The Statesman. — London, England, 1810-04-17 00:00:00

v &ace was not necessary" • Uppn this poiat r hi s h ou ld wish to put a ,question to some cum. r elent authority ; and to none more competent could he apply than to the Right Hon. Memberin the Chair. The question was, whether the estabi h s b e d practice was as bad been described ; lest t h o ugh the answer might influence his arguuteut, if it was not regular, he should not press the clues. n u n ? but assume the affirmative, and reason upon that assumption. First, then s the maw!' why the practice of petitionitig had grown into use was Main and obvious. The commitments by the 'louse were for an indefinite time ; and is the pri soner could have no knowledge of the time for which he was committed, be, was usually led to petition early, in the. hope that it might lead to his discharge.' Into his p e tition, t h o t e r isre , it would be natural fur him to throw in all the eircumstauces and sentiments which might be likely to induce the House to comply with his application. Thus it was, that the practice of petitioning might have arisen, and thus tau the parties might by petitioning have usually obtained their discharge sooner than they other. wise would. Thu House, showing itself indulgent to those who petitioned, genceal:y released them in three or four days after their commitment, unless in cases dais aggravated nature, which may have led to the practice.of requiring petitions to be pre. gent 11. For himself, be was extremely loth to break in upon long established usages ; but he was not prepared to follow. this usage into all its rousequenees. The effect of such an usage as this %soukl be, that different persons might be corn. w itted for the. same or similar. offences, at dif ferent periods of the Session, and, in consequence of this usage, be subjected to very unequal degree of punishment. Mr. Gale Junes might, fur his offence, be committed at the commencement of the Session, and out being disposed to petition, might b e confined fur six or semi months, whilst sue. censinitted for the same offence, may be con. fined only three or four days. Jones persists in nOt petitioning, and continues the whole of the Session ill continemeut ; the other submits, acknowledging his offence, and is discharged in three or four days. If a question were to hat put to him Ow any given time of confinement, whether the prisoner had been sufsciently punished, he might answer in the affirmative, according to his idea of the proportion between the offence and punishment. But if asked shy he should not be discharged, he should be at a loss to answer, according to any principles of jurisprudence known to him. The continuance of the confinesneut was a puitishment for an 0f..1 fence of which' the Heuse had not declared him guilty, upon which they had passed no vote; i: Would be &punishment, not for what he had done,' but for what he had abstained from doing. Ac. cooling to any principles of jurisprudence with which he was acuainted, this would be a strange system of punishment. %%lest difE•renee could it make to that House if he were to ac. kauwledge the offence ?—\Vould it be any satisfaction to their privileges, or their digiiity, if he were to make a false acknowledgment to that effect ? Under the present circumstances, it must he obvious to the House, that in such an acknow. ledgmaist the party would not act voluntarily ; La if he were to submit, it would only be that he might not suffer three or four months longer Imprisonment. But, would the House thereby gain any security for its privileges? Would they acquire any accession to their dignity ? Could they he assured that Ga:e Jones would not again offend in the same manner? If he were to offend again, could they not commit him in the same manlier as if he had acknou le lged his offence in this in. stance? Ile knew of no analogy by which this ri4ht to make a man confeis his offence mall be justified. His opinion of the effCet of i etitioning was, that the party imprisoned might obtain his discharge somewhat earlier. But he could not perceive why the ab. stainin, l from presenting a petition should have het:Get of lengthening the duration of his con. finement. rutting the ease in that way, the mo. tire for peiitionjug, as well as abstaining from petitioning, would he obvious. The person who i.roenterl a petition Was generally liberated ; but wh o did nut petition star suffered to remain in confinement. This was the reason why petitions l'er.tme the practice, because there was scarcely aly instance in which the party committed did Lot present a petitioe, exiapt in those cases in which pride or convictieit prevented the adoptioti of such a course. Upon these groundp it was that he was of opinion that John Gale Junes ought to be discharged, if the !louse should be of that be had suffered sufficient pun:ab. meat. If he were to be asked what extent of im. prisunment he should consider a sufficient punish. meat fur the offence he should say one mouth, or six weeks ; but should not by any means extend it beyond two mouths. Considering, therefore, the length of this person's confine. Net, he should vote for his discharge. He