brown case roger bernard appellant Francis woodley and another respondent that  December see ante p the English act I Ann for the relief of protestant  purchaser of the forfeit trustee land annul all land make to or in trust for  papist as between lessor and lessee yet it be not inconsistent that such lease  shall under the Irish popery act be allow to subsist for the benefit of a  protestant pa lease make to a papist contrary to the popery act be in respect  to any beneficial interest to himself void because he be to have no profit by  it but still he may take as a trustee for a protestant discoverer to who he  will be Accountable for the profit without contradict the true intent and  meaning of the English act decree of the Irish court of exchequer affirm  diverse law have be from time to time make both in England and Ireland for  prevent the growth of popery by restrain papist from take permanent or  beneficial interest in land and those law have already be so often both  literal and substantial state see the precede case of this title that it be  think unnecessary to repeat they any more brown er p and Contane situate in  the barony of muskerry and county of cork in Ireland do by lease date the that  of October for the consideration therein mention demise the same to Francis  Woodley father of the respondent Woodley and his heir to hold during the life  of the say Francis Woodley and of the appellant and Francis Bernard e the  second son of the lessor and the life of the long liver of they to commence  from the saint of may at the yearly rend of pound sterling Payable halfyearly  and d by the pound receiver fee without other reservation therein mention and  the lessor thereby covenant for he and his heir to renew the say lease for  ever on payment of pound sterling for every new life to be add within six  month next after the death of any of the cestuique vie in who place or stead  such new life or life shall be add and upon the nomination of such new life  and surrender of the old lease to execute a now lease accord this lease be  take by Woodley at the request of Bernard the lessor in trust for one Laurence  Mac Carthy the son of Felix Mac Carthy and Woodley declare the trust accord  but Laurence be a minor at the time of grant the lease his affair be manage  and transact by Charles Mac Carthy his uncle and guardian who as such continue  in the possession of the land and in the receipt of the rend and profit  thereof till the year or at which time Laurence attain his age of and then  enter into and enjoy the same brown Woodley the lessee be a protestant but  Felix Mac Carthy Laurence Mac Carthy and Charles Mac Carthy the father son and  uncle be all of they know papist and as such incapable by law of take any  beneficial interest in land Laurence Mac Carthy after attain neglect to pay  the rend reserve by the lease which Woodley as be the nominal lessee be oblige  to pay under his personal covenant for that purpose and several distress be  make upon the tenant and ejectment bring against the land for nonpayment of  the rend he do actual pay several sum for Laurence on account of the trust  estate and be still threaten to be sue for the rend and Mac Carthy neglect to  perform any of the covenant these motive at last determine Woodley as he be  necessary to bear the burden of the lease by stand always liable to be trouble  for the payment of the rend to seek for the benefit thereof to himself  agreeable to the law make in favour of protestant discoverer accord in  Michaelmas term Woodley cause a bill of discovery to be exhibit in the court  of exchequer in Ireland in the name of the respondent Dixon as a protestant  discoverer but in trust for himself against Laurence Mac Carthy the papist and  cestuique trust of the lease Arthur Bernard the lessor and himself as the  lessee and other pray upon the foundation of the law make against papist to be  decree as a protestant discoverer to the benefit of the lease make by Woodley  in trust for Mac Carthy the papist and to be put into possession of the land  with a account of the profit from the commencement of the lease soon after  fill this bill the respondent Dixon execute a declaration under his hand and  seal that his name be use therein in trust for Woodley and that he shall have  the sole benefit of any decree and proceed to be thereon have and that Dixon  will not any way release discharge or annul the same Woodley in demnifying he  as to all cost all the defendant answer the bill Mac Carthy admit his be a  papist and that Dixon be a protestant and both he and Woodley his trustee  admit the trust of the lease to be for Mac Carthys benefit and Bernard the  lessor state the great arrear of rend due to he from Mac Carthy which at the  time of put in his answer amount to no less than pound S d but make not the  least objection to the discovery or relief pray by the bill Dixon reply to the  answer of Mac Carthy and Woodley against who only the relief be seek but as to  Bernard he bring the cause on to hear upon bill and answer and the cause be at  issue Dixon full prove himself a protestant and Mac Carthy a papist and on the  that of June the cause be hear when Dixon as a protestant discoverer be decree  to the full benefit of the lease make by Bernard to Woodley and of the land  thereby demise during the term there by grant under the rend condition and  agreement therein mention with the full benefit of the clause for renewal  together with a account of the profit brown of the land from the