case Thornby against Fleetwood see S c bro p c and ed a common recovery suffer  by a papist tenant in tail for the purpose of make a marriagesettlement be  good for he be not a purchaser within the statute James c S ante S c comy Rep  S c stram S c bro p c judgement be give for the defendant in the court of  common plea and a writ of error bring in the court of king bench sir Thomas  powys argue for the plaintiff in error to the follow purpose the great and  chief though not the only question in this case be the construction that be to  be put upon the statute James c it will be material to reflect a little both  upon the end of this Act of parliament and the time when it be make as to the  end and design of it it be plain level against popery and to secure and  preserve the reform religion as to the time when it be make every one  conversant in our history know the continual struggle between the popish and  protestant interest in the time of queen Elizabeth and the education of youth  in popish seminary be think at that time a thing of dangerous consequence to  the protestant religion it be modern report provide against by a Act of  parliament in the time of queen Elizabeth but that Act of parliament prove  insufficient this Act of parliament upon which the present question depend be  make in the first session of the first parliament of king James the first it  be not therefore to be suppose that this statute relate to a matter the  parliament show such a immediate concern for modern report er p shall come  into the world still bear without life and energy this Act of parliament  consist of two part by the first the Roman Catholic be disable from acquire  anything new by the second they be disable to retain what they be already  possess of the present question depend upon the first of these it will not be  deny but that the word in the Act if the save to the posterity and in case of  conformity be out of the way be full and comprehensive enough to prevent any  estate vest in Roman Catholic it be resolve in Lord de la war be case a   a  that he never be a baron and yet the word be not strong than these in this Act  it must likewise be grant that papist be disable from take any manner of way  by statute of will c and yet the word there use be not strong than those use  in this the same word be use in statute Elizabeth c for prevention of simony  now the interpretation always put upon this Act have be that whoever come in  simoniacally by induction gain nothing a simoniacal contract have ever be  esteem a good defence to a action bring for tithe the word of the Act as to  the save to the heir be in respect of himself only but not his heir or  posterity hence it be argue that the estate must vest in the ancestor or else  the save to the posterity will be frustrate modern report in answer to this  objection it be proper to observe that this clause relate equal to good  chattel term for year case wherein the heir be not concern as well as to  inheritance descendible to the heir that therefore the same interpretation  ought to be put upon the Act in both case now it be plain absurd to understand  the Act of take the profit of good money c it be a general rule that exception  let regulan in rebus non To take out the save therefore the right of the heir  work more strong and total to the exclusion of the ancestor another rule to be  observe in the interpretation of statute be that a save or a exception in a  statute must never be so interpret as total to destroy the purview now here  the counsel for the defendant be endeavour in favour of the heir a secondary  consideration of the parliament to overthrow the primary and principal  intention of the Act videlicet the disable of the ancestor but then it will be  ask what be the use of the save clause to this it may be answer first that it  be to show that the incapacity be only personal work no corruption of blood c  nor be it alley objection against this that in this respect it be entire  unnecessary for save clause be often insert in act of parliament for the  satisfaction of ignorant people second the heir be by this mean enable to  derive his title from the father though never seize as if he have actual be  seize the interpretation contend for by they that invest the Roman Catholic  with such a interest in the estate as will enable he to alien and dispose of  the estate by recovery c at pleasure but restrain he only from take the profit  be such a one as call neither be collect from the word or design of the Act  modern report it have be before observe that these word take enjoy c be extend  to good and chattel as well as inheritance and that this be one entire clause  ought to receive all uniform interpretation but this interpretation of they  when apply to chattel be plain absurd beside this interpretation be plain  contrary to the word of the Act which be universal exclusive without any  exception or qualification whatsoever whereas accord to this interpretation he  must inherit be fast take and be owner and as such alien and dispose at  pleasure by fine c if the question be ask they who shall take the profit they  be much at a loss a plain argument that their interpretation be never think  upon by the lawmaker who otherwise will in plain and clear term have tell we  who shall take the profit as they have do in the follow Act of James c the Act  therefore be silent in this case they tell we that accord to the rule of law  in other case the crown shall take they but this be to bring the Act to just  nothing for it be clear law that alienation before seize will oust the crown  of this interest they be so liberal in bestow upon it a raym Mod a but then  however we be tell that the land interest of the papist will be lessen shall  they