unless he causes satisfaction to be made as far as the offender possibly can; but he is not bound to satisfy men’s thirst of revenge; for all revenge ought to proceed from God, and under God from the King. Now, besides in charters, how are these offences specified? _L._ They are specified by their names, as treason, petite treason, murder, rape, felony, and the like. _P._ Petite treason is felony, murder is felony; so is rape, robbery, and theft; and, as Sir Edward Coke says, petite larceny is felony. Now if in a Parliament-pardon, or in a Coronation-pardon, all felonies be pardoned, whether is petite larceny pardoned, or not? _L._ Yes, certainly, it is pardoned. _P._ And yet you see it is not specified; and yet it is a crime that hath less in it of the nature of felony, than there is in robbery. Do not therefore rape, robbery, theft, pass under the pardon of all felonies? _L._ I think they are all pardoned by the words of the statute, but those that are by the same statute excepted; so that specification is needful only in charters of pardon, but in general pardons not so. For the statute 13 _Rich. II_, _c._ 1, forbids not the allowance of Parliament-pardons, or Coronation-pardons; and therefore the offences pardoned need not be specified, but may pass under the general word of _all felonies_. Nor is it likely that the members of the Parliament, who drew up their own pardons, did not mean to make them as comprehensive as they could. And yet Sir Edward Coke (1 _Inst._ _sec._ 745), at the word _felony_, seemeth to be of another mind. For piracy is one species of felony; and yet when certain Englishmen had committed piracy in the last year of Queen Elizabeth, and came home into England in the beginning of the reign of King James, trusting to his coronation-pardon of all felonies, they were indicted (Sir Edward Coke was then Attorney-general) of the piracy before commissioners, according to the statute of 28 _Hen. VIII_, and being found guilty were hanged. The reason he allegeth for it is, that it ought to have been specified by the name of _piracy_ in the pardon, and therefore the pardon was not to be allowed. _P._ Why ought it to have been specified more than any other felony? He should therefore have drawn his argument from the law of reason. _L._ Also he does that; for the trial, he says, was by the common-law, and before commissioners, not in the Court of the Lord Admiral, by the civil law; therefore, he says, it was an offence whereof the common-law could not take any notice, because it could not be tried by twelve men.