Page:Ruffhead - The Statutes at Large, 1763.djvu/22

xviii of Acts of Parliament, they being supposed to be present at the enacting of them, either in Person, or by their Representatives.

The Point, however, concerning the Validity of an Act, extant on the Parliament Roll only, and not entered on the Statute Roll, was very amply discussed at the Trial of the Earl of Macclesfield. On that Occasion, the 11 Hen. IV, which was entered on the Parliament Roll only, was produced, and strongly insisted on by the Council against his Lordship, in their Reply. Serjeant Pengelly, in particular, maintained that the Parliament Roll was the Original, as being the Warrant for the Statute Roll, and therefore of greater Authority. In which Principle he was, in Substance, afterwards supported by Mr. West.

After much Litigation on this Head, a Question was proposed by Mr. Onflow, which decided the Matter in Controversy. The Question was. Whether the Kings Assent was not entered on the Parliament Roll? To which Mr. Holmes, the Keeper of the Tower Records, and the Person then giving Evidence, answered,—That it was entered, in these Words,—" Le Roy le voet;" which manifestly proved that the Royal Assent was compleat, and that the Act under Consideration had the full Force of a Law.

Upon this Occasion, the Point concerning the Respecuatur also came under Debate: For the Earl, among other Objections to the 11 Hen. IV. would have inferred its Invalidity, from the Circumstance of its being entered with a Respectuatur per Dominum Principem & Concilium. But this Objection did not prevail, and it was insisted that the Respite given by these Words, did not destroy its Operation.

Concerning the Authorities cited by Mr. Cay, it is to be observed, that with respect to the 25 of Hen. VIII. c. 20. though it is a Confirmation of the 23 Hen. VIII. concerning Restraints of Payments of Annates, &c. yet this Confirmation was made in