The _Attorney-General_ first proceeded to argue that an allowance of clergy did not make a felon convict a competent witness.[36] It did not discharge him from his offence, set him _rectus in curia_, and 'make him in all respects a person fit to have the benefit and privileges of a "probus et legalis homo"' till he had passed through those methods of setting himself right in the eye of the law, that the law had prescribed. The burning in the hand under the statute of Henry VII. was not a punishment; it only showed that the branded person was not to have his clergy again. Purgation was abolished by the statute of Elizabeth, but satisfaction was not made to the law, the convict was not fully discharged from its operation, and his credit was not restored, till he was branded or pardoned. Till then 'the conviction remains upon him,' and he was not capable of being a witness. _The Solicitor-General_, Sir John Hawles,[37] followed to the same effect, and, by the order of the Court _Powys_[38] was then heard on behalf of the prisoner. He agreed with the Attorney-General that the branding under the statute of Henry VII. was only for the purpose of showing that the branded man has had his clergy once, and was not a punishment; the punishment still remained to be inflicted by the process of purgation. But purgation was abolished after the Reformation by the statute of Elizabeth 'because it was only an outward appearance and shew of purgation, and was often the occasion of very great perjuries.' The Court had power to imprison the convicted man for a year; but that was not any more a punishment and a means of restoring a man to credit than was the branding.[39] 'What we insist on is this, that the allowance of clergy sets him right in court, since purgation is abolished, and is the same thing as if he had undergone the ceremonial parts of a formal purgation'; the prisoner was to have the same benefit of his clergy as purgation would have given him before the statute, and on being allowed his clergy is to be in the same condition as if he had undergone purgation or been pardoned. The respiting of the burning of the hand till the king's pardon could be obtained was not to put him in a worse condition than he would have been in had he been actually burnt. Cases were quoted, one of which was afterwards fairly distinguished, and it was urged that the burning was only a condition precedent to the accused getting out of prison, not to his being restored to his credit.