328 READING ON THE STATUTE OF USES. 



that time began to embrace too far, and was used for vexation; 

 yet, nevertheless, it made scruple to give remedy against the 

 heir, being in by act in law, though he were privy ; so that 

 it cannot be that uses had been in any great continuance 

 when they made that question ; as for the case of matri- 

 monii prodocuti, it hath no affinity with uses ; for where 

 soever there was remedy at the common law by action, it 

 cannot be intended to be of the nature of a use. 



And for the book commonly vouched of 8 Ass. where 

 Earl calleth the possession of a conuzee upon a fine levied 

 by consent and entry in autre droit, and 44 of E. III. where 

 there is mention of the feoffors that sued by petition to the 

 king, they be but implications of no moment. So as it 

 appeareth the first practice of uses was about R. II. his 

 time ; and the great multiplying and overspreading of them 

 was partly during the wars in France, which drew most of 

 the nobility to be absent from their possessions ; and partly 

 during the time of the trouble and civil wars between the two 

 houses about the title of the crown. 



Second course Now to conclude the progression of uses in courts of sta- 



oi statutes. tutes, I do note three special points. 



1. That a use had never any force at all at the common 

 law, but by statute law. 



2. That there was never any statute made directly for the 

 benefit of cestuy que use, as that the descent of a use should 

 toll an entry, or that a release should be good to the pernor 

 of the profits, or the like ; but always for the benefit of 

 strangers, and third persons against cestuy que use, and his 

 feoffees: for though by the statute of R. III. he might 

 alter his feoffee, yet that was not the scope of the statute, 

 but to make good his assurance to third persons, and the 

 other came in but ex obliquo. 



3. That the special intent unlawful and covinous was the 

 original of uses, though after it induced to the lawful intent 



so E. 3. c. 6. general and special: so 50 E. III. is the first statute I find 

 wherein mention is made of the taking of profits by one, 

 where the estate in law is in another. 



For as for the opinion in 27 H. VIII. that in case of the 

 statute of Marlebridge,the feofFor took the profits, it is but 

 a conceit: for the law is at this day, that if a man infeofF 

 his eldest son, within age, and without consideration, al 

 though the profits be taken to the use of the son, yet it is 

 a feoffment within the statute. And for the statute De re- 

 ligiosis 7 E. 1. which prohibits generally that religious per 

 sons should not purchase arte vel ingenio, yet it maketh no 



