tion of the hon. proprietor. The motion was accordingly unanimously agreed to.

Mr. Lowndes's motion for the thanks of the court to Mr. G. Smith, for his upright conduct in parlia ment on the late occasion, was then put.

Mr. Jackson submitted, that the proper order of proceeding, and also the feelings of the hon. member, would be better consulted by postponing the question till the report itself should be considered.

Mr. Smith enforced this mode of proceeding, and, after a few words from Mr. Elphinstone, Mr. Grant, Mr. Thornton, &c. from all of which it appeared, that the committee had originated in the desire of the directors themselves, Mr. Lowndes obtained leave to withdraw his motion in the mean time.

The Report was then ordered to be printed.

Extract from the Proceedings at a General Court of the United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, held July 6, 1809.

RESOLVED,

"That this court having taken into its serious consideration the Report laid before it on the 29th. of March last, purporting to be a Report from a Select Committee of the House of Commons, ❝ appointed to inquire into the existence "of any corrupt practices in regard to "the appointment and nomination of "writers or cadets in the service of the "East India Company," cannot but express its deep regret at the corrupt and improper transactions therein disclosed: and that this court, while it observes with great pleasure the declaration of the said committee, that throughout the whole of the evidence they remark nothing which traces any one of such corrupt or improper bargains to any director, or induces a reasonable suspicion that they were done with his privity or connivance, is decidedly of opinion, that a greater degree of circumspection in the appointment of the civil and military servants of the East India Company is not only essential to its reputation, and to the success of its affairs, but highly important to the pub

lic interest: it does therefore determine, That in future, all writers and cadets, as well as the students meant for such appointments, shall be examined and chocourt shall be bound to make, by the in sen in an open court of directors, which terrogation of the candidate and of the person recommending him, and by such other examination and means as shall seem to them to be expedient for that purpose, a full inquiry into the charac the said candidate, as well as into the ter, connections, and qualifications of

means of his introduction to that court,

and to record upon their proceedings the result of such inquiry, with their determination thereon. That all such candi dates shall present petitions for their appointments; but that no petition shall be entertained or discussed, unless the same be indorsed or underwritten by a

director, in the following terms, over and above any declaration now required, viz.-"I, A. B. being one of the direc "tors of the East India Company do de"clare, that I have fully inquired into "the character, the connections, and "qualifications of the within petitioner, "C. D. and that, in my opinion, he is “ a fit person to petition the East India

Company for the appointment which "he herein solicits." But that nothing contained in the said or any other declaration from a director, shall relieve the said court from the obligation of pursuing, with the utmost strictness, the aforesaid inquiry. And that it shall not be lawful for any director to circulate any written recommendation of any candidate, or otherwise interfere in his ap pointment, than in an open court of directors. Provided always, that each director shall be at liberty so to indorse, or underwrite, so many and such petitions as he would, according to the present mode and rules respecting patronage, be intitled to sign nominations and no more. And that the court of directors do lay before this court, at least once in each year, or oftener if required, an account of the number of writers, cadets, and students, whose petitions have been agreed to, as well as the number of those whose petitions have been rejected.

Resolved Unanimously. That the thanks of this court be given to George Smith, Esq. M. P. for the very honourable promptitude with which he proposed, in his place in the house of commons, an inquiry into the alledged abuses, with respect to the appointment of the

civil and military servants of this company; and to Charles Grant, Esq. M.P. who seconded the same; and such others of the directors, who, as members of the house of commons, supported with so much zeal and unanimity the said inquiry.

The resolutions of the court of directors, which follow, were read in the general court, the 2d. of June last, viz.

At a court of directors, held on Tuesday, April 4, 1809:

The court resuming the consideration of the report of a committee of the honourable house of commons on the patronge of the East India company;

Resolved:-That it is the duty of the court of directors to act in strict conformity with their resolution of the 28th. February, 1799; and they then fore resolve, that it is expedient that the court should resort to the painful measure of immediately ordering from India such persons in the company's civil and military service, as shall appear by satisfactory evidence to have obtained their appointments by corrupt considerations, paid either by themselves or through their friends. The court deem this painful determination necessary, not so much with a view of punishing parties who may perhaps be many of them ignorant of the circumstances under which their appointments have been obtained, and the sufferings therefore of many of whom, even in passing this resolution, the court does not deem it any impeach iment of its duty to commiserate, but under an opinion, that such a severe example is absolutely necessary effectually to stop such improper practices in future. Then follow several resolutions for the more effectually guarding against similar abuses: likewise resolutions for aunulling all those appointments obtained by unmeans, and that the persons in possession should be dişinissed from the service of the company: at the same time it was resolved,-That writers and Cadets dismissed from the company's service, because their appointments were procured by corrupt practices, and who are rendered capable of being re-appointed into the service, upon the nomination of individual directors, provided they have not themselves been parties in any corrupt practices, shall nevertheless after receiving such re-appointment, be capable of enjoying the same only by a yote of a general court, founded on the recommendation of this court.

