[62] Lowe v. Joliffe, 1 Black.  J. p. 366.

[63] Burrow, 1147.  Zouch, ex dimiss.  Woolston, v. Woolston.

[64] In this single point Holt did not concur with the rest of the judges.

[65] 1st Siderfin, p. 431.

[66] Interest reipublicae ut maleficia ne remaneant impunita.

[67] Love’s Trial, State Trials, Vol.  II. p. 144, 171 to 173, and 177; and Foster’s Crown Law, p. 235.

[68] Coppendale v. Bridgen, 2 Burrow, 814.

[69] Vide supra.

[70] Girdwood’s Case, Leach, p. 128.  Gordon’s Case, Ibid. p. 245.  Lord Preston’s Case, St. Tr.  IV. p. 439.  Layer’s Case, St. Tr.  VI. p. 279.  Foster’s Crown Law, p. 198.  Canning’s Trial, St. Tr.  X. p. 263, 270.  Trial of the Duchess of Kingston, St. Tr.  XI. p. 244.  Trial of Huggins, St. Tr.  IX. p. 119, 120, 135.

[71] Harrison’s Practice of Chancery, Vol.  II. p. 46. 1 Ch.  Ca. 228. 1 Ch.  Ca. 25.  Oughton, Tit. 81, 82, 83.  Do.  Tit. 116.  Viner, Tit.  Evidence (P. a.).

[72] Carpz.  Pract.  Saxon.  Crimin.  Pars III.  Quest.  CXIV.  No. 13.

[73] Ibid.  Quest.  CVI.  No. 89.

[74] 22 Jac.  I. 1624.

[75] Morris v. Pugh, Burrow, Vol.  III. p. 1243.  See also Vol.  II.  Alder v. Chip; Vol.  IV.  Dickson v. Fisher; Grey v. Smythyes.—­N.B.  All from the same judge, and proceeding on the same principles.

[76] Chesterfield v. Janssen, Atkyns’s Reports, Vol.  II.

[77] State Trials, Vol.  III. p. 170.

[78] Bis in originali.

[79] Lords’ Journals, 17 Ch.  I. Die Sabbati, videlicet, 10º die Aprilis.

[80] Dal. 80.  Pl. 18.  Anno 14 Eliz. apud Viner, Evid. p. 60.

[81] State Trials, Vol.  IV. p. 501.

APPENDIX.

No. 1.

IN THE CASE OF EARL FERRERS.

APRIL 17, 1760.

[Foster’s Crown Law, p. 188, fol. edit.]

The House of Peers unanimously found Earl Ferrers guilty of the felony and murder whereof he stood indicted, and the Earl being brought to the bar, the High Steward acquainted him therewith; and the House immediately adjourned to the Chamber of Parliament, and, having put the following question to the Judges, adjourned to the next day.

“Supposing a peer, so indicted and convicted, ought by law to receive such judgment as aforesaid, and the day appointed by the judgment for execution should lapse before such execution done, whether a new time may be appointed for the execution, and by whom?”

On the 18th, the House then sitting in the Chamber of Parliament, the Lord Chief Baron, in the absence of the Chief-Justice of the Common Pleas, delivered in writing the opinion of the Judges, which they had agreed on and reduced into form that morning.  His Lordship added many weighty reasons in support of the opinion, which he urged with great strength and propriety, and delivered with a becoming dignity.