The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-14 00:00:00

CASE OF RICHARD GIBBONS.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE in rising to bring forward
the motion of which he had given notice for the
discharge of Richard Gibbons, stated that he
wished, in the first place, to present a petition
signed by several most respectable individuals in
favour of the motion. The petition which he held in
his hand, was the humble petition of certain inha-
bitants of Great Marlow. The petitioners stated that
they had known Gibbons for several years, and they
believed him to be totally incapable of wilfully
committing perjury, for the purpose of misleading
the House. The petitioners prayed that the House
might visit with leniency the error into which' Gib-
bond had been betrayed. That petition was signed
tition Clayton.h a
by several respectable gentlemen of both political
parties, and among them by Sir George Nugent and
SirTWhempe. •
having been ordered to be laid upon
the table,

The HON. MEMBER proceeded to say that he
had no personal accquaintance with Gibbons,
and he would not have brought forward the
present motion, if he did not feel perfectly satis-

fled, from the representations made to• him, that
the error of Gibbons had been unintentional.
He had reason to believe that that individual was
totally incapable of wilfully committing the offence
with which he had been charged, and were it other-
wise he would be ready to admit that a man of Gib-
bons's respectability should be punished ten times
more severely than an . individual in an hum-
ble station. In the petition which Gibbons
himself had addressed to the House, he stated that he
was called upon on Tuesday the sth April, to give
his evidence before the Committee, relative to the
vote of a person of the name of Charles Gibbons.
Having given his evidence in reference to that vote,
he was subjected to a severe cross-examination by
Counsel for the petitioners, in the course of which he
was examined as to the canvass of other voters, which
was not material to the issue before the Committee.
He was examined with reference to his canvassing
for two voters named Pusey and Povey, upon points
whkth did not in the slightest degree affect the
vote of Charles Gibbons. On the Thursday fol-
lowing—this happened on the Tuesday—he gave
evidence in the case of Povey ; and it was not likely
that he would have done so, if he was conscious of
having committed perjury before. He stated that
he was unused to examinations in courts of
justice, and had confounded the cases of Povey
and Pusey. He had no intention, he said, of giving
false evidence, though he admitted that his
statement was contradictory ; and 'he . begged the
House to take his case into their consideration.
He (Mr. Dnncombe) felt convinced that_ any gentle-
man who read the examination and cross-examination
to which the witness was subjected, would be sur-
prised that he should have come so clear out of the
examination : there was quite enough to confuse any
man. If it could be proved that an individual had been
guilty of wilful perjury that was calculated to mis-
lead the Committee, he thought the punishment that
the House would inflict on him, by sending him to
Newgate, was not sufficient. The Attorney-General
ought to proceed against him for perjury, and he
should take the consequences of his conduct. He
would now read almost the concluding question that
was put to him on the last day when his attention was
called to the conflicting evidence that he had given on
the day preceding.. He (Mr. Duncombe) thought that
the Counsel himself was quite as much confused as
the witness. Mr. Duncombe was proceeding to read
fte evidence, when

The SPEAKER was understood to say that the

Hall. Member would be out of order if he read evi-
dence that was. not included in the body of the petition.
Mr. DUNCOMBE could only say then, that the
witness was examined and badgered for an hour and
a half,- and Gentlemen who were not accustomed
to be examined in that way should allow for him.
What had occurred on the occasion was this—he
was . asked if ;hat was a true answer, and if he ad-
mitted that it conflicted with the reply he had given
on the previous any. He _replied that it was a true
answer, and if he had answered differently the day
before he must have been misunderstood or misrepre-
sented. The room :was then cleared, and the Com-
mittee immediately, and without giving any notice to
the witness, came to the decision that the witness had
been guilty of wilfully giving false evidence, and com-
mitted him *to the custody of the Sergeant-at-
Aram. He thought the Committee ought to have
given the witness an opportunity of explaining,
as, by the Act of Parliament, the Committee were
directed to report the misbehaviour of witnesses to the
Speaker. It seemed to him that the Committee
had • gone out of its way, by saying that he had
been wilfully guilty of giving false evidence.
That might have been their opinion, but they
went out o: their way in giving it. The
witness, without being given time to explain,
was laid hold of by the Sergeant-at-Arms, brought
before the House,. and sent to Newgate, while he had
no opportunity al explaining his conduct to the
House. He (Mr. D.) offered his explanation to
the House, which would deal with it .as
it thought proper. He knew nothing of, the indi-
vidual himself, but many Hon. Gentlemen who were
acquainted with him, considered him incapable of the
offence with which he was charged. He confessed
that he had prevaricated, but he stated he had no inten-
tion of defeating the ends of justice. The Hon. Gentle-
man concluded by moving That Richard;Gibbons
be called to the bar, reprimanded by Mr. Speaker,
and discharged." •
Dr. BOWRING seconded the motion.

