bailable;—that notorious felons are not bailable." The reason why the superior courts were not named in the statute of Westminster, was plainly this: "because anciently most of the business touching bailment of prisoners for felony or misdemeanours, was performed by the Sheriffs, or special bailiffs of liberties, either by writ, or virtute officii[1];" consequently the superior courts had little or no opportunity to commit those abuses which the statute imputes to the Sheriffs.—With submission to Dr. Blackstone, I think he has fallen into a contradiction, which, in terms at least, appears irreconcileable. After enumerating several offences not bailable, he asserts, without any condition or limitation whatsoever[2]. "all these are clearly not admissible to bail." Yet, in a few lines after, he says, "it is agreed that the court of King's Bench may bail for any crime whatsoever, according to the circumstances of the case." To his first proposition he should have added, by Sheriffs or Justices; otherwise the two propositions contradict each other; with this difference, however, that the first is absolute, the second
Page:Letters of Junius, volume 2 (Woodfall, 1772).djvu/329
JUNIUS.
319