thus alien which be a very odd way of put people into estate in order to  get they out afterward our interpretation support the intention of the Act  inasmuch as it plain discourage parent from send their child modern report er  p for education into popish seminary since by that they be cut off from their  country and make quasi alien and outlaw person their construction be direct  contrary to all rule of interpretation observe in act of the same nature and  that whether this Act be consider either as a Act make for the advancement of  religion or as a Act modern report make for the suppress of public mischief  and promote the public good in Hobart we be tell that act of parliament make  for the advancement of religion shall in support of that intention be stretch  even beyond the word now here the word be plain with that interpretation that  best support the intention of the Act in   Rep fol several instance be put of  act of parliament make for the advancement of religion that have have a large  and liberal interpretation put upon they in poulter case b   b instance be  give of act of parliament which though criminal one have yet be extend by  equity because make for suppress of public mischief and the advancement of the  public good it can be doubt but that the Act of parliament we be now upon  deserve a large and liberal construction upon both these account their  interpretation be contrary to the rule of the civil law which be in doubt hc  law erection how word to stretch out and none but lawyer will ever have think  upon a different interpretation from that which we put upon it it be pretend  that their interpretation be make in favour of the heir but yet by this mean  the ancestor be enable to alien and so disinherit the heir which if a  protestant he will most certain do but it will be demand of we where be the  estate during the life of the person thus disable here I answer in the first  place that most certain it shall not be in the person disable if there be a  possibility that it may be elsewhere insult exhibition who to destroy woven  fabric it be a rule in the interpretation of statute that whatever be a  necessary and unavoidable consequence modern report of a Act of parliament be  as much a part of that Act as if insert as many word in the Act a hob bro Abr  coroner a there be another rule to be observe in interpret act of parliament  videlicet that where any point be plain and direct enact such a interpretation  must be hold as to render the plain design of the Act practicable  notwithstanding the rule of commonlaw shall be hereby overthrow for it be the  proper business of act of parliament to make alteration in the commonlaw  though at the same time it must be acknowledge that a Act of parliament ought  to be interpret by the rule of commonlaw as far as be consistent with the  preserve the end and design of the Act in the next place I answer that if the  land never vest in the party himself as we say it do not the king can have it  b   light b in the three place I answer it can go to the issue of the person  disable accord to that maxim of law non be haeres to live therefore it must  necessary go to he in reversion as in case of a estatetail upon failure of  issue it revert to the donor and his issue or in case of a feesimple it shall  escheat to the lord and his heir of who the land be hold but it be object if  the land be to go over to he in reversion how can the ancestor have it back  again in case be conform as it be plain provide by the Act that he shall to  this it may be say that the meaning of that clause in the Act be not that upon  conformity be shall have back what be go over and vest in another but that the  incapacity be remove by his conformity he shall from the time he so conform be  capable of inherit whatever shall fall to he in a course of descent as if he  have never be disable but suppose for the encourage of conformity that the Act  shall look backward and give he that modern report inheritance which will have  vest in he but for this incapacity now remove be it strange or difficult to  conceive that a Act of parliament may do it if a Act of parliament repeal a  Act of parliament be repeal the first Act be consequent set up again it appear  from the case of the prince of Wales c   c that for a state of inheritance to  vest and revest be not a new thing upon a Act of parliament it be say d raym d  that a Act of parliament can create a estatetail without a donor and when we  see estate limit for a particular purpose we be not to measure the validity of  such limitation by the strict rule of the commonlaw for the parliament can  control the rule of commonlaw a   a it can make a estate of freehold to cease  as if the party be dead as in case of a modern report er p parson who accept a  second benefice contrary to the statute of Henry of plurality b   b and for  this cause Lord Hobart say c hob c that judge have authority to mould  statutelaws accord to reason and best convenience to the true and best use  especial consider that the parliament proceed many time accord to natural  equity secundum horse et good which be law law without respect to legal  ceremony d hob d so that where the drift and sole intent of a Act of  parliament be most plain discern as in this case and yet that intention can be  observe be the same in a deed by construction accord to the rule of law we  ought rather to presume that the parliament in who power it be so to do  resolve to leap over and waive the mechanical rule of law and to make a  particular law for that occasion beaumonds case e hob and report   e be put by  Hobart thus John Beaumond and his wife be seize in special tail remainder to  John Beaumond in fee be alone levy a fine to Edward the six in fee which  