case EXPARTE MEYMOT december the the a commission of bankruptcy take out  against the petitioner who insist that as he be a clergyman he be not liable  to become bankrupt within the intent of any of the bankrupt statute Lord  chancellor will not supersede the commission or direct a issue but leave the  petitioner to his action at law the petitioner apply to supersede a commission  of bankruptcy take out against he insist that as he be a clergyman and be now  and have be ever since rector of the parish church of Normanton in Derbyshire  he be not liable to become bankrupt within the intent and meaning of any of  the statute make concern bankrupt Mr brown for the petitioner cite the Henry c  S whereby this enact that no spiritual person secular or regular of what  estate or degree soever shall from henceforth by himself nor by any other for  he nor to his use bargain and buy to sell again for any lucre gain or profit  in any market or fair and other place a manner of cattle corn lead tin hide  tallow fish wool wood or any manner of victual or merchandise what kind soever  they be of upon pain to forfeit Triple the value of every thing by they or by  any to their use bargain and buy to atkins er p sell again contrary to this  act and that every such bargain and contract hereafter to be make by they or  by any to their use contrary to this atkins act shall be utter void and of  none effect and the one half of every such forfeiture to be to the king and  the other half to he that will sue for the same and argue that as this act  pass before any statute of bankrupt and be still in force no subsequent act  can ever intend to include a spiritual person under the general word of the  bankrupt act and as by these act he be to be examine upon oath with regard to  the discovery of his estate it will oblige the petitioner to accuse himself  and lie he open to the penalty of the statute of Henry Mr Wilbraham of the  same side say the clergy have many privilege some belong to their person and  some to their ecclesiastical benefice therefore though in many case where  person hold land and tenement by reason whereof they be liable to be elect to  office as a reeve bailiff c yet the clergy be discharge from such service by  reason of their function and there be a writ in the register which h S for  their discharge Reg b recite quod clergyman infra sacrifice ordines agreed  price non to pluck out ad duty and Lord coke Inst upon great Charta speak of  the privilege of the clergy lie it down that they be not to be choose into any  temporal office and in Ventr there be the follow case one dr lee have land  within the level be make a expenditor by the commissioner of sewer in the  county of ken whereupon he pray his writ of privilege to the court of king  bench and it be grant for say the register man military man a god non implice  in pain of a saeculum and the ancient law be quod clergyman non to put down in  offician this be the rule as establish by the commonlaw but it have be say the  statute of bankrupt be general and therefore the clergy ought not to be exempt  but then the of Henry prohibit this order of man from exercise any sort of  trade or merchandise by buy and sell again with a view to prevent they from be  divert from the proper business of their function and their contract be Self  facto void with a severe penalty those law that have the sanction of a penalty  annex to they be more regard than act of parliament which be mere prohibitory  without any penalty can it be intend when by a former act the legislature have  prohibit the clergy from exercise any trade that they mean to include they  under the general word person and person in the bankrupt act there be not a  word in these act that seem to comprise the clergy general word in a act of  parliament may be restrain when the reason of the law seem to require it in  the ease of long v baker bolt Rep it be lie down as a rule in the construction  of statute that a general law do not make that good which be disable by a  particular statute before and in hob the case of Sheffield v Ratcliff he say  judge have a power in the construction of statute to mould they to the true  and best use accord to reason and convenience act general in word have be  construe to be but particular where the intent be particular Plowd straddle v  atkins Morgan for though the statute of h of fine be conceive in general term  and will bind corporation in general yet by construction of law the successor  of a parson vicar or any other sole corporation shall have five year to make  his claim for if by their laches they shall bind their successor it will cause  a diminution of ecclesiastical live and therefore by construction of the  general law they be except   Magdalen college case a can the bankrupt act be  say to intend the clergy when they describe person use the most secular  employment which be prohibit to the clergy and to mean those very person which  he do not describe t who by the statute of Henry be forbid to fall under that  description if this have be the construction there must have be some instance  and where the pen of a act be dubious long usage be a just medium to expound  it by for we et norma to speak be govern by usage if the petitioner shall be  adjudge a bankrupt what must be do can the commissioner examine he touch a act  of bankruptcy this be not to be do without examine into his buy and sell this  subject he to a forfeiture and the bankrupt act can never intend the power of  commissioner to examine shall be so extensive as to enable commissioner to  examine person who if they discover must subject themselves to a forfeiture  can the commissioner assign over his live No for the assignee must either  atkins er p have the whole or none so that there can be nothing leave for the  performance of divine service in this case which be of itself a argument it be  not the intention of the bankrupt act to include spiritual person beside he  may defeat such a assignment at any time for he may resign and be not oblige  to keep a curate and in another instance of sequester a live the law have  provide that enough must be leave of the benefice for the cure that the  parishioner may not be without a person to perform divine service and  therefore in case of debt if the sheriff return that d defendant be clergyman  status of pertaining to a favor  no one to have layman fee he can do no more  but then process must go to the bishop to sequester his live and in such case  as this say in Mod Walwyn v aubery the bishop may retain to supply the c re  and pay only the residue here there can be no such provision and therefore  this become a question of conveniency No general inconvenience can arise from  supersede the