a. Peed perfectly with the Honourable garonet that they should not entertain any fear of b 'ing thought afraid of what might be thought of their motives. But ho would not consent to do an act of injustice, in order that he might not be supposed to be afraid. Such a feel. ing he did not entertain. lie should take the same twirse on any other. occasion. Ile had nut paid any attention to this subject before the present r i`c had been brought forward. ‘Vhen he did t , urn his at ten ti on to it, h e very qu i c kl y arr i ve d a t tie conclusion which his Hon. and Learned Friend come to, and as he was convinced that the ;nail had been sufficiently punished, he should vote Jr his discharge. rye SPEAKER rose and said, that he did not noose whether it mi g ht n o t be the pleasure of th e nuesc that he should give an answer to the gees. Nos which hail; been put to him, and particularly b y the iti , ht Honourable Gentleman who had just 84t actwn. He was prepared to state what he had gathered from the Joesruals as to the p ractice of Parliament un t hi s subject . ' The course was dif. rerun on comm itments to the custody of the Ser. leant, and ott commitments to hi, Majesty's it'll. lit the instance of commitments to the Serjcant, which her • were but temporary, the prac. was both ways. The party obtained his rc. 44•44) by petition often, -sad often by statutes& made in his favour, as in the cue of a commit. Committee, meet by a at 'the time the Cent " Wee reported that the witness comported or de. sowed himself properly. The House would re. tellect the case of . Mr. Alcock t who presented a petition on being ordered to the Bar, and yet was committed to the custody of the Serjeant though 'discharged in the course of the same ni ' The ' last cue of that tlescriptien was that of M . Stu- Air art, the primer, who was committed to I%e cus.: turfy of the Serjeant, .and afterwards discharged upon petition. The commitments to his Alejes. t)es jails were 'different. He might venture - to say, that in such Cases the practice, if put ton. versal, was general, not it; refeaie 'from such commitment, but 'Nom petititni. Fur 'this hu could lint! no rule : it rested' altogether on prac. face.; and that, with the qualificatiOns he 'had mentioned, was steady and Ultiforita.'• A.s*to the digerent forms of petitions, that must hive ariscO from the different and various cirettnistaisCei which each petitioner might wish. to bring under the consideration of the House: In general, the party acknowledged that-he had offetideAl. against the pri vileges of that House, and expressed . sorrow for that offence. Ile had thui stated what. he had been able to collect from the Journals, ant(which he felt it his duty to communicate to the Rouse. ' The CHANCELLOR of the * EXCII . EQUER I observed, that, as the Speaker had 'itated i that every person committed to a jail, according to the practice of the House, • was required to petition, before he could be discharged, it would nut be necessary fur him to say much upon this subject. !I The question was nut wh e th e r a P e titi on presented was insufficient, but whether the circumstances of ; the time or the occasion were such as to intlece the House to depart for the first time from its established practice. Ile could see nothing in either to call for such an abandonment oldie prac. tice of Parliatiieot. His Honourable and Learn. ed Friend had reasoned eloquently against the . severity of ceiling upon a man to recant here. tical, or theoretical opinions, which lie may have entertained against the Constitution. Against all such arguments the wily answer was, that lie was not to be called upon to abjure any such opinions. But having been voted guilty of a Breach of the Privileges of that House, lie saw no reason why he should not do that which he bad already done; —[llear, hear !] The Hun. Gentleman seemed to think that Gate Jones had dune enough in his former acknowledgment. But why should he now I refuse to do what lie haul dune at the Bar, when it wail requisite, according to the practice of the House, that he should present a petition to that elfect to entitle him to hi discharged ? This sin. • gle circumstance was sufficient to get rid of all the "aegunients of his Honourable and Learned Friend opposite. It would appear. that he was not . eatled, upon to . recant any. opinions by a rderence to the minetes of what passed when he . ' seat at the Bar.. From these, it would be seen that he admitted, " in this instance [ have erred ; and I threw myself awn the mercy of this assem bly.".. Was it not clear .thee from this that he Nas not tu be 'called pa to re,Gaet Ali opinions he '6 4l .pi*Tiously held I' It was his.own contumacy, therefore, in 'refusing, to do what he had already done, that pievented him (rum being discharged. lc had been asked, why" not discharge upon their own sense of justice? To this he would answer, that the justice of such cases was always governed by the presenting a petition. Refusing, there. fore, to petition, he was not entitled to be di:,.. charged.. It was absolutely necessary• fur the House to abide by its forms, and that without suf fering themselves to be bewildered with reasoning upon abstract propositions. As to questions raised with respect to the inequality of punishment in the exercise of this power of the house, ,he would admit that the House had many infirmities as to the power of inflicting punish ments. If Jones hail any severity to coin &alio or, lie brought it upon himself. Ile had reason to believe, notwithstanding what had been stated by the Noble Lurd opposite to the contrary, that his Right Hon. Friend was correct in stating, that Gale Jones had applied to. a Member to present a petition fur him. "fltd factbe had (ruin nude quar ters than ono, to whom it had been communicated by the Hint. Member himself. In the case of General Clavering last year, the Hun. Baronet (Sir T. 