The motion having been put, •
Sir J. Y. BULLER said that he was sorry he could
not concur in the motion of the Hon. Member for
Finsbury. He was sorry he could not do so, because
the Committee were unanimous in thinking that this
gentleman, respectable though he might be, had given
his evidence not only incorrectly, but that it was given
wilfully. He wished to call the attention of the
House to the fact that Mr. Gibbons was
,brought
before. the Committee when he was cahnly composed,
and not when he came up in a hurry from Marlow.
But if Ito were inclined to speak the truth, he. need
not be afraid whenever he was brought before the
Committee. Truth was but one, and what was truth
on Tuesday was truth on Thursday. With regard to
the point of mistaking the name of Povey for I:'usey,
and which was material to the vote under consideration,
he was sure that if the question had been asked him,
he would confess that he had made no mistake re-
specting the names. He could not but regret that
a person in Mr. Gibbons's station should be found
guilty of giving false e yidence, but if that were so
it was an aggravation of the offence. With regard to
the word " wilful," it.might be considered too strong
a word to use, but the entire Committee were unani-
mous in the opinion that Mr. Gibbons did to a certain
extent know that he was not 4,eaking the exact truth.
There were only two ways of dealing with Mr. Gib-
bons • the one Was, the plan which the Committee
had adopted; and the other was, to order him to be
prosecuted for perjury in a Court of Law. -He was
not prepared to recommend the latter course to the
House, because he did not know sufficient of
the law to be able to decide whether there
would be evidence sufficient to convict him in a
Court of Justice. But he was sure that Mr. Gib-
bons had not suffered sufficient 'punishment for his
offence by remaining only one week in Newgate. It
was abuolutely necessary for the House to make an
example, because when they looked at the loose
manner in which too many persons were in the
habit of giving their evidence before Committees of
the House, they would see that it would be wrong if
the House were to pass over a case of such a flagrant
description. He (Sir J. Buller) was sorry to be
obliged to oppose the motion of the Hon. Gentleman.
Mr. COATER had been a Member of that
Committee, and felt bound to oppose the motion
of the Honourable Member for Finsbury(Hear.)
Mr. Gibbons had given his evidence with great deli-
beration, and there had been no appearance whatever
of confusion in his demeanour. In his (Mr. Cowper's).
opinion, Gibbons had committed perjury, had wilfully
given false evidence to deceive the Committee.
It was painful to him (Mr. Cowper) to have to
make this statement regarding a man of Mr. Gib-
bons's apparent respectability, and be commisserated
Gibbons's present situation ; but that was no reason
why the house should deal too leniently with
hint—(Cheers)—and considering the spirit of parti-
sanship by which too many witnesses were actuated;
a spirit which not unfrequently induced them to
give false evidence before Committees of that House,
he thought it was the duty of that House, when a
case of this sort came before them, not lightly to pass
over so grave a crime. As a Member of the Cirri -
mittee, he Plr. Cowper) had no doubt but
that Gibbons had stated that which was false,
knowing it to be false, and the respectability of
the man was only an additional reason for not
passing over his offence without the infliction
of sufficient punishment. He thought that one
week's imprisonment -in Newgate was not punish-
ment sufficient for the crime of perjury.—(Hear.)
The House ought not to decide on this case until after
the evidence had been printed, and had been placed in
the hands of Hon. Members.
Mr. HEATIICOTE said he had been a Member
of the Committee before which Mr. Gibbons had given
his evidence, and he felt bound to say that it was
impassible for any person who had heard that
man give his evidence, to doubt that it was given in
a most indirect manner.' To upwards of twenty re-
plies -which he had given to questions on one
dab `l3ll the subsequent day, when he had
forgotten what he had previously said he
gave the most direct contradiction. What
aggravated the offence was, that this man, who,
in a petition had thrown himself upon the mercy of
the House, and expressed his contrition, yet endea-
voured• to justify his conduct by stating that it could not
have any effect upon the issue of the case before the
Committee. in his
(Mr. H.'s) opinion, they ought
not to discharge him from custody.
Mr. LABOUCHERE wished to state the grounds
on which he would give his vote on the present
occasion. He placed the greatest confidence in the
decision of a Select Committee of that House. He
felt bound so to do. It was scarcely possible for those
who were not present to know what was the real con-
duct of this witness, from what was stated
in the House . He felt himself unable to come
to a correct conclusion upon the matter,
upon the simple ground that the Committee having
reported that the conduct of this man had been ex-
tremely improper, the Members of that Committee ex-
pressed the same opinion in the course of that debate •
He thought it most desirable that all Committees :
should be armed with a kind of summary power
with regard to such cases as the present one, and it' •
was most essential that any decisions they might come
to should be supported by the House. On these
grounds he felt bound to vote against the motion.
Mr. CHILDERS, as a member of the Committee,
would support the decision, • and vote against the
motion.. . _ _ _

