. Probably an inadvertence for the writ itself. A statute in the language of the petitions
upon which the case came up would have been neither unconstitutional nor effective.
See text at note 22
above. The petition of Charles Paxton for a writ in 1755, printed at note
below, even if it had been urged in this case, is scarcely less neutral in tone.
But compare Quincy, Reports (Appendix)
474 note. Gray suggests that the phrase “natural equity” means that Otis cited Lord
Hobart's language in Day v. Savadge, Hobart 85, 87, 80 Eng. Rep.
235, 237 (C.P.
1615): “Even an act of Parliament, made against naturall equitie, as to make a man
judge in his owne case, is void in it selfe, for Jura naturae sunt immutabilia,
and they are leges legum.”
See Quincy, Reports (Appendix)
521–524. See note 41