390 Assembly Proceedings, June 17-July 8, 1746.

L. H. J.
Liber No. 46

words would of themselves obviate your Claim and much moore so
when you have not been able to produce one Instance where those
words upon any Complaint and solemn Determination of the house
of Commons were ever construed agreeable to your Exposition on
the Contrary I have shewed out of Petit what Instances he imagined
to be within this Privilege of Speech before that Statute; And I dare
say no one can suppose but that he who professedly wrote in Vindi-
cation of the Commons and their Privileges would have mentioned
Instances agreeable to your Reasoning if there had been any such
of good Authority. But notwithstanding all this and my clear Expo-
sition of that Statute in my former Answer you endeavour to dis-
tinguish upon the words of that Statute and the Arguments in my
Answer relating to it.

p. 650

You do not controvert my Exposition of that Statute according
to a legal Construction, but you say that the Term legal as applied
by me is equivocal This I deny for the Construction in our Dispute
is to be made upon the Words of an Act of Parliament this Act binds
the House of Commons as well as the rest of the nation and I pre-
sume that House or the House of Lords or both together can no
more put any Construction on the Words of that Act that is not
strictly legal in Westminister Hall then they can of themselves repeal
that Act and make a New one and which would be the Case if you
are in the right There may be indeed a Difference of Opinions in the
House of Commons what is the Legal Construction according to
the rules in Westminster Hall but if that is once setled they are bound
by it as well as other People since that Statute was made as well to
ascertain the Liberties of the People as the Privileges of their Repre-
sentatives; and were it in the Power of any one Branch of a Legis-
lature by a Peculiar or arbitary Construction of their own to give
the words of an Act a different sense than what every Iudge Lawyer
or other Inteligent Man would understand them in, It would be
intraping the Subject instead of securing his Liberty and would be a
setting up an Authority independent of the other Two Estates in a
Point which had all their joint Concurrence and therefore could not
be interpreted by any Rules peculiar to one Branch alone of the Leg-
islature But what has (I really believe) led you into this great Mis-
take is that you have found in Books the Expression of a Law of
Parliament and therefore you have concluded that this Law of Par-
liament must mean a Power to over turn a Law of the Land I hope
you will Excuse me in remarking that Law Books may be said to be
like Edged Tools which often hurts the Person who handels them
without understanding their use, from hence it is that you ask me,
Is their not a Law of Parliament as well as a Law of Ordinary
Justice distinct from each other? I agree their is but not in any
Sense proper for your purpose I think the Law of Parliament in the
proper Sense is confined to the Usage and Custom of Parliament
but in no sense and in no Case that I ever heard has the words Law