time of fill  the bill as also his cost of suit to be recover against the brown er p  defendant and a injunction be direct to issue to the sheriff of the county of  cork to give Dixon peaceable possession of the premise in question this decree  be enrol and the respondent Dixon be by a injunction grant on the decree and  direct to the sheriff of the county of cork on the that of the same month put  into possession of the land in trust and for the use of Francis Woodley the  respondent father under the precede declaration of trust but no cost be ever  pay under this decree by the appellant father or any of the other defendant  except Woodley only for who benefit it be obtain Francis Bernard one of the  life name in the lease die in January and Francis Woodley the nominee and  another of the life name in the lease die within a fortnight afterward have  make his will and thereby devise his estate and interest in the demise land to  his son the respondent Woodley then a minor subject to a annuity and certain  legacy and appoint Elizabeth Woodley his wife and William Johnson executor and  also appoint Elizabeth Woodley the respondent woodley mother to be guardian of  the respondent during his minority soon after the death of the respondent  father Elizabeth Woodley as guardian of the respondent apply to the appellant  to know when he will receive the fine and renew the lease but the appellant  put her off till he shall come to the summer assize at cork and before that  time he fall dangerous ill whereupon mrs Woodley after wait a considerable  time for his recovery and the time for renewal be almost expire in the  beginning of August write a letter to the appellant to know when he will be  ready to receive his fine but receive no answer she on the that of that month  send Mr Joseph Harrisan on the respondent behalf to the appellant house about  eighteen mile from cork to make he a tender of pound be two renewal fine and  Mr  Harrison accord carry with he together with the old lease a draught of a  new lease peruse by counsel and a clerk to ingross the same if the appellant  shall approve of it and on the same that of August he tender the pound to the  appellant who still remain confine to his chamber as the renewal fine for add  two life in the place of the two life fall the last of which have fall on the  that of February and produce a draught of the new lease at the same time and  nominate the life of the respondent and Margaret Woodley his sister in the  place of the say Francis Bernard and Francis Woodley brown and Mr Harrison  have previous pay the rend in arrear produce to the appellant two receipt for  all the rend due to the first of may precede the one from Richard Baldwin who  be entitle to a yearly chief rend out of the demise land and the either from  Daniel Connor agent for Mr Francis Bernard to who father the land have be  among several other mortgage and to who part of the rend have be some time  before by appointment of the appellant usual pay but the appellant refuse to  renew the lease upon the single pretence that the fine be not tender within  the six month limit by the original lease for that purpose notwithstanding the  time be elapse but two day only videlicet the excess in the six month incur  between the that of February and the that of August follow and though it be  through the appellant own neglect and his indisposition that the lease be not  renew before and notwithstanding Mr Harrison offer to pay interest for the  fine for the two day elapse beyond the six month limit by the covenant for  renewal soon after this refusal the appellant be a man of fortune and  influence in the county of cork and take advantage of the respondent woodley  minority prevail on most of the tenant of the demise land to attorn to he and  harass and distress such as refuse upon which Mr Harrison on behalf of the  respondent Woodley and in order to take off all pretence for such proceed on  the that of November pay the appellant the half year rend due the saint of  that month for which the appellant refuse to give any other receipt than one  which import that he receive the sum of pound S on account of the rend of the  demise land into which the appellant have lawful reenter which receipt Mr  Harrison refuse to take though he pay the appellant the half year rend brown  er p the appellant have by these mean illegal turn the respondent Woodley and  his guardian out of possession and thereby prevent they from recover pound and  upward due from the undertenant for arrear of rend at the time of the  appellant entry a bill be in Hilary term file in the court of exchequer in  Ireland in the name of the respondent Woodley then minor by the say Elizabeth  Woodley his mother and prochein any against the appellant pray that he may be  compel to renew the lease by the addition of the two life before mention and  to account with the respondent Woodley for the surplus profit of the demise  land from the time he enter into possession the appellant put in his answer to  this bill by which he admit the original lease too Woodley the father and the  trust therefore for Mac Carthy a papist and also the decree of by which Dixon  as a trustee for the respondent be decree to the benefit of the lease with a  account of rend and profit but insist that the lease be null and void in its  creation and can not subsist for the benefit of a protestant discoverer for  that all brown the land comprise therein be part of the estate of the late  earl of Clancarthy who have be