With regard to the Order of Time in which the Acts are printed, the Editor hath adhered to the Plan of former Editions, though perhaps, in many Instances, the Years of the King's Reigns are not rightly stiled. The Statute de Conspiratoribus, for Example, is printed not only in Serjeant Hawkins’s, and Mr. Cay’s but in all the old Editions,[1] as the 31 Ed. I. Nevertheless it hath been said, by great Authorities, to have been made in the 21st.[2] Many Statutes likewise passed in a Sessions which began one Year, and continued to another, are stiled Acts of both Years, which in Strictness perhaps should have been stiled Acts of the first Year only. All Statutes refer to the first Day of the Session, unless it is otherwise provided by the Act.[3] Upon this Principle, it hath been held by the Court, with respect to the 22 and 23 Car. II. c. 20. that the printed Statute is false, and that it was an Act of the 22d Car. II. For though the Session extended into both Years, yet it commenced the 24th October, 22d Car. II. consequently was an Act of that Year.[4] The Editor, however, has rather chosen to adhere to the stile which has been so long in Use, that it may be deemed communis error, than take upon himself the Charge of rectifying such Inaccuracies.
In a Collection of this Extent and Importance, an enlarged, perspicuous and correct Table, is one of the most essential Requisites; therefore the Editor proposes to make a new Table or Index, alphabetically arranged. In this Table, which will be annexed to the End of the VIIIth Volume, many general Heads, omitted in former Editions, will be supplied: Many particular Articles likewise will be added, which are not taken Notice of, under the general Heads inserted in prior Editions; and Endeavours will be used to arrange the whole with such Order and Perspicuity, that the Reader may be enabled to find all the Laws at one View, on whatever Subject he may have Occasion to turn his Attention.
Here it may not be improper to take Notice, that many Statutes printed in former Editions, and continued in this, have been held, by Writers of great Name, not to be of Record. Of these, the Reader will find a long List in Coke’s 4 Inst. c. 1, Lord Hale’s Hist. of the Common Law, and the Table to Cotton’s Abridgment. Most of them however have, by the Diligence of later Inquirers, been found to be upon Record.
With respect to those mentioned by Lord Coke,[5] Prynne observes, that all of them,
- ↑ It is so printed in Berthelet’s Edit. 1543—Likewise in Rastall’s Abr. 1583—Also in Pulton’s Kalendar, 1617—And lastly, in Rastell’s Statutes at Large, 1618.
- ↑ See 2 Inst. 562.—and Holt’s Argument. Savil vers. Roberts, 1 Ld Raymond 378.
- ↑ See 4 Inst. 25.
- ↑ It may not be improper to add that the Courts at Westminster, are bound to take Notice of the Beginning of all Parliaments. But they take no Notice of Adjournments, though heretofore Adjournments and Prorogations were considered as the same Thing: And it was said by Treby Chief Justice, in the Case of Birt and Rothwell, that the Word Prorogation was not found upon the Rolls, till the Time of Edward the Fourth.[n 1] Their Effects however are, at this Day, essentially different. See Birt, qui tam vers. Rotwell. 1 Lord Raym. 210 and 343.
- ↑ 20 Ed. 3. (N. B. It is printed as the 18. in the Stat. Books.) 27 Ed. 3. c. 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8. (N. B. Cotton says nothing of the 4th Cap.) 37 Ed. 3. c. 7 & 19. 2 R. 2. Stat. 1. c. 5. 2 R. 2. Stat. 2. c. 3.
7 R. 2.
- ↑ In this Point, the learned Judge appears to have concluded too hastily; for we meet with the Word Prorogation on the Rolls of the eighth of Hen. 6. See Rot. Parl. 8 Hen. 6. nu. 16.
excepting
