See the note on 9 Hen. 3, Ch. 36.
 

    Although no case has been found in which this statute has been brought into question, there is reason
to believe that it was in force in the province, as a protection to the subjects; and it would be
proper to be so continued, but for the provision in the act of 1809, Ch. 138, by which, forfeitures are
abolished.  See 4 Bl. Com. 184, 188, 1 Hale 487, Foster 283.
 

    This statute referred to 23 Hen. 8, Ch. 1, and took away the benefit of clergy from petit treason,
wilful burning of houses, murther, robbery or burglary, or other felony according to that statute.  It
was repealed in part by 1 Edw. 6, Ch. 12, and revived by 5 and 6 Edw. 6, Ch. 10.  See the note on
23 Hen. 8, Ch. 1, and 12 Hen. 7, Ch. 7.

    See 4 Bl. Com. 216 as to this statute, confirmed and made perpetual by 5 Eliz. Ch. 17.  There are
three cases of prosecutions for this crime in the provincial court, the indictments concluding against
the form of the statute.  In the two first, the verdicts were " not guilty," and on the third the grand
jury returned, "ignoramus."
    In the act of 1793, Ch. 57, respecting the punishment of criminals, this crime was mentioned as one
for which the justices might pass such judgement as the law required, or adjudge the offender to serve
on the roads, &c.  See also 1809, Ch. 138, Sect. 4, No. 8.
 

    The last part respecting forfeitures, it is presumed was in force in the province, although they would
have gone to the proprietor; but it is not proper to be incorporated, since the provision of the act of
1809, Ch. 138.