coke a biggin case Trin Elizabeth in the king bench the queen may pardon the  burn of the hand in a appeal and this discharge the imprisonment SC moor cro  Elizabeth Inst Rep Q a in appeal appeal of murder felony and other offence be  abolish by stat Geo c a between Shugborough and biggin the defendant be find  guilty of manslaughter and the question be if the queen may pardon the burn of  the hand and it be object that the appeal be at the suit of the party and now  by the statute of h cap the burn of the hand be parcel of the punishment coke  report b er p as if it be enact that he who be attaint in a appeal of mayhem  shall have judgement of death in that case if one be attaint in a appeal of  mayhem the queen can not pardon the execution of death because it be the  punishment of the offence at the suit of the party but on conference have with  diverse other justice it be resolve that the queen may dyer pl raym hob more  Inst Cr Elizabeth a pardon the burn of the hand in a appeal and that for two  reason it appear by the say statute of h c raym Stanf cor c hob b h that at  the commonlaw a man who have once have the benefit of his Stanf Coron c c  clergy shall have it again and so in infinitum coke b which be remedy by the  say Act so that the burn of the hand be to no other purpose but to raym hob d  signify to the judge whether he have have his clergy before or not the burn of  the hand be not any raym hob e parcel of the judgement for then the queen can  not pardon it because the plaintiff have interest in the judgement and for  this cause the case of mayhem which be put on the other side be well agree and  so the doubt in Ellen lamb case Elizabeth dyer dyer pl Cr Elizabeth Inst f and  and in Musqraves case in Elizabeth dyer Cr Elizabeth dyer pl g well explain  but there it be say that the queen can pardon the imprisonment for that be  parcel of the execution of the plaintiff in the appeal and taverner case  Elizabeth dyer Inst h be agree by all that the queen may pardon the corporal  punishment in case of more Cr Elizabeth I forgery because all suit in the  starchamber be but information for before b postea a Inst a the queen although  the suit be exhibit by the party and the queen may pardon any offence for  which any subject complain there but if taverner have be attaint at the  commonlaw in a action of more b forgery of false deed there the queen can not  have pardon it it be object that although the queen may pardon the burn of the  hand yet the defendant may be imprison at the suit of the party for before the  statute of raym Cr James   b roll hob   a b c Elizabeth cap the king may I in  case of indictment of manslaughter pardon the imprisonment as appear in  Fitzherbert imprisonment Br Coron Br charter de pardon d h a but not in appeal  and by the statute of Elizabeth they can deliver the prisoner before he be  burn in the hand but it be resolve that forasmuch as it be enact by the say  statute of Elizabeth that after clergy allow and burn in the hand the prisoner  shall be present at large and deliver out of prison which Act be resolve to  extend as well to the case of appeal as to the case of indictment and the  queen now have pardon the burn of the hand for this cause the burn of the hand  be discharge the party also shall be discharge of his imprisonment by good  construction of the same Act otherwise the party will be lawful discharge of  his punishment and yet remain perpetual in prison which never be the intent of  the maker of the Act and thereupon biggin be discharge in more S c it be say  that the judgement of the court be that it can not be pardon and in croak  report the court be say to have be equal divide in ludlam v Lopez I strange  Eyre I observe I must question whether that case of the appeal be law for the  burn the hand be part of the judgement Vid king v Burridge p Willms and as to  burn in the hand Geo c Blac command and Vid Geo c than offender convict of  clergyable felony endure the punishment adjudge such punishment shall have the  effect of burn in the hand b see Lord chief justice holt argument in the case  of the queen and Plomer king report and yet at commonlaw it seem clear that  the king can not pardon any part of the punishment in a appeal though the  appellant himself may because a civil prosecution and the king can not pardon  a offence against a particular person see raym c lbid Rep Q a note to former  edition coke report a er p