214 CAMPBELL'S CASE— 2 BLAND.

A private Act of Parliament, although strictly and literally fol-
lowed, as regards the authority and jurisdiction conferred, Ex
parts King, 2 Bro. C. C. 158; Ex parte Bolton School, 2 Bro. C. C.
662, 2 Mad. Chan. 719, is in many respects considered and con-
strued as a mere legal conveyance, in general, binding only on
those who are parties to it, that is, those who petition for it, or
are named in the Act itself, and those claiming under them. The
Case of the Chancellor of Oxford, 10 Co. 57; Hesketh v. Lee, 2 Saund.
96, a; Boulton v. Hull, 2 H. Blac. 499; Perchard v. Heywood, 8 T.
R. 472; Wallwyn v. Lee, 9 Ves. 25; Bullock v. Fladgate, 1 Ves. and
Bea. 471; Vauxhall Bridge Company v. Earl Spencer, 2 Mad. Rep.
355; S. C. 4 Cond. Chan. Rep. 28; Edwards v. The Grand Junction
Railway Company, 10 Cond. Chan. Rep. 85; Moore v. Usher, 10
Cond. Chan, Rep. 107; 2 Blac. Com, 344; 5 Cruise .Dig. Tit. 33. It
is never permitted to affect the * interests of strangers, or to
228 defeat the rights of bona fide purchasers for a valuable con-
sideration; because, as to strangers, a private Act is considered
only in the light of a private conveyance, Pomfret v. Windsor. 2
Ves. 480: as where an Act gave the lands of Priory's alien to the
king, it was held, that it did not extinguish an annuity of a prior,
which he had out of a rectory; although there was not any saving
in the Act; and so, too, where a statute makes a conveyance good
against the king, or any certain person, it is not allowed to take
away the rights of any others, although there be not any saving in
the Act. Sir Francis Barrinyton's Case, 8 Co. 271; Provost of
Eton v. Bishop of Winton, 3 Wils. 496; Townley v. Gibson, 2 T. E.
705; Riddell v. White, Amir. 281; Dwarris' Statutes, 635; 5 Cruise
Dig. Tit. 33. But where there is an estate in remainder, which the
party may bar by a tine and common recovery, in such case, the
claimant of such outstanding estate may be bound by a private

The bad legislator wins the hearts of his constituents, by attending to their
private and local affairs: at least this is always found, in commercial com-
munities, to be an effectual compensation for the want of statemanship.
The justice and propriety of throwing the expense upon individuals desirous
of obtaining particular advantages by means of Acts of Parliament, can
only be judged of, by ascertaining whether a distinction is always made
between a personal and a general object. But it is more than to be sus-
pected, that the reference to the Legislature at all, on many matters, results
from the deficiency of other institutions; and therefore, whether the objects
be individual or national, there is a wrong done by continuing the system.
The probability is, that in one shape or other, in the greater cost of the ob-
ject, or in the lack of its more expensive use, the nation pays first or last.
An instance is mentioned of a case where a bill was withdrawn, on account
of the cost arising from these fees; and the writer knows another instance,
where the public bodies and inhabitants of a town were deterred by the
same reason. From all of which it is to be inferred, that there are other
instances of the same kind. In all of which the Legislature commits a
wrong.—Westminster Review, January, 1834, No. 39, page 33.