Court is not in the habit of giving protection to or warranting private Agreements of this description, concerning the giving or accepting things in pledge, or others of this kind, made out of Court, or even in any other Court than that of the King. If, therefore, such Compacts are not observed, the King’s Court does not interfere: and hence it is not bound to answer concerning the right of different Creditors, as prior or subsequent, or respecting their privileges. But, when an immoveable thing is put into pledge, and Seisin of it has been delivered to the Creditor for a definite term, it has either been agreed between the Creditor and Debtor, that the proceeds and rents shall in the mean time reduce the Debt, or that they shall in no measure be so applied. The former Agreement is just and binding: the other, unjust and dishonest, and is that called a Mortgage, but this is not prohibited by the King’s Court, although it considers such a pledge as a species of Usury.[383] Hence, if any one die having such pledge, and this be proved after his death, his property shall be disposed of no otherwise than as the Effects of a Usurer. [Footnote 382: “In Glanville’s time,” says Sir Wm. Blackstone, “when the universal method of conveyance was by livery of seisin, or corporeal tradition of the Lands, no gage or pledge of Lands was good, unless possession was also delivered to the Creditor”—and, having referred to this part of our Author, he observes, “And the frauds which have arisen, since the exchange of these public and notorious conveyances for more private and secret bargains, have well evinced the wisdom of our ancient Law.” (2 Bl. Com. 159.)] [Footnote 383: This may be accounted for by recollecting that Usury itself, though viewed in a criminal light, was not expressly prohibited. (Ante L. 7. c. 16.) Nor was it punished, if the party amended: but, if he died in the crime, the act had then reached the point of criminality—the offence was complete, and the punishment followed. But, until that moment arrived, Usury, in strictness, was an act rather approaching to a crime, than actually amounting to it. The reasoning was founded upon principles no less artificial than false—the death of the party being purely accidental, and the crime itself being complete, without any reference to such accident, the very instant the party received the usurious remuneration. The doctrine of the Regiam Majestatem, in unison with this reasoning, and contrary to the text of Glanville, expressly forbids a Mortgage, because it was a species of Usury. (c. 5. L. 3.) The Reader will meet with some curious disquisitions in the Dial. de Scacc. (L. 2. s. 10.) where he will find the doctrine of the text illustrated in the true spirit of the times.]