attaint for high treason commit in Ireland  against their majesty king William and queen mary during the rebellion in upon  which account the say land become vest in certain trustee appoint by a act of  parliament pass in England in the that and that year of king William III  entitle a act for grant a aid to his majesty by sale of the forfeit estate and  other estate and interest in Ireland and by a land tax in England and that the  say trustee pursuant to the power give they by that act sell the say land to  Arthur Bernard the appellant father who be seize in fee thereof by that title  at the time of the lease make to the respondent father the appellant further  insist that by a act pass in England in the first year of queen whether  entitle a act for the relief of the protestant purchaser of the forfeit estate  in Ireland etcetera papist be disable to purchase or take any estate or  interest in their own name or in the name of any other person in trust for  they of or in any the land or hereditament vest in the say trustee and that by  the say act all estate and interest take contrary thereto be declare null and  void and he crave the benefit of the say act accord for that the lease in  question have be make in trust for a papist be contrary to the say acts He  further say he be advice that the say lease be not sueable for by virtue of  the act which create the right of a protestant discoverer and therefore submit  that the respondent Woodley have no right to the land by colour of the lease  or covenant of renewal Admitted that Harrison come to his house on the that of  August be only two day after the expiration of the six month limit for the  renewal and that he say he be come to pay the fine for renew the two life  which have dropt But the appellant submit that as application be not make to  he for a renewal of the lease within the time limit by the covenant the  respondent be bar on that account of the renewal seek by his bill though  otherwise entitle to the benefit of the lease issue be join several witness be  examine in the cause and on the that of April it come on to be hear when a  objection be take by the appellant that the respondent Dixon in who name the  decree of the that of June have be obtain be not before the court upon which  objection the cause be order to stand over with liberty to amend the bill by  add party the bill be accord amend by make the respondent Dixon a party with  the proper charge as to the declaration of trust by he execute to the other  respondent of the decree of the that of June and pray a legal conveyance from  he of the premise to the respondent Woodley pursuant to that declaration brown  the respondent Dixon put in his answer and be then under the influence of the  appellant who be at the expense of put in his answer by his own attorney say  he believe he make such declaration of trust as in the bill but refer thereto  and put the respondent Woodley to the proof of it He further say that he  apprehend he declaration of trust be void in itself as be make to the  respondent father who be then trustee for a papist and admit the proceed on  the bill file in his name and that possession be give he by the sheriff of the  county of cork the cause be again hear on the that of November when it be  object brown er p by counsel for the appellant that the proper party be not  yet before the court for that Francis Bernard old son and heir of Francis  Bernard who have a mortgage upon the demise land and Winthrop Baldwin who be  entitle to a yearly chiefrent out of the same land be not party upon which  objection so unwilling be the appellant to come to a hear on the merit the  cause be again order to stand over with liberty to amend the bill by add  further party the bill be accord amend by make Francis Bernard and Winthrop  Baldwin party and charge that the mortgage be make to Francis Bernard  subsequent to the lease of and that Baldwin be entitle to the chiefrent and  pray that Francis Bernard may join with the appellant in execute a renewal of  the lease Francis Bernard the mortgagee stand out process of contempt to a  sequestration for want of a answer to the amend bill but Baldwin put in his  answer and insist that he be entitle to the chiefrent and have no objection to  the respondent woodley get a renewal of the lease the respondent Woodley have  attain his age of obtain a order to proceed in the cause in his own name and  on the d of may the cause come on a three time to be hear when the appellant  counsel come once more prepare with objection for want of party but the  respondent Woodley find there be no end of give way to these objection and  have therefore strenuous oppose the same the court upon full debate of the  matter overrule the objection and order the respondent Woodley to go on with  his cause pen the progress of this cause to a hear and while the appellant be  catch at every opportunity to retard it he take the follow method of avail  himself of his own delay videlicet he first procure a bill to be file in the  exchequer in Ireland in the name of Nicholas cue a tenant or servant of and in  trust for himself against the respondent Woodley then a minor the appellant  and Elizabeth Woodley and other as party defendant ground on the Irish act of  the d and that of whether on which the respondent woodley bill have be frame  charge the lease to have be original a trust for a papist that Francis Woodley  the respondent father have obtain the decree of in the brown name of the  respondent Dixon in