the archbishop of Canterbury case in a prohibition in the king bench between  green and Balser the case be that in Maidstone be a religious college to which  the rectory of Maidstone be appropriate and the say college have diverse land  and tenement within the say parish of Maidstone and all be give to the king by  the statute of Edward and afterward the rectory be convey to the bishop of  Canterbury and the land parcel of the possession of the say college be convey  to the lord Cobham and now the farmer of the lord Cobham bring a prohibition  against Balser farmer of the say rectory to Whitgift archbishop of Canterbury  and in his prohibition he allege the branch of the statute of Henry concern  discharge of tithe and show that the master of the say college be seize of the  say land and of the say rectory simul semel as well at the time of the make of  the Act of Henry as at the make of the say Act of Edward and hold they  discharge of tithe and show the say Act of Edward by which the say college be  give to king Edward the six and thereupon the defendant do demurrer in law and  in this case diverse question be move if the say college come to the king as  well by the statute of Henry as by the statute of Edward for if this college  come to the king by the statute of Henry then without question the say branch  of the say Act concern the discharge of tithe extend to it and it be object by  the plaintiff counsel that the word of the say Act be general sure that all  monastery c college c which hereafter shall happen to be dissolve c or by any  other mean come to the king highness c shall be vest deem and adjudge by  authority of this parliament in the very actual and real possession of the  king c and when this college come to the king by the stat Edward it come to  the king within these word of the Act by any mean but it be answer by the  defendant counsel and resolve by the court that that can not be for several  reason when the statute speak of dissolution renounce relinquish forfeiture  give up c which be inferior mean by which such religious house come to the  king then the say latter word or by any other mean can be intend of a Act of  parliament which be the high manner of conveyance that can be and therefore  the maker of the Act will have put that in the beginning and not in the end  after other inferior conveyance if they have intend to extend the Act  thereunto but these word by other mean be to be so expound sure by any other  such inferior mean as it have be adjudge that bishop be not include within the  statute of Elizabeth cap for the statute begin with college dean and chapter  parson vicar and conclude with these word and other have spiritual promotion  these latter word do not include bishop cause how above so the statute of west  cap the word of which be statuit king quoth si abbate earlier times custodes  hospital something else domor religiosar c these latter word do not include  bishop as it be hold Phil and marry dyer for the cause aforesaid the say  clause of Henry that the say religious house shall be in the king by authority  of the same Act and the statute of Edward enact that all college c shall be by  authority of this parliament adjudge and deem in the actual and real  possession of the king so that the latter parliament be of as high a nature as  the first be and provide by express word that the college shall be by  authority of the say Act in the actual possession of the king the say college  can come to the king by the Act of Henry it be say in Henry parliament stat Br  if land be give to tenant in tail in fee his issue can be remit for the latter  Act do take away the stat de gift c the usual from of plead of they which come  to the king by the statute of Edward and by the Act of Henry do manifest the  law clear sure to plead surrender or relinquishment c army pron. interrog. ac  vigor of the statute of Henry the king be seize but to plead the Act of Edward  of chantry army pron. interrog. ac vigor of the statute of Henry be never hear  or see and for all these cause it be resolve that this college come to the  king by the Act of Edward and not by the Act of Henry the second question be  forasmuch as the say college come to the king by the Act of Edward and not by  the Act of Henry whether the say branch of discharge of tithe extend to such  college which after come to the king by any other Act and not by the Act of  Henry and it be object that the say branch shall extend to college which come  to the king by any other Act for it be say that although the preamble of the  say branch say the late monastery c yet this be not literal to be understand  of monastery only which be dissolve before the Act for late be to be construe  accord to the body of the Act sure of those which be dissolve before or which  shall come to the king afterward by the say Act so that when they be dissolve  and in the king by force of this Act this Act may call they late quoth to be  concession per senate also they say that the word of the branch itself be  general sure any monastery c college c without any limitation so that they  conceive that the word of the say branch make for they and that this clause of  discharge shall extend to all monastery c college c whoever by what mean  soever they come to the king and they say that the intent of the Act be so for  the intent of the Act be to benefit the king and to make the subject more  desirous of purchase they c against which it be say by the defendant counsel  and resolve by the court that neither the word nor the meaning of the say  branch do extend to any monastery c but to those only which come to the king  by the Act of Henry for it will be absurd that the branch of the Act of Henry  shall extend to a future Act of parliament which the maker of the Act of Henry  without the spirit of prophecy can have no foreknowledge