Argument.
In these five last wills mentioned (Sarlys, Byx, Hunt, Hubberd and Staces) what means that doubt and question in the Testators, whether their devises (of houses and lands) were good, or would hold and stand firm in Law, had there been such a Custome, and had not the Law been clear otherwise in this case, as well in Kent as elswhere?
I observe also, that in the interim of 27. and 32. H. 8. some few (and indeed but very few) wills there are in the Registers at Canterbury, wherein lands are devised: some with Feoffment, and some without, at least with∣out mention made of any. As for the former, those with Feoffment, I find the most of them dated, though in or after the year 27. yet before the sixth of May 28. year of that King, until when the Act was not to come in force. Besides, happily the Feoffment was made be∣fore the Statute, and so could not be revoked (as I con∣ceive) without the Feoffees consent. As for the rest (those without mention of Feoffees) some of them were of our City (Canterbury) or the like places, where by particular Custome they might devise. Others (happily) had Feoffments, although not mentioned. If not, they were no other (I conceive) than wills de facto, or de bene esse, made: nor did or could otherwise,