trust for Felix Mac Carthy or Laurence his son both papist  and that after the decree be obtain and the respondent Dixon put into  possession the expense whereof be charge to have be defray by Mac Carthy the  respondent woodley father treat with and purchase from Mac carry his interest  in the premise for pound and therefore pray to be decree by virtue of the say  act to the benefit of the lease of and the covenant of renewal as the first  real protest ant discoverer the respondent Woodley by his mother and guardian  and she likewise in her own right put in their answer to this bill by which  they insist on the benefit of the respondent Dixon decree in and express deny  that there be any trust whatever between the respondent woodley father and Mac  Carthy relative to Dixon suit and decree that Mac Carthy so far from advance  any money to carry on that cause give all possible delay and trouble in the  prosecution thereof but that Woodley after the decree and possession obtain be  great alarm at the menace give out by Mac Carthy of take away his life and  which have already break out into such outrage commit against the tenant that  the governor have order troop to his assistance and support he on that account  and no other be prevail upon to give Mac Carthy the pound for procure his  peace and for quiet enjoyment only and not with a view of purchase any  interest whatever from Mac Carthy and say they believe this suit have be  institute by cue at the instance and expense and for the sole benefit of the  appellant brown er p while this last cause be at issue a bill be prefer in the  name of respondent Woodley and the say Elizabeth his mother against the  appellant and Nicholas cue charge inter alian that the suit thus prosecute in  the name of cue be in trust and for the benefit of the appellant and prosecute  at his sole expense this they both express admit by their answer and cue  declare himself a entire stranger to the allegation of his own bill refer  himself entire to the appellant answer in who favour he disclaim all benefit  of the proceed which have be institute in his name the appellant have be  defeat in this attempt and the respondent Woodley notwithstanding all the  delay give he in his cause still proceed to bring the same to a hear the  appellant as his last effort in Michaelmas brown term exhibit another bill in  the court of exchequer against the respondent Woodley as old son and heir of  Francis Woodley his father and against the executor of the say Francis Woodley  and also against the say Laurence Mac Carthy and John Dixon and one Edmund  dean who claim a underlease of the land in the nature of a bill of review and  reversal state the proceed in Dixon cause and the decree therein of the that  of June which he pray may be review and reverse for three sort of error  suggest to be therein apparent saint because the respondent Dixon be decree as  a protestant discoverer to the benefit of the lease though it appear upon the  face of the decree that the land be the estate of the late earl of Clancarthy  who be attaint of high treason and that by such attainder the say land be  forfeit to the crown and be by act of parliament vest in trustee and by they  sell in pursuance of the say act to the governor and company for make hollow  sword blade in England and that the say lease be therefore absolute null and  void by virtue of the several act of parliament make in England touch the  forfeiture in Ireland that be vest in the trustee of the say forfeiture and  that a protestant discoverer can have no right to the say lease or the  covenant of renewal by colour of the statute make in Ireland in the d and that  year of queen whether dly that the decree as against Arthur Bernard be without  foundation the cause have be hear as to he upon bill and answer which answer  as state by the decree do not admit that the lease or covenant of renewal be  in trust for Laurence Mac Carthy and therefore the bill ought in all event to  have be dismiss against Arthur Bernard and dly because the respondent Dixon be  award his cost by the decree against the defendant in the cause though it  appear by the decree that no cost shall in justice have be decree against the  say Arthur Bernard the respondent Woodley by his guardian put in a answer to  this bill and thereby admit the several proceed in Dixon cause but insist that  the appellant have no right at that time either as heir or executor of his  father to pray the relief seek by the bill for that Arthur Bernard his father  acquiesce under the decree of from the time of pronounce thereof to his death  and receive the subsequent accrueing rend reserve on the lease from the  respondent father and that the appellant have also receive the rend accrue on  the lease in his own time after his father death that the appellant have  likewise on the that of may cause a bill to be file in the say court of  exchequer in the name of Nicolas cue but in trust for himself pray to be  decree to the benefit of the lease so make to Woodley in trust for Mac Carthy  a papist and to the benefit of the decree obtain by the respondent Dixon for  which purpose it be by the same bill aver and affirm that the say lease and  the benefit of it do and be then real subsist for the benefit brown of a real  protestant discoverer and that the appellant cause the mid bill in cue be name  to be prosecute to a final hear and that it be dismiss with cost and that the  prosecution be carry on at the appellant own proper charge in order to