fair

VOL. VL,

That your petitioner is the sole proprietor of the Independent Whig newspaper, which from its first commencement, has been, and still is, printed at No. 23, in Warwick-square, within the said city of London: and that your peti tioner is now a prisoner in the county gaol of the county of Dorset, in pur suance of the sentence of the Court of Pleas, held before the King himself at Westminster, (usually called the Court of King's Bench) which sentence was pronounced at Westminster, a place not within the said city of London, contrary to the rights and privileges of the citizens of the said city.

Your petitioner published, in his said newspaper in Warwick-square, within the said city, in the months of December, 1307, and January, 1808, certain letters, signed "T. C." "Humanitas," "A Sea

66

man," and "Junius," for which publications criminal informations were filed, er officio, against your petitioner by the King's attorney-general, in Hilary Term, 1808, at Westminster, a place without the said city of London, although a grand jury of the citizens of the said city was sitting at the very time within the said city; in which informations it was alledged that the above named publications were scandalous and malicious libels, though the said publications were not alledged to be in any particular false or untrue. Now it is not only the privilege of the citizens of the said city, but the acknowledged right of every subject of the British empire who is accused of crimes and misdemeanors, to have an indictment preferred before the best men of his county, who are to deterinine whether there be sufficient cause to put him upon his trial; but, as a grand jury is not always sitting, and as danger might arise to the state in some cases from the delay of assembling a grand jury, the practice of filing a criminal information before the king at Westminster has been tacitif conceded to the attorney-general of the crown, at such times as no grand jury shall be assembled; but it has never been contended that the subject should be deprived of the privilege of having his

A a

case submitted to a grand jury of his county, before he be put upon his trial, except where pernicious consequences to the state would arise from the delay of calling together such jury; but this could not obtain in the case of your petitioner, because a grand jury of his county, namely, of the city of London, were actually sitting at the very time the criminal informations were filed against him at Westminster.

Your petitioner humbly craves leave to remind your honourable house, that it was not even alledged in the said criminal informations that the matter which gave rise to them was false or untrue, though the matter was alledged to be scandalous and malicious, and that it was the usage of the court of King's Bench, till within the last forty years, not to permit any information to be filed for libellous matter, which was not alledged to be false as well as malicious, and indeed the most recent determination on the subject coincides with the opinions uniformly maintained by our ancestors; for, in the case of Sir John Care, and Hood and Sharpe, the plaintiff did not recover in action for a publication which was true, though admitted to be malicious and injurious.

Your petitioner having had a criminal information filed against him, of the nature and under the circumstances above stated, the solicitor for the crown moved for a special jury, to which motion the Judges of the court of King's Bench acceded, and a special jury was awarded of such freeholders who were entered in the Freeholders' Book belonging to the sheriff, with the addition of freeholder and merchant, which special jury was struck, not by the sheriff, but by the master of the crown-office, who is a servant of the crown, the prosecutor in this instance; and the names were not taken as named by the said master, but several were passed over after he had named them, because he stated them to be not likely to attend, thereby subvert ing one of the principles of British justice which directs that a jury shall be impurtially selected, and attendance enforced by fines of court; and, indeed, the master of the crown-office might prevent all impartial persons from being summoned on a jury destined to try between the crown and the subject, if every name be passed over which he determines to be a person not likely to attend. And this conduct of the returning officer is conceived to

is con

be strong presumptive evidence that he knows the characters of the persons to be summoned, and has the power of act ing with partiality, which power trary to the constitution of these realms, and is strongly guarded against by the laws, in cases where no attempts are made to take the trial out of the common course of justice; for, the undersheriff (who summons juries) cannot continue in office longer than one year, nor be re-chosen till after an interval of two years, lest, from his familiarity with of fice, he may be enabled to select a partial jury.

Your petitioner also reminds this ho nourable house, that by a statute of the 7th. and 8th. years of King William III. (ch. 32,) it is enacted, that " every sum

σε

of

mons of any person qualified to any "the aforesaid services, (namely, serving on juries,) shall be made by the sheriff, his officer, or lawful deputy, six days " before, at the least;" but in the case of your petitioner, the summonses to the jury were not delivered six days before the trial, nor five days before, nor four days before; from which cause your petioner was not able to avail himself of a trial before a special jury, contrary to the rights of the subject and the law of the land; and this circumstance of not summoning the jury six days before the trial, contrary to the positive and explicit enactments of the law of the land, has prevented your petitioner from being tried by a jury of such men as had been assigned him as his peers.