'furtun) would not even -be heard without a petition. • The • case of Drake, too, happened in a good time, as the Gentleman opposite sat then at the side from which he spoke; and yet the practice of the House had been adhered to. In these two-recent cases, the House had shown Inure severity than towards Gale Jones. lie was not called upon to admit the falsehood of what he had stated before, but merely to say that by petition which he had already said at the bar of" the Huns.. WAS there any thing that called for such departure from their usages ? Was there any thing in the period that required them to de scend from their dignity ? Was this a time that they were to diminish those privileges which were essential to their existence? He agreed that they should not be actuated by any. fear of being thought afraid to do their duty ; hut strong as he felt that sentiment, he should not do an act of injustice. He was of opinion that Gale Jones should be made to submit to the prac tice of Parliament. This he was convinced the case required; and as no eircurnstauces had been shown to induce the House to depart from its esta blished usage, he should feel bound to vote against the motion. Sir vimAs TURTON, in explanation, said that K. had presented no petition from General Clavcring, whom nothing could have tempted to ackuowleiJge that he had prevaricated, when con. scions that he was wholly Incapable 'of such con. duct. • Mr. WHITBREAD, if the explanation of the Hon. Baronet had not anticipated him, had intend. ed to set the Right lion. Gentleman right as to the allusion he made to the case of General Cie vering. No petition whatever had been presented to thoHnuse from General Clavering ; and so far as thu reasoning of the Right lion. Gentleman rested upon that case, it must fall to tbcground. He was of opinion that the Right Honourable Art FUT TH I STATMMAN. in.tke coarse of argument s had done great injustice to Gale Jaws. By comparing his commitment to the ruses of persons committed for falsehood o r pietarieation, the Right' Ho. nourable Gentleman hid done much injury to tho persob whose case was now under considera. Con. Ho wasglad to find the Right Hon... Gen. tlemen opposite admitting that the submission of Mr. Gale Jones et , the bar was sufficiently because when ho hid staled tkat . ipoti a former oc. sion, 'these Right Hon. Gentlemen hid denied the fact. Now, however,* the Alight • Hun. Gentle. man opposite sicknOwledged that the sabmisslen was -suchut that time as to satisfy Mm, if only renewed petition. The Right Hon. Gentle. man 'hdci made hut a partial _quotation from the minutes; becluself he had quoted the ; whale pas. site, it would give a different appeirtinco to :the feelinethat produced it. The paisageshoiii4 be. gins •POn reviewing the paper,. hoiever,.l Itilew!ddge errororec. - ".1 lie MOO acoltithons, he did think had treatedtals•lOnis'ivith * CrOcity in Catititiftiachiii. for such an oiteniiiraftee he had throwithiutsditnpinitheir teers,y„ *: Put the Right Hen. Off s ittfitnsan had argued that' lie - nO4 refused to ackeitiwtetlge by petition wliathe had Rrevionily admitted, and that it waii,oWing. to his own con. tunsacy z that, lie was not dischUrged. What could the House thiuk of Mr. Jones, or he of the House urCOmnions, that after having admitted his error and thrown hiniself upon its mercy, it-should bp 'expected that he should a second time acknowledge his offence ? Was it..uot enough that he had once made the acknowledgem ent? No! said the Right llonourableGentlemait, in the spirit of 'his in. tolerance, we must have him again do that which he has dune before; weshall have himagein at the Bar, and make him show that he has not changed It s opinion. But supposing him to have changed his opinion —supposing that others too have changed their opinions —why should they compel him to sky that what he thought true yesterday he con. finites to think true this tlay ? He was aware that • the [tight Hun. Geetlemati was stedfastly fired in Ms religious opinions, and that ho might call upon the House to believe all they had been taught when they were children. But, said the Right Hon.. Gentleman, he is nut to be called on to retract any theoretical opinion. If he had changed hie opinion upon the subject of that paper, which he had before admitted to be an offence or error on his part, would it not be to call upon him to do violence to his conviction, to oblige him to acknowledge