As a conſequence of this doctrine of eſcheat, all lands of inheritance immediately reveſting in the lord, the wife of the felon was liable to loſe her dower, till the ſtatute 1 Edw. VI. c. 12. enacted, that albeit any perſon be attainted of miſpriſion of treaſon, murder, or felony, yet his wife ſhall enjoy her dower. But ſhe has not this indulgence where the antient law of forfeiture operates, for it is expreſſly provided by the ſtatute 5 & 6 Edw. VI. c. 11. that the wife of one attaint of high treaſon ſhall not be endowed at all.
Hitherto we have only ſpoken of eſtates veſted in the offender, at the time of his offence, or attainder. And here the law of forfeiture ſtops; but the law of eſcheat purſues the matter ſtill farther. For, the blood of the tenant being utterly corrupted and extinguiſhed, it follows, not only that all he now has ſhould eſcheat from him, but alſo that he ſhould be incapable of inheriting any thing for the future. This may farther illuſtrate the diſtinction between forfeiture and eſcheat. If therefore a father be ſeiſed in fee, and the ſon commits treaſon and is attainted, and then the father dies: here the land ſhall eſcheat to the lord; becauſe the ſon, by the corruption of his blood, is incapable to be heir, and there can be no other heir during his life: but nothing ſhall be forfeited to the king, for the ſon never had any intereſt in the lands to forfeit[1]. In this caſe the eſcheat operates, and not the forfeiture; but in the following inſtance the forfeiture works, and not the eſcheat. As where a new felony is created by act of parliament, and it is provided (as is frequently the caſe) that it ſhall not extend to the corruption of blood: here the lands of the felon ſhall not eſcheat to the lord, but yet the profits of them ſhall be forfeited to the king ſo long as the offender lives[2].
There is yet a farther conſequence of the corruption and extinction of hereditary blood, which is this: that the perſon
