READING ON THE STATUTE OF USES. 327 



reason, because when feoffments were made, and that it 

 rested doubtful whether it were in use or in purchase, be 

 cause purchases were things notorious, and trusts were 

 things secret, the chancellor thought it more convenient to 

 put the purchaser to prove his confidence, than the feoffor 

 and his heirs to prove the use ; and so made the intend- 

 ment towards the use, and put the proof upon the pur 

 chaser. 



And therefore as uses do carry at the common law in no 37 H. 8. 9, 10. 

 reason, for whatsoever is not by statute, nor against law, ^ Ionta & ue - 



. , J , , , ,1 *p| \ Doctor & Stud. 



may be said to be at the common law ; and bom the general part 2- Ct 22. 

 trust and the special were things not prohibited by law, 

 though they were not remedied by law; so the experience 

 and practice of uses were not ancient ; and my reasons why 

 I think so are these four : 



First, I cannot find in any evidence before King R. II. 

 his time, the clause ad opus et usum, and the very Latin of 

 it savoureth of that time ; for in ancient time, about E. I. 

 and before, when lawyers were part civilians, the Latin 

 phrase was much purer, as you may see partly by Brae- 

 ton s writing, and by ancient patents and deeds, and chiefly 

 by the register of writs, which is good Latin ; whereas the 

 phrase ad opus et usum, as to the words ad opus, is a bar 

 barous phrase, and like enough to be in the penning of 

 some chaplain that was not much past his grammar, when 

 he found opus et usus coupled together, and (preceding) that 

 they govern an ablative case ; as they do indeed since this 

 statute, for they take away the land and so put them into a 

 conveyance. 



Secondly, I find in no private act of attainder, in the 

 clause of forfeiture of lands, the words, &quot; which he hath in 

 possession or in use,&quot; until about E. IV. s reign. 



Thirdly, I find the word &quot; use&quot; in no statute until 7 R. 

 II. cap. 12. Of Provisors, and in 13 R. Of Mortuaries. 



Fourthly, I collect out of Choke s speech in 8 E. IV. B E. 4. 5. 

 where he saith, that by the advice of all the judges it was 

 thought that the subpoena did not lie against the heir of the 

 feoffee which was in by law, but that the cestuy que use was 

 driven to bill in parliament, so that uses at that time were 

 but in their infancy ; for no doubt at the first the chancery 

 made difficulty to give any remedy at all, but to leave to the 

 particular conscience of the feoffee : but after the chancery 

 grew absolute, as may appear by the statute made in H. VI. 

 that complainants in chancery should enter into bond to 

 prove their suggestions, which showeth that the chancery at 



