“It was against right and justice, and against natural equity, to allow them [the Mayor and Aldermen of London] their certificate, wherein they are to try and judge their own cause.” And then he says, in memorable language, which has made his name famous:-- “Even an Act of Parliament, made against natural equity, as, to make a man judge in his own case, is void in itself; for _jura naturæ sunt immutabilia_, and they are _leges legum_.”[9] Thus strongly and completely did he cover the present case, reaching forward with judgment. According to him, even an Act of Parliament making a man judge in his own case is void. But, Sir, he was not alone. His great contemporary, and our teacher at this hour, Sir Edward Coke, in a very famous case, known as _Bonham’s_, which I have not before me now, but which is referred to in other cases, lays down the same rule,--that a court of justice will not even recognize an Act of Parliament, if it undertakes to make a man judge in his own case.[10] But another judge, who, as lawyer and authority in courts down to this day, perhaps excels even the two already cited,--I mean Lord Chief Justice Holt,--has explained and developed this principle in masterly language. I refer to what is known as Modern Reports, in the case of _The City of London_ v. _Wood_, where he says:-- “I agree, where the city of London claims any freedom or franchise to itself, there none of London shall be judge or jury; for there they claim an interest to themselves against the rest of mankind.” He then explains the principle:--