of but this clause of  discharge of tithe shall extend only to those possession which come to the  king by the same Act and where it be say that the first word of the branch be  general the same be true but the conclusion of that branch be in as large and  ample manner as the late abbot c so that late be so intend as it have be agree  on the other side sure only of religious house which come to the king by Henry  it be clear that that branch can extend to this college which come to the king  by the Act of Edward the three question be admit that the say college have  come to the king by the stat of Henry if such general allegation of unity of  possession of the rectory and of the land in it be sufficient and it be  resolve by the court that it be not sufficient for no unity of possession  shall be sufficient within the same Act but a lawful and perpetual unity of  possession time out of mind as it be adjudge m Elizabeth in a prohibition  between Valentine knightly Esq plaintiff and William Spencer Esq defendant  where the case be the plaintiff in the prohibition show that Philip abbot of  Evesham and all his predecessor time out of mind be seize as well of the  rectory impropriate of Badby come Newman in the county of Northampton as of  the manor of Badby come Newman in Badby aforesaid in his demesne as of fee in  the right of his monastery simul semel until the suppression of the same  monastery whoever it be ration ind the say abbot and all his predecessor until  the dissolution of the same monastery have hold the say manor discharge from  the payment of tithe until the dissolution of the same house and show the  branch of the statute of Henry concern discharge from the payment of tithe and  convey the say manor to knightly and the say rectory to Spencer who libel in  the spiritual court for tithe of the demesne of the say manor against knightly  who upon the matter aforesaid bring the prohibition and it be adjudge that the  prohibition be maintainable for the say branch of the Act of Henry be make to  prevent two mischief one that otherwise all the impropriation of rectory to  house of religion have be disappropriate for if the body to which the rectory  be appropriate have be dissolve the impropriation to such body have be  dissolve also as appear by Edward Edward a Henry b f n b k l another mischief  be that whereas many religious person be discharge from the payment of tithe  some by their order as the cistercians templar hospital of saint John of  Jerusalem as appear by Elizabeth dyer some by prescription some by composition  some by the pope bull c and the great part of religious house as the say abbey  of Evesham be be find before the council of lateran and before time of memory  it will be infinite and in a manner impossible by any search to find all the  discharge and immunity which such religious house have and for this reason  also the say branch be make and the great doubt in the say case be conceive  upon this word discharge for it be say that unity of possession be not any  discharge of tithe and by consequence be not such discharge as be within the  intent of the say Act and for the force of this word discharge Edward bar  Henry b Edward b Henry b be cite but as to that it be resolve by the court  that the statute do not say discharge of tithe but discharge ofpayment of  tithe the statute do not say discharge of payment of tithe absolute but as  free as the abbot c hold it at the day of dissolution and then this word  discharge be refer to a certain time may be intend of a suspension by unity as  if a man seize of a rend seize the tenant of the land and make a feoff with  warranty the feoff shall vouch as of land discharge of the rend and yet the  rend be but suspend but every suspension be a discharge for a time and the  discharge be refer to the time of the warranty extend to the suspension quoth  vide Edward Henry a Henry a b f n b e the statute say as free as the abbot c  retain the same and it be say that it be the intent of the king and of the  maker of the Act to discharge the land of payment of tithe in such case of  unity of possession be a general case to induce purchaser the rather to  purchase the land for great prince for the infinite impossibility and the  impossible infiniteness as have be say all the discharge which such religious  house have can not be know and the same construction be make in this court  hill Elizabeth in a prohibition between John rise and William Gurling for  tithe in Flixton in the county of Suffolk see Elizabeth dyer the parson of  Peykirk's case and it be likewise resolve in the say case of knightly that  nothing can be traverse but the unity for ration ind c be but the conclusion  and the judgement of the law upon the precedent matter but it be also resolve  that if before the dissolution the farmer of the demesne have pay tithe c to  the abbot c then the intendment of the law by the reason of the say unity of  possession which ought to be time out of mind that the land be discharge of  the payment of tithe will not hold place for as Bracton say to stand  presumptioni while to make good in opposite direction but if the land be  always occupy by the abbot or demise over and no tithe at any time pay for the  same before the Act although the land be convey to one and the rectory to  another yet the land be discharge of the payment of tithe and if the farmer of  the demesne have pay tithe before the Act the same shall be plead by the  defendant in the prohibition and issue thereupon may be take as it be in the  like case Trin Elizabeth in this court between Edward grevil Esq possessor of  the demesne of the manor of Nasing in the county of Essex plaintiff and Martin  trot proprietor of the rectory of Nasing defendant be against such unity of  possession in manner and from aforesaid allege by the plaintiff in the abbot  