estate come to the earl of Huntington in fee Beaumond have issue die modern  report his wife enter the earl of Huntington confirm the estate in the wife  habendum to her and the heir of the body of her and her husband and it be rule  that the confirmation wrought nothing because she have as great a estate  before and also the issue can not be make inheritable which be before bar by  their father fine and the estatetail as against they lawful give to another  and it be further resolve by way of admittance that if that remainder in fee  have not be to Beaumond himself but to a stranger the entry of the wife have  restore that remainder to the stranger and have leave nothing in the conusee  but a mere possibility so she have the tail not only for herself but to the  benefit of other estate grow out of the same root with his and yet during the  life of Beaumond the entail have be bar and all have be in the conusee and the  wife have have nothing but a possibility way line and upon this case Hobart  observe that a estatetail may cease for a time and rise again and be in  reversion may enter during the cesser of the estatetail in Littleton f   light  sect f there be case put where by the commonlaw both freehold and estatestail  shall be in abeyance videlicet in frown in consideration only of law for a  time or in other word shall cease for a time if a tenant in tail grant all his  estate to another quoad his issue this work no discontinuance but quoad  himself the reversion be in abeyance for he shall have none leave in he  against his own grant g Litt sect g if tenant in tail of land hold of the king  be attaint of felony and the king after office seize the same the estatetail  be in abeyance h   light a h if a lessee for life become profess there shall  be no occupancy but the lessor may enter for he be dead in law but upon his  deraignment the lessee may reenter modern report upon the lessor to who the  land go during his profession a roll Abr a if a tenant in tail die his wife  ensient with a son without issue the donor may enter but upon the birth of the  son the estatetail be set up again b Bedford case   b as in that case the  expectation of the birth of a son do not prevent the go of the estate to the  donor so by parity of reason the expectation of conformity in our case will  not binder the estate from go over to he in reversion in case of a feesimple  where the uncle enter before the birth of a child that afterborn child be not  entitle to the mesne profit in like mariner in the spiritual court in case of  a divorce a chain marriage the husband be not answerable for the mesne profit  of his wife estate but the life of Philip be object to we and we be tell that  he in reversion can never enter while there be issue of the tenant in tail  alive to this I answer that the ground upon which this objection be find be  much too large for accord to Hobart c hob c and sir Nicholas carew case be  quote for it it be not enough to keep out the reversioner that there be issue  unless this issue be heir as in case of the attainder of the ancestor now  Philip though he be issue yet be not such a issue as can inherit and therefore  be no more a heir in tail than a man can be say to be heir in the lifetime of  the father nay it be not enough that there be issue or a heir of the body nay  and that he may possible inherit but he must be modern report er p then  inheritable or else it will go to the reversioner if land be give to a man and  the heir male of his body and the man have issue a daughter who have issue a  son here this son be both issue and heir and yet be not inheritable because  his modern report title must be convey through all male therefore the  reversioner must have the land e   light e where a person be incapacitate to  take by descent because be be attaint or a alien or a monk if this incapacity  be take off by pardon by naturalize deraignment he shall have the land but yet  the possibility that this incapacity may be remove at the time when the  descent happen can hinder the reversioner from enter so neither can the  possibility of conformity hinder the reversioner from enter in our case  afterward this case go up to the house of lord and in the print case deliver  by the defendant the strength of the objection arise from the life of Philip  who by the special verdict be not find to be without issue be thus express  unless it appear that there be a good title in the lessor of the plaintiff the  plaintiff can recover whether the defendant have any title or not for the  plaintiff must always recover by the strength of his own title not the  weakness of the defendant it seem very strange and repugnant to all the rule  of law that there be a estatetail create to the heir male of the body of  Thomas first Lord Gerrard and there be issue of that entail yet in be who may  also have issue male the duchess of Hamilton shall claim by virtue of the  remainder to the right heir of Charles Lord Gerrard who settle the estate  while that estatetail have a continuance her remainder be to take place upon  the death of Lord Thomas and all his issue male and it seem still more  difficult for her to do this under a Act of parliament which be so far from  give anything to her that it express preserve the right of the offender  posterity which be endeavour to be prevent and destroy by her and that in the  very clause that lie the disability upon the ancestor modern report and  although there be a present disability in Philip yet it be but personal and  the estatetail must continue in he for the benefit of the issue which admit he  have none he still may have trinity term the four of George the first in the  court of chancery Thomas Lord Parker chancellor sir Joseph Jekyll Knt master  of the roll