obtain  the benefit of the say lease and decree where before the respondent insist  that the appellant be conclude and estopped by such act of his ancestor and  testator and also by his own act from pray the relief seek by this bill the  respondent Woodley claim the same benefit from his thus insist as if he have  express plead the same in bar of the relief so pray but if the court shall be  of opinion that the appellant be not conclude by such act of his ancestor and  testator or his own act yet the repondent insist that no error appear on the  face of the decree for which the same ought to be review and reverse so as in  any respect to prejudice or affect his right to the benefit of the say brown  er p lease under that decree and his father will for that he be advice that  the say lease and the estate and interest thereby demise under some or one of  the act of parliament in the bill mention to have be make in Ireland in the  reign of queen whether to prevent the further growth of popery be good and  valid and do subsist for the benefit of a protestant discoverer  notwithstanding the demise land be former if so they be part of the estate of  the earl of Clancarthy and on account of his attainder vest by act of  parliament make in England in trustee and by they sell as charge in the bill  and last that the appellant have in answer to the bill file against he by the  respondent Woodley long subsequent to the pronounce the decree of admit or  confess that the lease be take in trust for Laurence Mac Carthy a papist for  which and several other reason the respondent insist that the appellant be not  entitle to the relief pray by the bill and that there be no error or  imperfection in the say decree the respondent Woodley have thus full answer  the objection arise from the suppose error apparent in the decree of the  appellant in order to evade a real discussion of this defence with the person  who make it and to prevent the respondent Woodley front avail himself of  several judicial matter subsequent to the decree which he have aright to  insist upon for his defence and be proper put in issue by his answer but can  not be introduce any other way find mean to prevail upon the other respondent  Dixon who be a mere trustee for Woodley blind have so declare himself by write  under his hand and consequent have not the least personal interest in the  question to consent to the appellant put in a demurrer for he to his own bill  and by this demurrer the respondent Dixon be make to allege in general term  only that the former decree be not erroneous and that the several error allege  by this bill of review be not error apparent on the decree or such for which  the same ought to be review or reverse but that the decree brown  notwithstanding any thing allege to the contrary by the bill be valid and  ought to be perform as the appellant have prepare so his own attorney set down  this demurrer to be argue with a intention to have argue the same by the  appellant counsel and at his expense I but the respondent Woodley have lucky  come to the knowledge of these proceed he thereupon move the court to set a  side the demurrer and to be at liberty himself to make such defence in the  respondent Dixon name as he shall be advice and the respondent Woodley have in  consequence of this motion obtain by the indulgence of the court a opportunity  of support the decree of against the bill of review the demurrer prepare as it  be by the appellant himself be on the that of February allow though without  cost and the bill at the same time dismiss against the other defendant who  answer and defence be open and full go into the cause as to they have be set  down by the appellant upon his own motion to be hear on bill and answer and to  come on at the same time with the demurrer in a few day after the dismission  of this bill of review videlicet on the that of February the court of  exchequer likewise give judgement in the cause institute by the respondent  Woodley for the renewal of the lease in question and decree that the  respondent woodley bill shall be take as confess against Francis Bernard and  that the respondent as son heir and devisee of Francis Woodley decease be  entitle to a renewal of the lease make by the appellant father to the say  Francis Woodley of the land in question pursuant to the covenant of renewal  contain in the say lease for the life of himself and Margaret Woodley his  sister in the room of the say Francis Woodley and Francis Bernard decease two  of the life name in the original lease and that the appellant shall execute a  deed of renewal accord in which the defendant Francis Bernard be to join and  the appellant be to account with the respondent Woodley for the rend and  profit of the land from the time he enter into the possession thereof or into  the receipt of the rend and profit and the respondent Woodley be to account  with the appellant for the respective renewal fine which become due and  Payable by the death of the say Francis Woodley and Francis Bernard with  interest from six month next after their respective death and also for the  rend fee duty and payment reserve and make Payable by the say lease to the  time the appellant enter into possession of the say land and it be refer to  the chief remembrancer or his deputy to audit and state the account in which  all party be to brown er p have all just allowance and a injunction be to  issue direct to the sheriff of the county of cork to put the respondent  Woodley into the possession