The Sun.
London, England, 1810-03-13 00:00:00

EAS F. INDIA CW.IPAi•J'i

Lord.LAUDERPA LE brought.forward his promised
motion tor a SeleCt Committee to inquire into. the
state of the affairs of the East-India CoMpany.—As
the House were not yet in possession of the doCti-
‘nients necessary.to afford the desired information-On
this subjea, he Should forbear. at „present entering
into many of the 1416 on which he should find it
necessary to dwell on a future occasion. He must
now, however, remind their Lordships of the sums
of money which llad already been advanced to that
Company, and warn them tharit might be the in-
tention of. Goyei-nment that frirther advances of
money should be
.made. to the Company. It was
also rumoured, that at no distant periOd-the Charter
of the COmpatiy was to be renewed. These 'he
thought grounds fully sufficient to -induce their
Lordships to. take a viet,v of the :present state of the
Company's affairs before they assented-ha any new
grants. With that view he should now move for
the appointment of a Seleet Committee to inquire
into the Affairs of the East India Con'apapy, and to
report to
,the House thereon. —The ;notion being
agreed to; the Noble Lord 'named the committee.
Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMOAS,

MONDAY, MARCH 12.

A Messagefroul the Lords announced their Lord-
ship's assent' to the Corn. Distillery-Prohibition Bill.
The Deputy Usher of the Black Rod summoned
the House to the, House ofPeeri. On the Speaker's
return he informed the 'House of his Majesty's as--
sent having been given by commission to several'
Public and Private Bills.—(For winch see our report
of the Lords.)
Sir W.•CURTIS moved the second reading of the
New Stock Market Bill. He understocd it was to
be opposed ; why he (lid not, know, and was at a
loss to conjectur,- what' could call forth opposition.
Mr. H.:THORNTON thought the kill one Which the
House could not entertain. If there already existed
a body of men capable of carrying on such a busi-
ness, without an Ad of Parliament, he thought a
fair competition existed, and that possessing an .Aa,
would give the new competitors an unfair advan.
tage. A. Stock Exchange tortnerly existed, to
which persons could not be admitted, without be,
coming annual subscribers. The question appeared,
to be whether or not persons should be admitted
who were not strangers, •as it was contended the
existing Stock Exchange was not sufficiently open.
Strangers were only excluded as far as was necessary
to guard againt confusiOn, and those inconveniences
which would result from admitting persons indis-
criminately,
Mr. VAN SWIETON said, no fewer than 15 shares
in the proposed Company were sold at Garfaway's,
bearing inconsiderable premiums. He thought it
high* time to discountenance such speculations, and •
would therefore move that it should be read on that
day six months. 1

Mr. DENT explained, and vindicated die principle
of the Bill.

Sir THom AS GRAHAM thought a new Stock Ex-
change absolutely necessary, and that even three or
four would_ be desirable. He supposed thcise who
opposed it must have interested motives.

lir. S.. TawtriTopi made a few remarks ; after
whteli.

Sir W. CVRTI3, in reply, 'stated the present pro
position had arisen from the business not being at
present transaLled in a satisfaßory manner. The
House would decide whether or not it became them
as Representatives of the People, to vote in favour of.
a private or a public market. On pubic grounds he
wished for a public marker.

Mr. BARHAM thought nothing conid be leSs'ob-
jeftionable than the proposition .before the House.
If the Public were satisfied with the present mode
of transacting business, the n.. 4 Cocnpany must of it-
self fall to the ground. He wished it to go into a
Ctmrnittiee.

Ali. MARTIN was of opinion nothing could be
more unnecessary than a new Stock Exchange. The
Public could derive no advantage from it, but, on
the contrary would be 'considerably injured by its
eti,Ets.

Mr. BARING opposed the Bill. . .
Sir C. Pal cs had made the fulleii inquiries -into
the nature of the proposed establishment, and thought
the most-serious consequences might be apprehend-
ed
from the measure.

The Gallery were then cleared fdr a division,when
the numbers were—

For the second reading - - 74
Against it - ----7 - - 6z
Majority in favour c\t the Bill

-12

Mr. WHAnroN brought up a return of the Gold
and Silver exported in the last year.—Ordered to be
printed.

On the motion of Mr. WIIITI3READ, accounts of
all the monies received b r way of interest oh the
Portuguese Loan, .wfi ot4ered to be laicl before the
House.

Mr. MARTIN postponed his Motion till Monday
skelt t.