Your petitioner was not tried by a jury of his peers; for, as the court of King's Bench had ruled that a jury of freeholders and merchants were his peers, it necessarily follows that those who were neither freeholders nor merchants could not be his peers; and yet those who were added to the special jury were neither freeholders nor merchants, and therefore were not his peers:--and of a jury composed of men who were all of them neither peers of your petitioner, nor peers among themselves, a verdict was given.

Your petitioner also craves the atten tion of this honourable house, to the words used by Sir Nash Grose on the trial, in his charge to the jury, which your petitioner humbly presumes to have been a deviation from the spirit of the constitution, which enjoins lenity and impartiality to form the basis of the conduct of every British judge, to have been also inimical to the letter and fair inter

46

pretation of the act of parliament entitled "An act to remove doubts respecting "the functions of juries in cases of libel," which act directs, that " on every such, "trial, the court or judge before whom "such indictment or information shall "be tried, shall, according to his or "their discretion, give their or his opi"nion and directions to the jury in the matter in issue between the King and "the defendant or defendants, in like AC manner as in all other criminal cases." -Your petitioner therefore prays to submit, for the decision of this honourable house, the propriety or impropriety of the following words, as used by Sir Nash Grose on this occasion, and which instead of delivering an opinion or direction, as in all other criminal cases," are conceived by your petitioner to be unprecedented in the annals of modern British jurisprudence. The words which your petitioner complains of, and which were taken down at the time by Mr. Farquharson, the short-hand writer, are as follows:-"In order to shew that they are most wicked, gross, and abo"minable libels, it is only necessary to "read, not ALL, but one or two of them, "But, gentlemen, under this act of par"liament, I am to give you iny opinion upon these publications, and I have no hesitation in saying that any thing more libellous I never heard read: in my opinion they are gross, scandalous, "and abominable libels!"

36

66

Your petitioner humbly submits to the benignity of this honourable house, whether these words ought not to have been considered, in strict impartiality, as sufficiently strong, in giving the opinion and direction of the judge as warranted by the act of parliament above alluded to, without the addition of the following unprecedented expression:-" But, really, gentlemen, I think it will be throwing "dust in your eyes if I say I entertain "the least doubt on the subject."-Your petitioner humbly submits, whether an opinion and direction of the judge thus given, and that without having read a tittle of the libels in question, or the defence that had been urged to the jury, comes within the meaning either of the letter of the law, or the spirit of the British constitution. And the necessity of a jury being peers among themselves as well as peers to the defendant, has been ever recognized and insisted upon by the British constitution, because

otherwise, the master and the servant, the creditor and the debtor, the employer and the employed, might be inclosed in the same jury box, in which case it would imply an absurdity to assert that' such jurymen were peers among themselves; for, the same individuals could not at the same time be both dependants and equals: and, if a jury be not peers among themselves, they cannot ALL be peers to the defendant, and their verdict 'may not be a free and unbiassed verdict.

And forasmuch as it is enacted by the bill of rights that "jurors ought to be "duly empannelled and returned;" and as no juror can be duly returned who is not summoned six days at least before the day of trial, the jurors summoned not four days before the trial of your petitioner, were not duly returned.

And forasmuch as it is the privilege of the citizens of the city of London to be tried and adjudged within the said city, though your petitioner has been tried (if the issue committed to a jury not duly impannelled and returned can be called a trial,) yet he has not been adjudged within the said city, contrary to the pri vileges of the citizens of the said city, and, therefore, such judgment being contrary to these privileges, is contrary to the law of the land, which has confirmed and established them.

And forasmuch as your petitioner, if adjudged within the said city, could only have been adjudged to confinement within the prisons of the sheriffs of the said city and county of Middlesex, it follows that a judgment which implies banishment from the said city, as well as confinement, is contrary to the lawful privileges of the citizens of the city, and when pronounced on a citizen in a place without the said city, for an alledged offence committed within the said city, is believed to be a violation of the law of the land, which acknowledges and confirms these privileges.

Your petitioner also humbly craves leave to observe that the measure of punishment assigned to him for the publication of the said letters is equal to the measure of punishinent assigned in any case where the lil was proved to be false, though the truth of the publications of your petitioner has never been called in question.

Your petitioner also humbly states, that, when he was removed from the prison of the court of King's Bench to