patron or the patron shall be a recusant So that if before the Church becomes void the recusancy be removed from the patron by his conformity or the patronage be removed from the Recusant altho he continues a Recusant the University have lost their power to present Jones 19. And therefore if the Patron grant the advowson in Fee or in Tall or for life or years these Cases are out of the Statute 3 Jac. 5. § 19. N. 1. And altho after the Grant she becomes a Popish recusant convict and then the Church becomes void yet the University shall not present And if seems that altho the Patron make such a Grant of the advowson after his conviction and before the Church is void yet this shall barre the University for the patronage was before the Avoidance removed from the Reversion Jones 12.10 Co. 56. contrary to the opinion of Hutton who held that if a man made a lease for years of an advowson yet if afterwards he becomes a Popish recusant convict the University shall have the presentation as a future Interest given to them by this Act notwithstanding such Lease Jones 26. And the reason why by such Grants the University shall be barred is for that the Disability here inflicted on the Recusant is only a disability to present or to grant the next Avoydance which extends not to any of the Grants before-mentioned nor severs the patronage from the Patron as those other Grants do And the intent of 3 Iac. 5. § 19. N. 1. is to prevent a Presentation by the Recusant or by him to whom he should grant the Avoidance who it was presumed would present such a one as the Recusant should appoint But now when he grants the Advowson it self away that Mischief is prevented and the Statute 3 Jac. 5. § 19. N. 1. intended not in that Case to give away the presentation from the Grantee to the University Jones 19 20. And yet if the Recusants grant of the Advowson in Fee or in Tayl or for Life or Years were by Covin or in Trust on purpose to avoid this Statute and be averred and found so to be such Grant shall not barr the University 10 Co. 56. Jones 20. supra 246. N. 3. See Godbolt 216 Pl. 309. But then the Averment in such Case must not be of Covin or fraud to any other intent only but it must be averred to be to the particular intent to avoid this Statute and defeat the University of the Presentment and so it must be found by the Jury c. A man seis'd inter alia of an Advowson in gross becomes a Popish Recusant convict the King seiseth the Advowson as part of two parts the Church becomes void in this Case it was held by Hutt that the University and not the King shall present but Jones 17 held strongly to the contrary and that notwithstanding 3 Jac. 5. § 19. N. 1. the King shall have the Presentation for 3 Jac. 4. § 11. N. 4. saith that the King may take and seize two third parts of a Recusants Hereditaments under which word an Advowson is comprehended supra 178. N. 2. And altho the power or liberty of presenting is here 3 Iac. 5.19 N. 1. given the University yet that is to be intended only in such Cases where a Popish recusant convict is Patron but when the King hath seized the Advowson as part of his two parts the King is Patron and not the Recusant nor shall the title the King hath to the Advowson by 3 Jac. 4. § 11 N. 4. be divested by another Act of Parliament unless it had been given away from the King in express terms which Warb. and Winch. agreed To this it hath been objected that when 3 Jac. 5. § 18. N. 1. disables the Recusant to grant any Avoidance it disables him to grant it to the King as well as to any other person but if the Recusant may forfeit the Advowson to the King he may forfeit the avoidance to the King and every forfeiture being a Grant or Gift in Law as Com. 260.263 263. Hales Case the Recusant by consequence may grant