what he did not now believe ? —Suppose a man to live before the Refor mation, and fur disbelieving transubstantiation to be brought before the persecuting Inquisi tion. Suppose him before that terrible tribunal to admit that lie believed the article, and notwith standing to be sent to prison, where, meeting with books to enlighten him, he discovers the ' error into which he had fallen, and reverts into his former opinion, would it be no retraction of his opinion for him to be ohliged to admit the doctrine of transubstantiation ? But the Right Honourable Gentleman, if he did not acknow• ledge what he .bad done before, would apply to him the torture of the mind. Might 'sot the man -properly avow he would rather rut in prison than submit. to such a recantation ? than be driven to admit that to lais false which he knew to be true ? This would. he Jones's case if he had conscientiously changed his opinion since be had beau' at the bar of that House. But the Right Hon. Gentleman ,would have his confine ment continued to the end of the Session, if he did nut petition, and that too at s time when he was remarking on the infirmities of the House of "Commons respecting the indiction of punishments. ,That Right Hon. Gentleman was the first man who in a British House of Commons desired that it might have the power of imprisoning fur a cer. tein time. .This was the first instance of such a doctrine being broached since these questions had been canvassed by enlightened men. If he, fur one, were to be in (lie situation of Jones,, and to petition,. he would be a hypocrite. The other [tight Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Secretary Ry. der) who had called the able speech of his lion. end Learned Friend common places, had cer. taiiily exhibited in his own impressive, eloquent, illustrative, and conclusive speech, a meat sulk. ing contrast to the common places he described. It had been said, that in all such cases. the, !louse was bound to decide for itself. That he . denied. It had mint done so in the case of Stock. dale or Reeves. The Attorney. General /as or dered to prosecute.. The Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ryder) therefore had mistaken and mistatcd the pre.ctice of the House. In all his arguments the Right Hon. Gentleman confounded the con'. raitment of Gale Jones with commitments to which it bore no resemblance. Why should it be cow. founded with the cases Of Drake-, or Cbtrering, and of Sandon ? Forbid it, justice ! forbid it, fair dealing ! forbid it, the spirit of toleration'! Mr. ,Gale Jones had bacu punished for a thing that to the knowledge of every Member in the House, had been practised every day for a considerable time past. As to the privileges of the House, he conceived they should be resorted to only in cases of necessity ; and he saw no necessity for the House having exercised its power in the case of Mr. Jones. lie happened not to be in the House at the time the vote passed for his commit tal, and lie was now happy that he had itt no de gree made himself a party to that vote. If ever a similar question should again be brought forward, he should not concur in such a vote. Ito should, on the contrary, propose that the case should be referred to a Jury. It was well known that many things, which fora long time had been considered privileges, were found, when - examined, to be no privileges at all. Among that number, he would' mention manorial rights. He would not contend that Mr. Gale Jones should be ,released OR ae. count of any circumstances belonging to the pre. sent time, but that he had a right to be released on the justice of his case. It would be cru elty to continue his punishment for a term mud longer than could be considered lidetil!mid to his (Wendt. Ile knew nothing at ell of Mr: Gale Jones ; but be bad heard that at the bee pf the" House he 'made a decent apology for. his dime, and be thought the lifiuse ought not no* -~---T -, to insist dpon any more. Uptight very well hap. pen that in the mean time he Might hate Aura his opinioo, sad might now conceive (es may others did) that the Home had no right SO commit him. If this Was the conviction of his Mind it present, it wonabe cruel to Cooke him wall be stated a contrary opinion. A good deal had home said about the state attic Public dsind epee die pre. sent question. Ile must allbn than wall imPtllitilde to beeetirely indifferent to that consideration; and the opinions which he had heard and riadebstis this question was first agitated, had shaken most con. siderably the opinion he bed before formed with respect. to the privileges of the House on the point of commitment. lie thought it was how. over must unfair to make the state of the publks Mind en argument for continuing G. Jones in prison longer than the- justice of his case required ;' and "that no man ought to be htc rificed iu order to prove the privileges of the. Muse. If be was now to be disishargud and commit another act of the same kind, he might be again taken ,up' and punished as if he had not beeu before inspHsoned. The continuance of the punishment beyond all measure or appearance of justice, would prodtice an effect on the public mind, very oppbsite to that which would be wished by those who were fur supporting the character of the House with the country. Mr. It' NML Arose, and said +. 