of the say land and to quiet and establish he  therein and the respondent Dixon be to execute to the respondent Woodley a  legal brown conveyance or assignment of the decree in obtain in his name as a  protestant discover in trust for the say Francis Woodley decease the  respondent woodley father and of all his right to the demise land under that  decree and the bill as against the defendant Winthrop Baldwin be dismiss with  cost but the defendant Woodley be decree to have his cost against the  appellant the decree be enrol and a injunction issue thereon to the sheriff of  cork to put the respondent Woodley into possession by virtue of which he be  accord put in possession a the saint of may soon after this decree be  pronounce the respondent Woodley carry in his charge before the remembrancer  against the appellant upon the account direct by the decree and on the saint  of February the officer report that the appellant enter into possession of the  demise land in October and prevail on the tenant to attorn to he and continue  in such possession and in receipt of the rend and profit from that time to the  saint of may and that at the time of the appellant enter into possession there  be pound S d and no more due to he on account of the rend fee duty and payment  reserve and Payable by the lease that there be due to the respondent Woodley  after credit give for the renewal fine and interest for the same till  discharge by the rend and profit of the land in question and other allowance  the sum of pound S d to this report the appellant take six conception and the  cause have be thereupon set down by the respondent Woodley to be argue on the  report and exception the same be hear on the that of June when three of the  exception be overrule and upon the three remain exception the court order the  remembrancer to deduct out of the sum report due to the respondent Woodley  three several sum of pound S d each amount together to pound S d and also a  further sum of pound S which reduce the sum report due to the respondent  Woodley to pound S d who be thereupon decree by t he court to the say  principal sum of pound S d sterling appear due as aforesaid from the appellant  together with interest for the same at pound per cent per and from that day  till pay together with the cost of suit the respondent Woodley proceed to  inrol this last decree and sue out a injunction against the appellant for  performance of the same which be serve upon he the that of August and a demand  at the same time make by the respondent Woodley of the sum decree he with the  interest which the appellant refuse to pay the court on the saint of December  follow order a attachment to issue against he for not perform the decree the  appellant however think proper to appeal from all these several decree insist  d rider W Murray that as the right accrueing to a protestant informer be  express confine and restrict to such estate brown only as a popish purchaser  himself may enjoy at or before the time of make the first Irish act d whether  and as at that particular time no popish lessee be able to enjoy or claim any  estate or title in or to the land in question in respect of the disability  introduce by the precede act pass in England saint whether so it be apprehend  that there be not nor can be any foundation whatever lie for create or raise  such a transmissible interest as may afterward be recover or sue for within  the word or meaning of the second of the Irish act make in the that year of  the same reign but though the word of this last act may be suppose to bear  such a construction as will enable a popish purchaser to taker even a qualify  interest in this case for the benefit of a protestant discoverer yet the same  ought not to be receive but reject as direct repugnant to and amount in its  consequence to a repeal of that part of the act make in England which have  before declare all such estate and interest utter void and of no effect to all  intent and purpose whatsoever and which can not be vary explain or control by  any other than a act of parliament make in great Britain on the other side it  be contend W Noel c York that the lease in question be not a voluntary grant  from the appellant father but for valuable consideration brown er p and  beneficial to the lessor that the order complain of leave the appellant as  heir of the lessor in possession of every right stipulate for by that lease  his rend his fine and every other interest be effectual preserve to he what be  recover by virtue of the decree be only to the prejudice of the beneficiary  and of the lessee who be a papist and do not complain but the struggle be  between the appellant and the respondent Woodley the one seek to avoid his own  lease for a suppose original nullity the other to support that lease and with  it the act of the lessor for the benefit of the protestant discoverer that the  subsistence and validity of this lease be now establish by repeat  determination Dixon decree in cue be dismission in the allowance of Dixon  demurrer in and the respondent woodley decree for a renewal in the same year  be all uniform determination affirmative and negative in favour of the lease  and the respondent woodley right to it the appellant or his father be the avow  party to three of these determination and the appellant the promoter and party  real interest though conceal in the four in all of they the same question be  agitate and determine as be now again bring in review for a five determination  between