Page:Letters of Junius, volume 2 (Woodfall, 1772).djvu/328

318 in his exposition of the last part of this quotation, accurately distinguishes between replevy, by the common writ, or ex officio, and bail by the King's Bench. The words of the statute certainly do not extend to the judges of that court. But, besides that, the reader will soon find reason to think that the legislature, in their intention, made no difference between bailable and replevisable. Lord Coke himself (if he be understood to mean nothing but an exposition of the statute of Westminster, and not to state the law generally) does not adhere to his own distinction. In expounding the other offences, which, by this statute, and declared not replevisable, he constantly uses the words not bailable.—"That outlaws, for instance, are not bailable at all;—that persons who have abjured the realm, are attainted upon their own confession, and therefore not bailable at all by law;—that provers are not