44 I Must differ from- all the arguments of the Hoo. Gentlemen who here preceded me, 'as to pint of form. I wish it tobe understood that I do not desire it to be recollected; that my name bad ever been eluded.— [Year, Hear.]- 7 4 wiskto giee.nryvote, and that it should be considered u perfectly. eta. partial. But cats any Hon. Member vote foe the dismissal of a man who contemptu•ously refuels to acknowledge the privileges of that House, by his not petitioning ? I caunot think the slightness of the crime ought to be the means of doing away with the privileges and precedents of this House. I cannot sure the difference between the case of Me. Gale Jones, and many .others, that have been acted upon in the same *ay.... [Keer] It has been said by an Honourable 'emit of mine, that it was merely a question between this Gdritleinatt and the House. This I deny; it is nut the attestation of Gale Jones, it is nut a quarrel bete eels him and the House, but it is in indignity shows; to the House, and it had been their duty to take notice of it, to preserve their prero. gative. (hear, hear !)- I would ask, why seed bliss to prison at all ? I will answer, because it will deter others from acting in the mime [hear! hear !] I will apply to the Right Hon. and. Learned Gentleman, who brought forward this motion (Sir Samuel Romilly), whose. Criminal Bill I shall have an opportunity of descanting on ; but I would ask him, would he propose that it should be unjust to lump a criminal in prison, because he might by petition be re leased ? Suppose, for instance, that a man was attempted to be rescued, would it be said,. that Ma fate was bard, because he was still confined on ac count of the rescue not having taken place?.-- [Hear j I say a man', offence, whetlaWlee IS doomed to definite or indefinite impritonment, when he has it in his power to remove himself by petition, nay, to enlarge himself, is looked upon with a lenient eye. On what grourots cab my Honourable Friends contend, that Mr. Gale Jones should go without tiny punishment; that he should, contrary to every rule of this House, be disch - arged,, without conforming to its forms? The subject, in my opinion, as it relates to the forms of this House or its privileges, ought never to be brought in question, or allowed to be in pod :lithos, that evidence could be brought against them. The arguments of my Honourable Friend (Mr. (Niteroi) far surpassed my idea of this question ; he entered into the continental war, and not satisfiell with that, • took a full review of what is called Parliamentary Reform. To the theory of Reform, I was averse, but still must I be more so, at the present time, seeing the ferment in the public mind, which has been exposed to every discerning twin, fur those several days past, which, perhaps, is only suspended ; shall we, iu the very vitals of- that Saint, grant them that and other objects of oteir desire shall we release John Gale Jones from prison, that we might have it to -say, that ne sent him to Barrabas ? [howl laughicr.] I am not blind to the faults of the House, but its estimation is not to be judged by such a criterion ; it has not a right for a moment to.stoop; for when you en courage by your connivance, the House must lose its privilege. I think the House, in the case of Mr. Gale Jones, have beets attempted to be jibed oust of their privileges. lam of opinion . that the Right Hon. Gentleman, Mr. Yorke, acted per. . Getty proper ; .at the sane time I must acknow ledge that I would have let it pass ; but men hay. 'lng different opissiong, I must approve of his con. duct, and do think there was no other mode of taking it up. I feel sorry that it has called forth • the animadversions that it has—l meats as to that superior man, the Hon. Baronet, who has been committed ; bust, with all its consequences, ['think the right mode had been pursued--I took 0 middle course on the letter of Sir F. Burdett—on the motion of his expulsion—because I thought the House itself could not have dose it—Eikar, haul] I must confess that I think the present time the most improper to bring forward the quev. • tion rich the Right Honourabler Gentleman has this 'eight—[Dear, hear I.] It had been said thit it wound be carried 'nem. cots..-but in What way could that be understood, whew -it was, known that if the person intinisowed Mill wily petition, he would bet refuted I I have heard much talk of humanity, but why was it not brought forward in the casein( .General Clavering and Captain Sattdon, last year ? The hardship certainly was less to a man in a lower sphere of life, than to them ; yet oily came out by petition, and the other remained until the Session. closed. [Pearl.] Larceny is thought more disgraceful than highway robbery ; yet the law lays a heavier penalty on the latter. So with treason : although the law dealt more severely with those who came under the denomina. tion of that charge, yet it was thought less die. graceful. So, Sir, it is with the privileged of this _ _ • ' - I I - - - I. ... .. ~~ - - r