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

L.H.J.
Liber No. 46

we cannot help thinking, that a Confession and Excuse of the Sub-
ject matter of our Remonstrance had Appeared more open and can-
did than y^r Endeavour to darken that Point, which you promise
" to put in as Clear a light as you can, not only to Our own under-

p. 628

standings, but also to that of our Constituents," In order to which
you recite a Paragraph of the Bill of Rights, and clap y^r Finger on
the words Impeached and questioned in that Clause; and in order
to make them serve your purpose, you say they are to be taken in a
" legal Construction, which is the only proper Rule for the Exposi-
tion of an Act of Parliament " But does not your Excellency see,
that the Term legal here is equivocal. Is not there a Law of Parlia-
ment as well as a Law of ordinary Iustice, distinct from each other
and are not the Rules of Construction under each as different as the
two Laws themselves, And yet both legal in the extensive Meaning
of the words ? and tho a legal Construction according to the latter
may be proper in such matters as come under the Determination of
A Court of Laws yet the present Case is not such, as is plain from
the Clause itself " That the Freedom of Speech, and Debates or Pro-
ceedings in Parliament ought not to be Impeached or questioned
in any Court or Place out of Parliament," unless your Excellency,
to proceed as you have begun, should say, that a Prohibition to act is
giving a Power to Act, and that the Courts of Law have A Right
to construe what they have no Right to determine The only legal
Construction to be admitted in the present Case is the Parliamentary
legal Construction and this likewise appears from that very Clause
in " any Court or Place out of Parliament " where it is plain the Im-
peaching or Questioning is to be in Parliament, and is an Affirma-
tive as the former Part is a negative what Rule of Construction then
is to be admitted in Parliament but a Parliamentary one ? and how
is that Rule to be ascertained but by the Practice of Parliament in
like Cases previous to the making that Act ? and no doubt but your
Excellencys great Knowledge in Priviledge must inform you upon
Recollection that before the making that Statute not only the Calling
Members to appear before the Courts of Law, and in other Places
besides the Courts of Law but Even the Calling them to an Account
for, or the abusing and censuring them in a private way for their
Expressions in Parliament has been often held a Breach of Privilege
And why this Statute which is but declarative and a Confirmation
from the Crown of one of the ancient Privileges of Parliament and
which both together was the Foundation of our Remonstrance should
be deemed in this Instance an Abridgement of that ancient Right
and is to be Construed according to the Rules of Construction
in your Courts of Law unless perhaps in time of subject the pro-
ceedings of this House to the Determination of those Courts no
doubt you will satisfy yourself.
This Sir is the true sense of the Express words of that Act
according to the Legal Construction of Parliament and which is