1788.
nia ; and 2d, That it extended to the cafe of a Summons, as well as a Capias.
I. He faid, that where there was the fame reafon, there ought to be the fame law ; and if the purpofe of privilege was to prevent a man's being drawn afide from his public duty ; or embarraffed with private cares, during his attendance upon it, that fundamental principle operated, at leaft, with as much force in Pennʃylvania as in England; and in the cafe of the State Convention (whofe bufinefs was of the moft critical nature) perhaps, more than in the cafe of any permanent deliberative Affembly. But, he afked, what writer has ever treated privilege as the refult of a form of Government, compofed of three branches? Experience contradicts the affertion. Even in England, a member of Parliament cannot plead his privilege againft a debt due to the Crown, fo fuperior is prerogative ; the privilege which the law of nations confers upon Ambaffadors, is not the refult of any particular form of Government; nor does the privilege recognized in Courts of Juftice, reft upon fo equivocal (illegible text). Is a fuiton here protected from arrefts upon any political confideration? or, can it be faid that a witnefs at this bar, owes his fecurity to the textural of the conftitution? No: Thefe are the effects of an univerfal principle, which equally applies in all Countries, and under every modification of Government ; for, when the bufinefs of the State requires the attendance of an individual at a particular place, it would be unreafonable and unjuft to expofe him to an inconveniency, which he would not have fuffered, but for that attendance;– it would be impolitic, likewife ; fr few men would be willing, on fuch terms, to engage in the public fervice.
2. The preceding argument muft ferve, likewife, to fhew, that the privilege extends to the cafe of a Summons, as well as a Capias, For, though the Defendant avoids the trouble of entering fpecial bail ; yet the former procefs, as well as the latter, will oblige him to attend the Court from which it iffues, however remote it may be from his fixed place of refidence. But, in the prefent cafe, the Defendant is not folicitous to be difcharged from the fuit, for he will engage to appear gratis in the proper county.
The difficulty, in fact, arifes from the nature and extend of the jurifdictions of our Courts. In England the jurifdiction of the King's Bench and Common Pleas being co-executive with the kingdom, thofe Courts can direct the venne to be laid in the County where the caufe of action originated. But here, our County Courts are in their nature circumfcribed ; and it has lately been determined in the Supreme Court, on a motion by Mr. Sergeant to change the venue from Bucks to Philadelphia, that, even there, this relief could not be claimed ; for the act of 1766, [♦] exprefsly declares, that the venue fhall be laid in the county where the action is inftituted. The Defendant's claim, therefore, is rather the privilege of being fued in a particular Court, than an exemption either from arreft, or being impleaded, and we fay that he ought not to be fued in this
[♦]Sec 1 State Laws 114. and 338.