the same party and the popery act as well English as Irish be  immediate under consideration in Dixon cause and cue be bill be bring at the  expense and in trust for the appellant as a protestant discoverer upon the  foundation of the same Irish act on which the respondent Woodley have so often  recover nor be the acquiescence in this case of less weight or authority than  the judicial determination a interval of year and upward succeed between and  when the bill of review be exhibit brown nor be that bill bring till after the  dismission of cue be cause and the respondent woodley bill have be several  time at hear and though possible there may be no precise limitation of time to  the bring a bill of review yet court of equity will not reverse a decree after  so long a acquiescence but upon very apparent error the present appeal be  exhibit four year after the dismission of that bill of review and after a  attachment have be absolute order against the appellant for nonperformance of  the decree and yet the respondent rely not so much upon a imply acquiescence  as upon the positive act both of the appellant and his father in receive the  rend reserve by the lease for many year after and in confirmation of the  decree of at the hand of the respondent and his father for who benefit that  decree be make but to consider the question between the party as res integran  unprejudiced by all former determination acquiescence or confirmation the  objection make by the appellant be that the lease be a nullity in its creation  and can not subsist for the benefit of a protestant discoverer for that the  land demise be part of the forfeit estate of the earl of Clancarthy as such  vest in trustee appoint by the English act of parliament pass in the reign of  king William and by they sell to the appellant father and that by the English  act saint whether papist be disable to take any interest in the land vest in  the say trustee and all estate take contrary thereto be annul and consequent  the lease in question be make in trust for a papist be a nullity within this  act and the land must therefore return to the lessor to this it may be answer  that the English and Irish act refer to concern estate in Ireland only they  all tend to one and the same end namely the support and enlargement of the  English interest and protestant religion in Ireland the legislature have the  same intention in they all they be necessary dependent upon and have be  construe to bear a strict relation to each other and many judicial  determination in Ireland both in court of law and equity have be find upon  such construction the English act saint whether annul all lease of the forfeit  or trustee land as they be call make to or in trust for papist as between  lessor and lessee but it be not inconsistent that such lease shall under the  popery act of the d and that of the same reign make in Ireland be allow to  subsist for the benefit of a protestant a lease make to a papist contrary to  the popery act be in respect to any beneficial interest to himself void  because he be to have no profit by it but still he may take as a trustee for a  protestant discoverer to who he will be Accountable for the profit without  contradict the true intent and meaning of the English act and though the  parliament of Ireland have carry the matter further than the English  parliament their intention be by no mean to repeal control or weaken brown er  p the English act but to give it a additional force and carry it more  effectual into execution by make those lease or interest subsist for the  benefit of a protestant brown discoverer that the Irish act that whether  extend to all land in Ireland and trustee land as well as all other land be  equal within the purview of it for it will be as dangerous to the protestant  interest in Ireland that papist shall have permanent or beneficial interest in  land which be vest in the trustee as in any other land in that kingdom and  this be the mischief which that statute be intend to remedy that the exception  of the trustee land out of the proviso in this act operate only upon the  proviso itself to prevent papist conform before the that of December from have  the benefit of purchase and lease make of such trustee land which will have be  a direct contradiction to the English act but be not intend to take such land  out of the general purview of the Irish act which be apprehend to be perfect  consistent with the English act that this act ought to receive the most  extensive construction for the benefit of the protestant discoverer and it may  affect the constitution of that kingdom and the title of many estate there in  case the land which be vest in trustee which be of great extent and value and  have hitherto be consider as within all the act make in Ireland for prevent  the growth of popery shall now be determine not to be within those act that  the appellant have draw the same question so often into judgement after such  repeat determination and act of acquiescence and confirmation have defend  himself against a renewal by the suppose lapse of two day only in the tender  of the fine and have be guilty of such vexatious conduct in the progress of  the several cause the court think proper to punish he with cost which be  discretionary and depend upon the circumstance of the case and therefore it be  hope that the several order and decree appeal from will be affirm without  variation and with cost adequate to the great vexation which the appellant  have occasion