1788.
benefit of the people at large, and not for the benefit of the individual. Sir T. Raymn 142. How then can the intereft of the people be affected by a procefs which impofes no reftraint upon the perfon and occafions no interruption of the public bufinefs?– Nor was the privilege of the Englifh Commons ever extended by analogy to deliberative bodies. ‘Till the ftatue of 8H.6.c.1. was paffed, in the year 1427, the members of the Convocation (which was then a deliberative Affembly whofe decifions, in matters within their jurifdiction, were taken to be law) were liable to arrefts ; and to remove every doubt, whether this was merely a declaration of the ancient law, or an introduction of fomething new, 3 Black. Com. 289. fays exprefsly, that the Privilege was given by that ftatute.
If then we are to be governed by the privilege of the Britiʃh Parliament in determing this queftion this queftion, are we to receive that privilege entire,–in its duration commencing forty days before, and continuing forty days after, the Seffions ; and in its object extending to the fervant as well as to the matter? Or, are we to receive it diverfted of its more odious trappings, and purified by the wholefome reftrictions of modern ftatues? If the latter propofition prevails, we have shewn that privilege cannot protect the Defendant from the fervice of a Summons; and, with refpect to the former, though, it is true, we have adopted the municipal regulations of that nation for the fecurity of property, and the punifhment of crimes ; yet, does it follow that we are to be encumbered with the various extravagancies of their political fyftem, exhibiting to the world the abfurd portrait of a Republic, with the heterogeneous features of a Monarchy? In this country an univerfal equality is eftablifhed ; no jealous, and rival, powers, warp the legiflature ; the diftinctions of rank and degree are unknown, except, indeed, in the honorable pre-eminence which the voice of the people periodically beftows on the moft worthy ; and furely the privileges of the Sophi of Perʃia, or the Muʃti of Conʃtantinople, are as fit to be engrafted on a conftitution of this defcription, as the Privilege of the Britiʃh Peerage, or their Houfe of Commons.
But, afterall, if the effential difference in the principles of Government, fhould not be fufficient to exclude the privilege contended for, the 5 Sect. oƒ the Art. oƒ Conƒed. which has been incorporated into the new Fœderal Syftem, is tantamount to a folemn declaration, that no fuch privilege exifts: for, there, Congrefs, in defining the privilege of its members, fecures them from arreft and imprifonment, but not from the procefs of a Summons. Will it, therefore, be affereted that the Defendant, in the prefent cafe, is entitled to greater privileges, than he would have enjoyed as a member of that honorable body? The idea is contrary to reafon and propriety ; and if we muft argued from analogy, there can be no doubt that we ought rather to apply to Congreʃs for the precedent, than to the Parliament of Great Britain.
Sergeant for the Defendant.–The exemption from arreft in the cafe of members of Parliament, is totally unconnected with the po-