commission as this be the first instance since the bankrupt act  but there may be great inconvenience if it shall not be supersede because the  cure of such clergyman can be seize Mr attorney general of counsel for the  petition creditor in support of the commission say the trade of the petitioner  be a partnership with a potter in Staffordshire and there be no dispute either  as to the trade or act of bankruptcy for Mr Meymot have not venture to produce  any affidavit to contradict these fact atkins Lord chancellor stop Mr attorney  general and declare if he can show he that the petitioner have commit a plain  act of bankruptcy and have trade he will not supersede the commission because  a man have the hardiness in a court of justice to say I have be guilty of a  breach of one law and therefore release I from the breach of another the  affidavit be then read which have be make to support the commission and be  very strong for that purpose Lord chancellor there have no question be make  concern the debt of the petition creditor nor do Mr Meymot contradict his  trade his have contract this debt or his abscond and therefore the whole for  my consideration be whether a clerk in holy order be liable to a commission of  bankruptcy it be not proper for I to determine this question absolute because  it be a mere matter of law but I be of opinion ought not to supersede the  commission or direct a issue but leave the petitioner to his action at law if  I be oblige to give a opinion I be rather incline to think he may become a  bankrupt the statute of the h be rather in the nature of a prohibition and a  prohibition will not exempt he from be a bankrupt for if a man with his eye  open will break the law that do not make void the contract it be undoubted  very improper for a person to say I have break the law and therefore I be  exempt from any remedy a creditor may have against I and the petitioner can  take advantage of the breach of one law in order to avoid his be subject to  another this be different from usurious case because then both the borrower  and the lender be equal criminal or the lender rather more criminal as he take  the advantage of the borrower indigent circumstance but it be not so here for  the borrower only act in breach of the law and the lender may not know it at  the time or that he be a clergyman I will compare it to the case of a person  who have deal mere in smuggle and run of good though this be a offence and  contrary to a act of parliament yet still it will be a trade within the  meaning of the bankrupt act and such trader be liable to a commission next as  to the penalty in the statute of the h I be incline to be of opinion on this  part of the act that the contract shall be void as to the parson himself only  for it will be a most extraordinary construction of the statute that the  bargain shall be void for his own benefit and it will be very mischievous to  construe the act in such a manner many person in this kingdom deal as grazier  in buy of cattle c the seller do not know a grazier to be a clergyman shall  the bargain then be void for the parson benefit suppose in the county of Surre  ken c a parson buy a atkins quantity of hop can the vendor know that he buy to  consume only in his house and not to make a profit by retail they again if  such a contract therefore be to be make void by the statute of h it will be a  great hardship and inconvenience to vendor I cl way atkins er p mention this  to show the mischief which will result from such a construction and consequent  this part of the act ought to be so construe as to make it a penalty on  himself only next as to the objection of go on with the commission and examine  the petitioner in relation to his estate and effect in the case put before of  smuggle there be no examination of commissioner but will subject to penalty  and yet that be no reason why the commission shall not proceed for if the  bankrupt have a objection to the question he must demurrer to the  interrogatory and this court will judge of the question upon a petition or if  the bankrupt refuse to answer any question and the commissioner commit he and  the delinquent bring a habeas corpus the question must be set forth particular  in return to the habeas corpus that the judge may judge whether it be a lawful  question or not and notwithstanding all this the commissioner may undoubted  examine as to his estate and effect what he have where it lie c the second  objection be that a clergyman be a spiritual preferment and that his live be  not within any of the statute relate to bankrupt this be indeed a more  doubIful question to be sure there be in the bankrupt act no word that relate  mere to ecelesi astical estate and therefore it be say if the whole live be  seize it may prevent serve the cure but I do not know this will be the  consequence saint a become facias de good issue against the parson and the  sheriff return no one layman fee then a special become facias de good Church  rites issue to the bishop and he apportion a part to serve the cure and the  remainder be take under the execution this rule have be constant follow but I  do not know any particular law for it and yet the court follow the rule of law  analogical but though they permit a sequestration to issue yet the bishop in  that case allot a sufficient part of the live for the service of the cure I do  not see but I give no opinion why the same method may not be follow under the  commission of bankruptcy for it do not appear to I that this will supersede  the bishop authority a parson hold a live in right of the church and it be not  for his own benefit but for the good of the church he be present to it and  therefore may proper be say to be in autre law as he be seize in right of the  church and in some respect may be compare to a executor who act in autre law  though the parson be not quite so strong a case atkins a commission of  bankruptcy former issue against a peer a earl of Suffolk for trade in wine and  though there may be some particular power that commissioner of bankrupt can  not exercise against a peer yet notwithstanding this he may be liable to a  commission of bankruptcy if he will trade and so may a member of the house of  commons though while he continue a member there be some particular power of  commissioner that can be exercise see stat Geo c Lord Cowper and Lord  Macclesfield carry it so far as to hold that infant be liable to act of  bankruptcy but it have be since determine otherwise ex part Sydebotham ante  upon the whole circumstance of the case I be of opinion the commissioner shall  proceed in the commission but so as not to prejudice any remedy the petitioner  may have by a action at law see hankey v Jones Cowp