JUDICIAL AND LEGISLATIVE REVIEW Instead, it was resolved that the several branches of the legislature, in their distinct capacities, are not bounded, limited or circumscribed, except by law, and by their own peculiar rules and orders, it being notorious, that the House of Commons, with respect to its own peculiar rights, and privileges, is not bounded, limited or circumscribed, by any power whatever, except by the laws in being, and their own particular orders and resolutions. 613 But we have seen no evidence that any test case was made in the island of Jamaica. Toward the end of the colonial period, however, there occurred two appeals which gave the Council the opportunity of making definitive statements of policy. One case raised the issue of an assembly's right of judicature, the other directly posited the validity of an act for a new trial. The first case arose in 1758, when William Smith and William Moore were committed to prison by the Pennsylvania Assembly after a hearing before it regarding publication of an alleged libel on a former assembly, and the sheriff was prohibited from release upon habeas corpus. Since the warrant of commitment implied a breach of privilege of the existing house, Chief Justice Allen dismissed an application for habeas corpus, but upon adjournment of that assembly the prisoners were ordered by the Supreme Court to be released. 614 Smith tendered to the assembly an appeal to the King in Council as the indubitable right of an English subject and offered to give security and to comply with such reasonable conditions as the house might prescribe for prosecution of the appeal. In support of the appeal the charter provision governing appeals was read, but the house rejected the appeal and refused to enter it on the minutes. 615 Some doubt was expressed by colonial counsel whether an appeal would lie; 616 nevertheless 613 ibid. 614 For detailed recitals of the episode see Riddell, Libel on the Assembly, 52 Pa. Mag. Hist, and Biog., 176, 249, 342; 1 Smith, Life and Correspondence of Rev. Wm. Smith (1879), 167-87. These accounts should be supplemented widi the Robert H. Logan MSS, 1671—1863, folder marked 1671-1759 (Pa. Hist. Soc), with the MS Smith Family Papers, 1757-1861 (Pa. Hist. Soc.) and widi William Smith's Short Narrative of his Case for the Archbishop of Canterbury, Lambeth Palace MS, 1123, ii/#iso. Since the warrant of commitment implied a breach of privilege of the existing house, Chief Justice William Allen had no alternative but to dismiss the habeas corpus application (Riddell, op. cit., 260-61; Allen to Rev. Dr. Chandler, Feb. 4, 1758, 9 MS Penn Official Corres., 5; 1 Smith, Life and Correspondence of Rev. Wm. Smith, 179-80). Upon adjournment the prisoners were ordered released by the Supreme Court (Riddell, Libel on the Assembly, 262). Upon a later reconvening the prisoners were recommitted {ibid.). 615 State of Smith's Case, pp. 25-27; Venn MSS, Smith and Moore v. Assembly, 1758-59, 201- 35. For the charter provision see Charter and Laws Prov. Pa., 84. Smith, undaunted by this refusal, served notice on the house of his intention to persevere in an appeal (1 Smith, Life and Correspondence of Rev. Wm. Smith, 178). 016 Chief Justice Allen wrote that "the words [in tire charter] are so general that our lawyers are of opinion, his Majesty will take cognizance of die case" (9 MS Penn Official Corres., 1758-64, 6). William Smith, Jr., and William Livingston, of New York, inclined to the opin-