94 



ANNUAL REGISTER, 1810. 



been said by Mr. Speaker, in re- 

 primanding the said John Gale 

 Jones, should be entered in the 

 Journals of that House. 



The attention of the House of 

 Commons was again called to 

 Jones, March the 12th, by sir 

 Francis Burdett, who lamented 

 exceedingly that, in consequence 

 of indisposition, he had not been 

 present when John Gale Jones was 

 committed to Newgatefor a breach 

 of the privileges of that House. 

 He knew it was at all times much 

 easier to prevent the adoption of a 

 measure, than to induce the House 

 to retract a resolution. He could 

 rot, however, discharge his duty 

 if he did not still endeavour to in- 

 duce the House to retract a step 

 which they were not authorized to 

 take. — The House, he contended, 

 and parliament were different ; 

 there must, consequently, be a dif- 

 ference in the extent of the privi- 

 leges which they might, separately, 

 or in conjunction with the other 

 house of parliament, be supposed 

 to possess. On this ground, he 

 maintained that the imprisonment 

 of John Gale Jones was an in- 

 fringement of the law of the land, 

 and a subversion of the principles 

 of the constitution. — The question 

 was, if the. House of Commons 

 had a right to imprison a person, 

 not a member of that House, for an 

 offence punishable by the ordinary 

 course of law; and by a vote, for 

 that purpose, deprive the people of 

 their imprescriptible rights ?— In 

 this question there was involved 

 the consideration of two distinct 

 qualities: privilege and power. 

 Privilege the House possessed for 

 its own protection : power was a 

 right to be exercised over others. 

 Privilege they were to exercise to 



prevent the crown from molesting 

 them in their proceedings ; as a 

 shield to themselves, not as a 

 scourge to the rest of the Com- 

 mons. That this was the real na- 

 ture of the privilege of the House 

 of Commons, he deduced from a 

 variety of cases in parliamentary 

 history, up to the long parhament: 

 when, from the peculiar circum- 

 stances of the country, in order to 

 resist the arbitrary encroachments 

 of a despotic prince, the House of 

 Commons found it absolutely ne- 

 cessary in the struggle, not only to 

 extend their privileges, but to 

 assume powers, the exercise of 

 which abolished the House of 

 Lords, brought the king to the 

 block, and ultimately dissolved the 

 whole frame of the government.^ II 

 But these surely were not sources 

 sufficiently clear, nor times suffi- 

 ciently analogous, to countenance 

 similar proceedings, under a legal, 

 settled, and established system of 

 government. 



Sir Francis stated a case,* in 

 which the judges of the King's- 

 bench were summoned by the 

 House of Lords to appear before 

 them, and answer to a complaint 

 made against them by a petition 

 to tile House of Lords, respecting 

 a decision of that court. This the 

 judges refused to do. They denied 

 the jurisdiction of the House of 

 Lords; insisted on their undoubted 

 right as Englishmen to a trial by 

 a jury of their equals, if in any 

 thing they were accused of having 

 done wrong, and claimed the be- 

 nefit of being tried according to 

 the known course of the common 



law. They relied on Magna 



Charta, which they said was made 

 for them as well as others ; and 

 maintained, rtiat all powers and 



* That of Bridgeman verms Holt, in 1697. 



