case vane versus fletcher Lord chancellor Cowper Eq can ab pl pl sir Henry  Fletcher have a considerable estate in feesimple in Cumberland and be convert  to the Popish religion convey his estate by settlement to trustee in fee in  trust that he shall have a rentcharge thereout for his life and then in trust  to secure mrs sister portion and afterward to the use of Henry Fletcher a  remote relation and a papist for ninetynine year if he shall so long live  remainder to the trustee and their heir during the life of the say Henry  Fletcher to preserve contingent remainder remainder to his first and other son  in tail male and for want of such issue to sir Henry nephew Richard vane for  his life and so to his first c son in tail male upon condition to change his  name from vane to Fletcher with remainder over sir Henry Fletcher die without  issue and Henry Fletcher the papist have no issue and Richard vane the  remainderman together with the sister and heir at law of sir Henry Fletcher  bring their several bill set forth that Henry peer William Fletcher be a  papist be by the act of the W cap sect disable to take any real estate or any  trust thereout wherefore their respective bill pray that the respective  plaintiff shall be let into the possession of the premise peer William er p  Lord chancellor at first decline to direct a issue to try whether Henry  Fletcher be a papist at the time that this remainder shall have vest in he and  this be desire by the plaintiff but in regard the act of parliament inflict a  forfeiture and disability for which reason it be to be take strict and the say  Henry Fletcher be above eighteen year of age at the time of the make of the  settlement and so not within the clause of retrieve the estate by return to  the protestant religion which probable be intend by the parliament vide post  Vol hill v Filkin and Lord macclesfield opinion therein his lordship will not  assist the plaintiff so far as to direct a issue to try whether the say Henry  Fletcher be a papist at the time when the settlement be make vide Stephen  hospital v swan bro p c and Edward Hobson v mead bro p c and Edward OGrady v  Lord Kinsale bro p c m and Edward bro p c but leave the heir at law and the  remainderman to go on and try their ejectment upon several demise and direct  that none of the trustterms or estate in the settlement previous to the say  estate limit to Henry Fletcher the papist or mesne betwixt the papist and Mr  vane the remainderman shall be give in evidence or insist upon to the intent  it may be try whether Henry Fletcher who be strong affirm to be a papist but  have on the other side controvert it be capable of take or not and who have  the title in case Henry Fletcher the papist be not capable of take the  remainderman insist that the limitation to the papist be void therefore he be  to take present vide Carrick v errington post Vol and the heir insist that the  remainderman be not to take until Fletcher the papist shall be dead without  issue and that in the mean time the estate shall descend to the heir as  undisposed of by the person that make the settlement peer William it be  remarkable that the clause of the statute of W make to prevent the growth of  popery which say the next of kin that be a protestant shall enter and enjoy  the land during the life of the papist or until he shall conform extend only  to the case where the papist be under eighteen at the time that any land come  to he but where the papist be above eighteen when the land come to he or in  trust forhim such papist be utter disable to take and the estate void so that  in the principal case Henry Fletcher the papist be above eighteen at the time  when the limitation be make to he his next of kin make no pretention to the  estate in question also in this case there be certain customary or copyhold  land hold of the borough of Cockermouth which the say sir Henry Fletcher be  seize of and which can not pass but by surrender and on behalf of Henry  Fletcher it be say that sir Henry have do allthat lie in his power to  surrender they for he have make a letter of attorney to I S to surrender the  premise and the steward or tenant refuse to accept they insist that they ought  to keep the letter of attorney upon which they break off and no surrender be  make but Lord chancellor think this a lucky accident in favour of the heir  which equity ought not to deprive he of any more than if the copyholder and  the lord have disarm about a fine which have prevent a surrender and that this  be a voluntary conveyance be not to be assist in equity like peer William the  case of a conveyance to a wife or child vide Watts v Papal bull ante but if  the heir at law have himself do any thing to have prevent the acceptance of  the surrender that have be material beside after all it do not appear in this  case that sir h Fletcher have do all in his power for the make the surrender  for which reason the title to the copyhold premise be declare by the court to  be in the heir