Mr: SliFitiDAN had been induced to postpone his
MOtion'resPeeting Bencheraf - some days, in con-
seqUence of its having been ntimated to him that
it would be unnecessary. He would postpone it yet
a few days longer—till Thursday ; [nit UnlOss it
should appear to be wholly unnecessary, he cer-
tainly would bripg.the subject forward
Sir J. ANSTRUTHER thought the Benchers would
not meet by that time.

The second reading of the Embezilement,' BM
WLIS postponed till Thursday.
Mr. PA RI•ELL gave notice of a motion, respeaing
the public.,expenditure,.fol Tuesday.
PAR.LUOVIENTAR.Y PRIVILEGES.

Sir F. BURDETT said, he had been for some days
prevented brirting forward his present motion by
.Ir. He was aware of the awkardne” of
the situation in which he stood, but he felt that he
should rmt. do his duty if be 'did not endeavour to
spew to the, House that their proceedings respeding-
Mr. Gale Jones were unauthorised, and try to per-
suade theM to relax somewhat of their severity. If
any of the privileges of that:House were repugnant
to the Law of the Land, he would not .uphold them.
For his 'own' part,- ' being .a man of a plain and ordi-
nary.p.nderstauding, he was accustomed to look to
the Laws the Land, where only he was able to
see,that.liberty he claimed for the country. It might
be necessary. for him.tu state the origin and extent
Of. their .privileges, and while he did so, he hoped it
would he refoembercd that that House was not the
Parliament, hut, only, onebranch of it. He consider-
ed it as being an inferior .branch of the Legisla-
ture.

The SPEJ\RER observed such expresions were not
'allowable in that House.
SioF. B'URDETT proceeded. He thought the cettn-
initial of Mr: J: Gale Jones was a violet ion of the
known laws of the land, contrary to every principle
of justice, and subversive of the liberty of the sub-
ject. He hoped they would banish all prejudices,
and decide on the case before theM With that impar-
tial mildness which became men when judging a
case in'which they were parties concerned. He
trusted they would make the law of the land the
guide of :their conduct, and he hoped they would
retradahe sentence they had pronounced, and that
.he should be able to convince them they could in no
way so well consult their dignity, because truth and
common sense pointed out that es the line of con-
du& they ought to pursue. The, individual (Mr.
G. Jones) was in no way the subje& of- his motion.
He wished tt. call the attention of the House to .the
question as to their right of imprisoning- the subjed,
he had no intention of questioning any other right.
The privileges of the House gave them no such
power. He would have them consider the difference
between -privilege and power. Privilege was that
which -they possessed for their own, protedion ;
power was an exercise of authority over others.
The one was a shield for- their own defence,
the other was a sword that might be used against
others. Privilege, he saw from an old law in-Spel-
man, first provided for the security of persons going
ta andirons Parliament. That he considered to be
the ground of all their privileges. The extent of
them ought to be defined, as a law of undefined pri-
vilege was-no law at all. He thought he could shew,
that they were not above law, and that they were
not undefined. It did not appear that they were
above law, because in the reign of Edward IL it
was enaded, that Members should not be. pro-
ceeded against In other Courts, as it was not just
that suits should be carried on against them where
they could not by passibility be present. The -ex-
tent of that privilege was, that that House should
be able to de ,its duty without being interrupted,
Their privileges could st be better defined than
they were by Lord Coke in 1021, when he was a 1
Member of that 'House, in a resolution, which he
proposed, and which set forth that they were free '
hoot arrest ; that their lands could not be taken
from them, &c. ; thnse, together with freedom of
speech, were all the privileges they could claim, and
those gave-them no right above the law to deprive .
. the subject of liberty. This. position he supported
by citing the cases of Lark and Walsh, and more
particularly by bringing forward that of. an indivi-
dual who • was Speaker of that .House (Thorpe.)
He had been arrested for debt, and it was debated
in Parliament whether or not the privilege
,would.
apply to his case. The opinion of the' Judges was
asked on the subject. Tory replied, that they were
not to be called upon to decide on such a question.
Subsequently, however, they gave it as their opi-
nion that no general writ could lie against a Mem-
ber, and that the privilege of the House should be
extended to him. The subject was then debated in
full Parliament, when their decision was contrary. to'
That of the Judges. • Placing
.a Member above the
law, they say that the party to whom he was in.
debied had no remedy, and that, consequently, there
must he a failure of justiCe which was net to be
borne. An6iher case that might throW some light
on the .subjeet was that of Mr. Chidhurst, who was
assaulted, tnaimed,•and -beaten on his way. to -the
House, yet who (such at that time was the modesty
of Meinbers of that House) was content to seek re-
paration at common law, and then a new jdw,
,not
an ex post faah ad, was made imposing a heavier
penalty on persons so offending. ' In ,case of the
arrest of a Member, he was to be restored by legal
means, after which they might proceed by a
bill. Up to the Long Parliament no such autho-
rity was known as that recently experienced.--
Till the civil wars Parliament never thought of
avenging its- own wrongs. At that time the ex-
isting circumstances were such as led the Sovereign
to the block, overthrew the Government, and finally
caused all the power of the Legislature to be as-
surned by that House. That power, however, could
not be regarded as legitimate under an established
Government. Those usurpations (mischievous as'
were their effe6ts), were approved of by the people
as the only means 'of counteracting that power
which went to destroy all the laws of the
The ability and consequence of that House; at the
period to which he alluded, was such, that from
that time they had- claimed powers which consti-
tutionally they could sever exercise nor possess.
This had been fully-demonstrated in, the eases of Sir
J. Fagg,' Sir Samuel Bard latein, Dr. Carey, and
four or five others. In the case of Sir H. Crispe
versus Lady Bower Dalinailoy, and. others, the
House of Lords had declared it impossible for the.
House of Commons to commit a subject to prison, it
being contrary to MagnaCharta. Thel-louse of Lords
and thellouse of COMMqtlS,bad quit ably acted against
each other in favour of the Public, and inequitably'
acted against the Public in favour of themselves. But'
whatever doubts might have existed anterior to the
Revolution, 'he should have thought the question..
would have been put at jest for ever, by-the slogr;lari
case which occurred in what he might call that good.
Constitutional time, J 697.. He meat that of BriclAs-
man u. Holt, on the subject of a patent granted by

