at least contravertible, it may not be improper to re-consider the Subject, and to endeavour, at least, to throw some additional Light on those disputable Points.
In Answer to the Instance of the 10 of Hen. VI. cited in the Treatise above mentioned, Mr. Cay argues as follows:
"There does appear," saith he, "upon the Parliament Roll of the 10 Hen. VI. a Petition and Answer for the Purpose of the Payment of the Judges Wages, which I suppose the learned Author would insist was the Act of Parliament that was refused to be confirmed. But it will be hard to draw any Inference of Weight from hence: It is plain, that antiently Acts of Parliament had not the Royal Assent compleat, till they had it under the Great Seal. The King's Answer in Parliament was a full Warrant to the Lord Chancellor, to draw it up upon the Statute Roll, and put the Great Seal to it; but till that was done, it had not (antiently) the Force of a Law to bind the People. Many Bills are entered on the Parliament Roll, with the Answers to them, but with a Respectuatur also: And I think none of these are reputed to have the Force of a Law. Dissimulavimus sicut opportuit, & dictum pretensum Statutum Sigillari permisimus illa vice, are the Words of King Ed. III. 15 Ed. III. Stat. 2. See also 4 Hen. IV. c. 13. and 25 Hen. VIII. c. 20. § 2.; and Mayn. Ed. II. fol. 265. Now this Act of 10 Hen. VI. Stat. 2. never was drawn up into a Statute, nor sealed as such, but has a Respectuatur entered against it; so that if King Henry had continued in Possession of the Crown, this Act would have stood in Need of a re-enacting Force, even in his Reign, as well as in the Reign of Ed. IV." So far Mr. Cay.
Now should we admit the general Doctrine here endeavoured to be established, it would tend to invalidate the Force of some old Statutes, which have, by great Authorities, been deemed unquestionably binding. If we consult the Parliament Rolls, whereon the Petitions of the Commons are entered with the Kings Answers, we shall find, that, to Petitions of a public Nature, the King's Assent is entered in these Words, Le Roy le voet. By such Answer, the Royal Assent was compleatly given, and the Bill acquired the Force of a Law, before it passed the Great Seal, and was entered on the Statute Roll. If the Distinction may be allowed, we might say that the Parliament Roll contained the Substance, and the Statute Roll, the Form of the Law. When entered on the latter, the Tenor of it, as hath been observed, was affixed to Proclamation Writs, which were directed to the several Sheriffs, commanding them to proclaim the Act as a Law in their respective Counties: But the Act, especially if it did not require Novel Ley, as above explained, was in all Respects valid, before such Entry and Proclamation; in the same Manner as an Act at this Day, after the Royal Assent given, is a compleat Law, before it is printed: For Printing comes in Lieu of the antient Promulgation by the Sheriff. And such Method of Proclamation heretofore used, was, as Lord Chief Justice Holt[1] observes, but a mere Act of Grace. If an Offence, therefore, had been committed against an Act of Parliament, before Proclamation, the Offender had been at the King's Mercy, and he could not have pleaded Ignorance of the Law: For this manifest Reason—Because all Persons are bound to take notice
- ↑ See the Cause of the City of London vers. Vanacker, 1 Lord Raymond 501.
mory of that very able Editor, and worthy Man, to whose Labours he acknowledgeth himself greatly indebted.
