Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1807-02-23

common law. he com mon law, ~ snoi';
forms an essential part OF all oui IDEAS
it has grown into the very constitution q
cur minds; and We can no more TANK on
legal subjects without referring TO II, than
We can see without eyes, or I've without
breathing.
Wha. then does the common law, this
great interpreter of our constitution, ilats
guide of our legal though.a, this mighty
and beneficial protector of Our rights and
liberties; Ehat does she say respecting the
power Of i4.uipg the great remedial and
constitutional writ of .habeas corpus She
Informs Us, with an authoritative voice,
that this guardian power belongs incidents
ally to every superior court Of record
that it is part Of their inherent rigAts and
duties, thus 10 wavch ever aaa protect tie
liberty OF ihe inu.vidual.
Accordingly we find that the Court Of
common pleas, IN EnsIaad, though pos
sessing DO criminal Jurisdiction Of any
kind, origlna! or appellate, has power 10
issue this wri, Of iiabeas cefpus. This
power is possessed BY the common law as
an incidentto It's existence, before il was
expressly given by the haheas corpus act.
& This appears from Bushels case, report.
ed In Sir Thomas Jones, 8, and stated in
Woods case, Wilson ITS, by the chief
jaslice, in delivering the opinion Of the
court
Bushels case was short'y this. 4 per.
son was indicted at the OLD Bailey 10 Lon-
doa, for holding az unlawful coaven'icle,
The jury acquitted him, coa'rar. 10 Lac di
rectices or the court 90 the law. For s4Is
some OF the iutofs and BusFe!l among
them, were ined and ia1ryIsened by the
eour: at the Old Bailey. Basiell then
n,oved the court OF commaa pleas for a
writ of habeas corpus, which after solemn
argument AID consideration WAS granted
by three judges agains. one. EGshesl wa
brought up, and the cause OF his imprlson.
ment appearing iasu iHcienth ne was dischars.
ed.
This took place before the laabsas corpus
&C. was passed, and is conclusive author
ny In favor of the doctrine fer which we
contend. Woods case, 9 Wilson 175,
AID 3 Eae. Abr. S. are clear 30 the same
poia;.
Whence does tie court Of common pleas
derive thisspower? Not from It's criminal
jurisdiction tor it has n0ne. Not from
any statnte tor when Bnslyell's case was
decided there was no statute co The sub
jet. Not from any idea ttas sach pow !
.er is necessary for the exercise Of its or.
binary functions for no sach necessity |
cxia,s or has ever heea supposed 10 ezist.
Bnt from the great protective principle of
the common law, which ia favor Of liberty
gives this power &c every superior court Of
record, as Incidental to lis existence.
The court Of chancsryin England pos
sesses the me power, bY ;he common
lazy, as appears from Bae. Abr. 5. This |
is still stronger illustration of Tie prnci.
pie; for th- ccnss Of ehancery is skill fur.
sher removed, if possible, thao the cour,
OF commoa pleas, fIau, Ill criminal iuris.
diciioo, ss.il more exempt from the neces-
SHY OF saeh power, fos the exercise Of its
peculiarfanctions.
The court Of eSehegaer also, as appears
from the same authorities, though wholly |
destitute of criminal jurlsslicsloo, possess,
es the power OF relieving, by habsas cor.
pus, from Illegal restraint.
Hence it appears that all ,ae superior.
courts OF record in Englaaa arc invested
by the common law with the beneficial paw
er, as incident TO their existence. The
reason assigned for tito The English law
books is. that the king has always righ.
ss know, and by means Of these courts 10
enquire, what has become of his snoyecss.
That is, that he is bound 20 prorec. the per.
sonsl liberty Of his people, and that these
coarts are the Instruments with whish the
lazy has furnished hin FOR d:schargiog this
high duty VITA eff ct.
Il Il ad let me- ask NAV = 5,leass yaur ho.