Charles IL The decision. was against the patent.
A complaint was subsequently made • against the
judges to the House of Lords, The: 'Judges
denied the legality of any proceedings against
them in that House, •contended. for the right of
trial by jury, and sheltered themselves under the
broad shield of Magna Charta. The 'arguments
they made use of applied - more to the Commons
than to the Lords, as they never claimciiny juris-
diction as a Court of Law. The Lords did. Theirs
was the highest Court of Justice in the country, ...as
to them was made the Bernier appeal. The Judges
claimed the right of-being tried by their Peers, and
stated what would be the consequence of surren-
dering their rights. They stated that wyelier -They
were convicted or acquitted, .the decision of that-
tribunal would not -prate& them froth being again
called upon ; -and it was against eery principle
of justice that a man should be called upon
twice to answer for the same offence. .The an-
swer had, been " that the others, from fear or from
policy, were unwilling to question the conduel of
their superiors. They knew of no ,privileges that
could ,justify them in submitting to give up their
right to a trial by Jury; they knew not of such pri-
vileges in, law, and •it Would ill become them, as
Judges, to betray the best interests of their country-
men, and assent to a viola ion of the Jaw of the
land, as they would .do if they were to consent to
establish such a precedent, and make that a law
which was • unknewn to the Constitution and un-
heard of in thisland." These words applied to the
case of Mr. Jones in a tenfold degree. Might not
.he be tried hereafter for the same offence ? Nay,
he understood that e Noble Lord, not then. in his
place, had actually proceeded against him by corn-
. mon law for. a similar offence. Why did not the
new Teller of the Exchequer (who was not in
place, and who, he Understood was not likely to be
soon restored), proceed against him by common law
'too? or why did not the Noble Lord proCeed as the
Teller of the Exchequer had done ? For the same
offence he was liable to similar punishment. The
Teller of the Exchequer might, hereafter takeehe
ordinary course of law; and the Noble Lord might
call him again to the Bar of that House. • The ille-
gality of the punishment prevented-his having it in
his power to plead that as a prote&ion ageinstnew
proceedings. Lord Holt, in Sir C. Banbury's case,
had spoken of such a line of condo& as inconsistent
'with common sense. A great variety of cases could
be adduced where the House had interposed, but
not in which it had gone to the extent it went in
the present instance. Many pamphlets had been
published since the Revolution refleatirg on that
House; the authors of which had only been repri-
manded or proceeded against by the Attorney Gene-
ral. The Hon. Baronet then adverted to the case of
Mr.-Wilkes,- who having
.written what was consi-
dered a libel, the Serjeant at Arms was sent into the
city to take the Printer into custody, who, instead
of suffering himself to be taken, took the Serjeant
into custody, and carried him before t he-Lord Mayor,
who committed him to the Poultry Compter. This
was voted to be a violent breach of their privileges,
and the Lord Meyier,• who was a 'Member of that
• House, was in consequence committed. -to the
Tower, but neither Mr. Wilkes nor the Printer who
,Were not Members of that House were p-oceetled
against. If such were their conduct so lately, be
wished to know what had since occurred, to cause a
change, and to refute the sentiments of the Judg-
es. How was it then that they who could not
fine a man, should have -it in their power to in-
flitl the severest punishment next to death, the law
knew of ? Every part Of the warrant for the cord-
mittel of Mr. G. Jones was illegal. It ought to have
a legal authority, a lawful cause, but above all, a
lawful conclusion. A man legally could only .be
committed to prison till he was liberated by the due
course of law; but here a committal was made con-
fining the individual during their.pleastere. It was the
duty of every Englishman to exert himself against a
principal so unjust. Thecommittal of Mr. Jones of-
fended against every 'principle of British Jurispru-
dence, against all the fundamental laws of the
land, against the ""
Habeas Corpus Aa-1,- and
against the unalienable and imprescriptible rights.
of Englishmen. "J. hey had passed sentence on
him for what they had,' previously -voted to .be
an offence, and for an offence against what ?
Why, for an offence against privileges which
were said to he undefined, If they were un-
defined how did they know that' he had infringed
them.? and how did they know but they had passed
over their boundaries in their eagerness to punishhire .
? How could they be assured that they had not
passed over those boundaries; which they would not
define nor mark, that its future men might know.
when they approach their borders. Such proceed-
ings were contrary to all AEls of Parliament, and
snbversive of the prerogative of the 'Crown. The
resolutions of that House were like bye laws of a
corporation, an arbitrary usage of their own, and only
extending to the Members: A Member of that
House (Sir Fletcher Norton) on hearing their reso-
lutions on one occasion said, "he would pay no
more attention to their resolutions than he would to
a set of drunken porters in an ale-house.". This,
however indecorous, was in one sense stritilly right ;
they could effect nothing against-the Law of the Land,
or against Magna Charta. If they should be with
him of opinion, that they had taken a step which
went to rob Englishmen of their best inheritance, and
taking into-their consideration all the circumstances,
they should be "of opinion they had aided with too
great severity towards Mr. G. Jones, he trusted, see-
in they bad been wrong, they would Make no dif-
ficulty in complying with the I-notion which. lie
would conclude by making, viz.—" That Mr. Gale
Jones be discharged."
Mr. C. WYNNE was sorry the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet attacked the privileges of the House ; he first
conceived it to be his meaning, that "the House
should not condemn an individual to- imprisonment
for a libel, but when he called the privileges of that
House in question, he could not suppress his asto-
nishment. The Hon. Baronet bad alleged, that
prior to the . Long Parliament, there appears no in-
stance • of commitment for libel ; but this was not
the fad,, for There was the case of Thurst, in .the
reign of Henry; VIII. who was inapt isoaed for such
an offence. Privilege is not the work of any pArtie
miler at-t, but has existed from the beginning of Par-
liaments. It is true teat many of the feivil!ges al-
luded to by the Hon-Baronet we:e done away in
consequence of their intruding too much on the
lights of the. peeple ;
.yet the principle on which

