The Sun.
London, England, 1824-04-20 00:00:00

laws for any thing but felony or treason ? But the Act which
is assumed as the warrant for this, applies equally to Bombay,
whence the Company never have a ship bound directly to Eng-
land. Then are we to put a forced and unwarranted construc-
tion upon the Act, by which a British subject, for merely be-
ing in India without a licence; is to be e9pdernned to perpetual
imprisonment ? - The idea is monstrous. ',But if the Governor.;
.General ever had the power to imprison him, I should say that
he might be bailed; because if they ,prosecuted.him, even at
home, then he is to be committed; only. if not bailed.
do not 1;now what feeling this person's release might excite,
bat if a general feeling of satNfaction or congratulation should
preVairat- his . release, I see no-reason why the Government
should not participate in it. The-Governor-General himself,
in my opinion, will not be offended at not meeting with un-
limited submission to his will, knowing that such blind com-
pliance must necessarily impart weakness and instability to his
.own-power. Convinced, by the experience of living under a
constitutional Government, of the eminent advantage of every
one being secured in the full enjoyment of his rights, he must
rather be pleased at seeing the liberty of the subject protected.
I. am not intimately acquainted with his Lordship, who has
laiely.arrived amongst us ; but I naturally ascribe these senti-
ments to.him as a British Nobleman.

My principle is, that, if the words of the Act of Parliament
are not clear beyond a doubt in conveying the power to im-
prison, then we, ought. not, by so stretching its meaning, to
curtail the liberty of any man.. We ought, (though 1 do not
speak of-this as a constitutional Act, I care not whether it is
or no), but this I do say, we are bound to give it a constitution-
al rather than an unconstitutional construction. It does not
empower the -Government to imprison ; and although it may
be said that in the fort, in the care of such a Gentleman as
Colonel Vaughan, this individual will experience all the in-
dulgence which that officer can extend to him, and no one
who knows him can doubt it; yet, in depriving a man of his
liberty, you take away that from him which is necessary for
his happiness. It is in vain to talk of the pleasantness of this
alone is enomioigtholinatnobommaaardkkeesibliiiiii:vincaitinisidnersakleeilep.
place .or the, other,—he is no longer master of himself; and this
mayanyt ypriaanitl miserablehlii
n'h at
ti
e more,reftin is tlaft irkge,
charge of
the Captain, but I should think the wooden walls of the vessel
a sufficient prison. They could not confine him to his cabin,
or keep him in fetters. Nay, I think him entitled, by the
terms of the Act which provides for him a good and sufficient
vessel—one of the Company's ships—to the best treatment and
accommodations. And when the ship readies England, this
Gentleman is immediately entitled to his discharge from the
vessel at the first place where she is safely moored, and is at
liberty to go where he chooses. No conditional term of impri-
sonment is to be tacked to the end of the voyage. Andis im- i
prisonment less a hardship in the East Indies than in Eng.
land ? Is it of less consequence to a British subject here? is
the society in this country less consoling to his feelings, or less
necessary to his happiness, than in Europe, that we should
thus trifle with his liberty? On every principle of law,—of
reason,--and of justice, then, I declare it to be my decided
opinion that Mr. Arnot be discharged.
Sir ANTHONY Bur.i.En then delivered his judgment, asll
Pearly as could be collected, to the following effect :—He set out
by expressing his concurrence in the regret experienced by the
Senior Judge at the difference of opinion that had arisen be-
tween them ; but he deemed it necessary to state the grounds
of his dissent from his colleague that they might not be here-
after misconstrued. He had, when he first heard of this matter,
been of 'opinion that the Government had acted wrong ; but
after 'material doubt, and a reference to the case of Dehan cited
by the Advocate-General, he had come to the opposite conclu-
sion *. He had some doubt whether the Judges had power in
this case to bail the party; but that-was not a question now
before the Court. the Government had the power in 1791,
they had it, his Lordship thought, now. In' the Act of the
53d of Geo. HI. there were the words " Company's ship bound
to England," which were not in the Act of the 33d ; but he did
not think that-this introduced any loss of privilege, though it
might unintentionallyhave done so. Unfortunately the Legis-
lature had not recollected that no such shipolight, sail for some
time after the removal of an individual from the country had
been decided on. He thought that the object of the Acts was
to give the power of, exercising such authority to send home
persons, circumstanced as the party in this case was. The Go--
verninents of India had thepower, under former Acts, of seiz-
ing, taking, and detaining for the purpose of sending to 'Eng-
land, British subjects residing here without a license, in order
to prosecute them fora misdemeanour; and it was not con-
tended that they had not the power now,. for the purpose of con-
veying to England when the ship was ready, a British subject
so circumstanced—for it was admitted that they might arrest
and seize him, and carry 'him on board of her. Lie, Sir Anthony
Buller, thought therefore, that this authority necessarily im-
plied the power to detain till the ship was so ready ; and that,
consequently, Mr. Arnot was not entitled to his discharge.
Mr. Ttratost then applied for the decision of the Court,
when Sir Francis Macnaghten ordered Mr. Arnot's immediate
release; . .

.
N. B. Ire think it necessary to correct a misstatement con-
tained in a letter signed A. published in John Bull, and trans-
planted thence into the Government Gazette of Sept. 25th, viz.
'That Mr. Arnot was called upon to put in sureties for his ap-
pearance when a Company's ship should be ready to take hint
to England ; and that he refused to put in. sureties as demand-
ed. The fact is, as stated in p. 2, that he was called on to bind
himself to embark on board a ship bound for England (he being
left to find such ship for hiinsell, liable to the risk of none sail-
ing, or of the Captain refusing to take him unless on exhorbitant
terms) and at all hazards under a penalty of 20,000 Rs. to re-
move himself from-the country within a month from the 3d of
September, the date of the order togive sureties for this purpose,
and which he declined doing under the particular circumstances
already detailed.