of Waltham and his predecessor c in the rectory and demesne and with like  conclusion as aforesaid the defendant allege payment of tithe by the farmer of  the say demesne without any traverse by the rule of the court and issue be  join thereupon and it be try against trot and therefore the prohibition stand  and it be likewise resolve that although the plaintiff in the case at bar  allege that the master of the say college at the time of the make of the say  Act of Edward hold they discharge of tithe and although the land of such  religious person may be discharge of tithe by prescription as it have be late  adjudge in the case of one wright in this court or by composition c yet such  general allegation that he be discharge of tithe be not sufficient without  show how he be discharge either by prescription composition or other lawful  mean but if the land have come to the king by the statute of Henry then by  force of the say branch of discharge of the payment of tithe such general  allegation that such prior c hold the land at the time of the dissolution of  the say priory discharge of the payment of tithe without show how have be  sufficient and so be the common use in prohibition the four question in the  case at bar be whether any house which be ecclesiastical and not religious as  bishop dean and chapter archdeacon and the like shall be within the Act of  Henry for no house within the Act of Henry be say religious but such which be  regular and which consist of such person as have profess themselves and vow  three thing that be to say obedience voluntary poverty and perpetual chastity  and those be call in our law dead person in law for after such profession  their heir shall have their land and their executor or administrator their  good and that be call mors courtesy which be the reason that when a lease for  life be make always the habendum be to have and to hold to he durante vita  to sew physical scientist for it be then take that if the habendum hadbeen  durante vita to sew without say physical scientist the civil death that be to  say the entry into religion have determine it but it be resolve by the court  that no ecclesiastical house if it be not religious be within the Act of Henry  for diverse reason the word of the Act be always through the whole Act in the  copulative religious and ecclesiastical so that if it be ecclesiastical only  it be out of the Act the maker of the Act give the king as well those  religious and ecclesiastical house which be dissolve c as those which shall be  afterward dissolve but none be dissolve before the Act but only religious  house and no house ecclesiastical only for no bishopric deanery archdeaconry c  or such like ecclesiastical and secular corporation be dissolve before  therefore no ecclesiastical house which be not religious which after the Act  shall be dissolve be within the intent and meaning of the say Act it be enact  by the statute of Henry that all religious and ecclesiastical house which  after shall be dissolve c shall be in the actual possession of the king in the  same state and condition as they be at the time of the make of the say Act  upon which clause of the statute it be adjudge pasch Elizabeth rot report by  sergeant Bendloes and mich Elizabeth dyer and blow come that if a abbot after  the say Act grant the next avoidance of a advowson or make a lease for year  and afterward surrender so that by the Act the possession of the abbey ought  to be in the king in the same state and condition as they be at the time of  the make the Act and at the time of make of the Act the land and the advowson  be discharge of all interest for this reason it be adjudge in both case that  the lease and the grant be void by the say Act but if a dean and chapter and  other such ecclesiastical and secular corporation shouldbewithin the say Act  then if they shall surrender their possession they will avoid all their own  grant and lease which will be dangerous and that be one principal reason that  the college chantry c which come to the king by the act of Henry or Edward  shall not vest in the king by the Act of Henry for the mischief before for  avoid of their lease grant c and to conclude this point it be hold in the  common plea in Parret's case concern the priory of frideswide that if the  house be not religious and regular it be not within the Act of Henry and as to  the opinion of Elizabeth dyer corbet case concern the priory of Norwich it  seem that that differ much from other dean and chapter for the dean and  chapter of Norwich be once religious for they be prior and convent before and  yet that case be deny by Popham chief justice and some other of the judge for  the reason and cause aforesaid five it be hold by the court that although it  be provide by the statute of Edward that the king shall have the land of the  college c in as ample and large manner as the say priest warden c have or  enjoy the same that these general word shall not discharge the land of any  tithe for they be not issue out of land but be thing distinct from the land  for as the book be in Edward a the prior shall have tithe of land against his  own feoff of the same land and it be no good cause of prohibition to allege  unity of possession in a college which come to the king by the statute of  Edward as a man may by the statute of Henry in a abbot prior c as aforesaid  for the statute of Edward have no such clause of discharge of payment of tithe  as the statute of Henry have and therefore such perpetual unity as have be say  before will not serve upon this Act of Edward and afterward a consultation be  grant and another consultation be grant the same term in another prohibition  sue upon the same matter between green and Buffken and Laurence Tanfield and  other be of counsel with the plaintiff and the attorney general and other with  the defendant