they were grounded still exists. The ofTeneeecif Mr.
Gale Jones was not against an individual, which that
individual might redress by indictment; bot it was
an offence against the whole body of Parliament.
He concluded by saying, that however be might vote
were the question in another way, in its present
form he must vote against it.
Lord A. HAAI/LTON remarked, that from the
general line-or politics of his Hon. Friend, he was
sure he was not infiueneed by personal motives.
He was confident a Court of Law would not be
timid, in giving any redress, in consequence 'of any
sentence of this Houie, but would decide according
to law.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL understood from what
has fallen from the Hon. Baronet, that he maintains
that the individual alluded to shoul•Lbe liberated, on.
the green& of this House having tro right to com-
mit him. He could not conceive how the cases cited,
previous to the Revolution, could apply to the pre-
sent; alter that period, .the Hee. B ironet had
mentioned two, wherein the Courts of Law had de-
termined contrary to the sentence of this House.
Even these lawyers, he should shew, did not apply
to the case in soles, ion. The first -W JS that of the
Patent ; but he 'did not conceive that the refusal
of the Judges to sign a Billoi•Exceptiona would be
called a breach of privilege ; for what was soee iu
the exercise of judicial duty could not be construed
into a contempt of this House. He was still more
surprised at the ref:rence to the Banbury cas, for
here-the application was not even stated. In as
appeal to the. House of Lords, tf e Judges were
called on by them to explain the reasons of their
decision ; they refused to do sso.unn ss upon at
Writ..of Error. Still this was not contempt, a 12,1
indeed it was impoOble to draw any argurneut
from either case. If this individual e ere brought
by Habeas Corpus beferethe King's Bench, he was
sure that Court weuld not interfere any more than
if he had been committed by Common Law.—
With respect to the case of Wilkes, where Lord
Mayor CI osby, who was a Member of this House,
was committed, it ought to be recollected that -
it was not for any thing connected with his situa-
tion here. The Honourable. Barttner had alluded
to the simile. which compered this assembly to
a set of drtinken porters, and its resolutions to
the bye-laws of a corpbranon. He would ask the
Hon. Baronet what•goveins the validity of the oye-
laws of-a-Corpoftiribia against any thing done out of
that corporation. In this rnatter he-would cite the
opinion of Lord ChiefJuoice Deg Grey,wriu refers to
Lord Coke's Institutes on the susjeet, and which ex_. pressiy declares that this House has full potters to
commit for contempt and breach of ptivileges.
and it was agreed that its adjudication was convi,7-
lion, and its commitment execution. As ip the
cbjeclion against the torm of the last clause of the
warrant for commitment, " During 'the pleasure .of
the House," and that it should be considered void,
there was a precedent .for this too, in the case of
CrOsby,whohe.commiital, it would a;pear, was like
the present, and to which every cbjecuun was made
in vain. Another more recent. case appeared in we
House of Lords, that of the King v. B. Ig-ewer, :in
which it Was determined that the House.of Cum-
mons had full power to commit to prison for eons -
tempt, and breach of its privileges. after many
other able arguments, the Learned Gentleman con-
eluded by voting against the motion.
Mr. CREEVEY, in support of tie motion, quoted
several libels on the Hous,e, and for welch there was,
no committal; he - likewise mentioned a petition
from Kent, :which was likewise considered a libel,
• but with a similar consequence. .He .not deny
the power and authority of:the House, but supported
the motion for the liberation of Mr. Gale Jones:
Lord.FoutsToNE was of opinion that the cases
cited by the Attorney-General were not analogous
to the present. He deemed it very unfair of the
Learned Gentleman to rouse the feelings of the
HouSe against. the thin. Baronet,-by alluding to w mat'
was meetioned of "drunken potter," and !‘hees
lawisa;" observing that the comparison was not =Cie,
but merely adduced to illustrate his argument.
His Lordship conceived this to be -a very serious
case, and one that retiuired the totehtive eonsi‘!era-
tion of the House. On searching into the JournalS,
he did not find it to be the exercised right of this
House. The usual custom was to give the person.
to the care of the Serjeant at Arms, and, then lona I
a Committee to decide. The -Noble. Lord [ilea?
defined what lie conceived to toe contempt, name-
ly, such
,condua as would tend to interrupt the
proceedings of the House, He should be happy if
,his. Hon. Friend would fiame his motion in such a
way as that it might moreeasily be determined On.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL stated the only quesiion
to be, whether Mr. Gale Jones was guilty of e•on-
.
tempt or not. When called to the Bar, he, con-
fessed himself guilty, and, on this confession, 'the
House adjudged his punishment. it was open to
evcryindividual to apply here by petition, and why
was not this method pursued in the present instance
Even after negativing this motion, I would not: re-
fusethe petition.

