_P._ “If a man that is innocent be accused of felony, and for fear flieth for the same; albeit that he be judicially acquitted of the felony, yet if it be found that he fled for the same, he shall, notwithstanding his innocence, forfeit all his goods and chattels, debts and duties.” O unchristian and abominable doctrine! which also he in his own words following contradicteth: “for,” saith he, “as to the forfeiture of them, the law will admit no proof against the presumption of the law grounded upon his flight, and so it is in many other cases: but that the general rule is, _Quod stabitur præsumptioni, donec probetur in contrarium_; but you see it hath many exceptions.” This general rule contradicts what he said before; for there can be no exceptions to a general rule in law, that is not expressly made an exception by some statute, and to a general rule of equity there can be no exception at all. [Sidenote: Of pardoning.] From the power of punishing, let us proceed to the power of pardoning. _L._ Touching the power of pardoning, Sir Edward Coke says, (3 _Inst._ _p._ 236), that no man shall obtain charter of pardon out of Parliament; and cites for it the statute of 2 _Edw. III_, _c._ 2; and says further, that accordingly in a Parliament roll it is said, that for the peace of the land it would help that no pardon were granted but by Parliament. _P._ What lawful power would he have left to the King, that thus disableth him to practise mercy? In the statute which he citeth, to prove that the King ought not to grant charters of pardon but in Parliament, there are no such words, as any man may see; for that statute is in print; and that which he says is in the Parliament roll, is but a wish of he tells not whom, and not a law; and it is strange that a private wish should be enrolled among acts of Parliament. If a man do you an injury, to whom, think you, belongeth the right of pardoning it? _L._ Doubtless to me alone, if to me alone be done that injury; and to the King alone, if to him alone be done the injury; and to both together, if the injury be done to both. _P._ What part then has any man in the granting of a pardon, but the King and the party wronged. If you offend no member of either House, why should you ask their pardon? It is possible that a man may deserve a pardon; or he may be such a one sometimes as the defence of the kingdom hath need of. May not the King pardon him, though there be no Parliament then sitting? Sir Edward Coke’s law is too general in this point; and I believe, if he had thought on it, he would have excepted some persons, if not all the King’s children and his heir-apparent; and yet they are all his subjects, and subject to the law as other men.