Mr. SHERIDAN remarked that there had been
many cases quoted, from
,Canute down to the pre-
sent time; but he wished' to call the 'attention of
the House to one—that of Sir. Gale Jones. The
Right Ron. Gentlemen said, that it would not be-
come the House to discharge him on the ground al.
leged by the Hon.. Bart: but that he would vote for
his liberation. He was at a loss to conceive why
this person should be a martyr to the arguments
brought.forWard ; these will not be inserted in the
journals, they will not stand on record, but that an .
unhappy, individual, after expressing unfeigned re-
gret and contrition, should still ;anguish in confine-
ment, truly astonished him—a victim to arguments:,
every part of which went tacaa in question the rights,
and authoritiesof this House. The privileges of the
House of Commons must be defended by its-Mem-
bers, and surely it was a slip from the
.Hon. Baro-
net, when he said this AsSembly was fie inferior of
the three branches of the Legislature. He then filen-
tioned the case of Mr. Beeves. He was himself
Chairman of the Cominittee, to Whose ~decision
was referred a most scand;ilous libel on Parliament;,
it was then moved and agreed, tht the persob should
be prosecutes by the Ati-orney-General in the King. 3
where,. however, he was aequitted by a Judge
and July. What was Mr Jones's offence ? The
taking into consideration, in. a debating society, the
conduct of their representatives. He had a strong
objection to extremes, and therefore he should
not follow the 'commitment. He then read that