Sir PEEL said that he should vote in concurrence
with tb e opinion of those gentlemen who had sat on

the•Ccrnraittee. The gentleman who spoke last said,
it was a case of the most impudent and determined
perjury. They who had seen the man in giving
his evidence, were the best judges of his conduct.
With respect to the intelligence and station in life of
the man Gibbons, he (Sir R. Peel) agreed with the
Hon. Baronet who spoke on that (the Ministerial)
side of the House, that his respectability and educa-
tion greatly aggravated his offence.—(Hear.)
Mr. O'CONNELL perfectly concurred in what
had been said by the Right Hon. Baronet, but, as the
man was not ,always to remain in prison, it would be
necessary for the House to come to some decision
upon his case. He (Mr. O'Connell) would move that
the evidence be reported.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE had. never said that the
man's respectability was a palliation of his offence.
He understood that the evidence taken before the
Committee had been submitted to the • Hon. and
Learned Gentleman, the Solicitor-General with a view
to ascertain whether in his opinion there were suffi-
cient grounds for proceeding against Mr. Gibbons
on a charge of perjury. He should like to
hear what was the opinion to which the
Honourable and Learned Gentleman had come
inpon this übject. If the Committee were right
in their view of the matter, it appeared to him
(Mr. Duncombe) that considering the station of
the . individual charged, the proper course would
be for the house to proceed against him upon an
indictment for perjury, and not to keep him, from
day to day, in Newgate, to his great injury,
whether he were innocent or guilty.—(Hear.)
He had only to repeat that he had no per-
sonal interest in the. matter, but he had reason
to think, from the representations that had been made
to him, that Gibbons was incapable of the offence
with which he was charged.. He would move that
the evidence be printed, in order that the House might
be enabled to come to a decision on the subject.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that a note of
the evidence taken before the Committee had been
sent to him, but that he had not as yet
had an opportunity of reading it over, and he
could not give any opinion with regard to
it. He would remind the Honourable Gentle-
man, that though the House might have reason
to think that the witness had prevaricated, there
might still not be sufficient ground for proceeding
against him by indictment for perjury.
Sir J. Y. BULLER then moved that the evidence
taken before the Committee should be printed and
laid upon the table.

Lord MAHON suggested, that that portion only
of the evidence should be printed, which related to
the evidence given by Gibbons.
Sir R. PEEL said, that the evidence given by
other witnesses might throw light upon that of Gib-
bons ; and it might, therefore, be desirable that the
whole should be printed.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL observed that he
had been given to understand that the only evidence
of any importance in the case was that of Gibbons
himself.

Mr. COWPER said that the only part of the evi-
dence that bore on the charge of perjury was that
given by the witness on two different days.
The SPEAKER then put the question that the
minutes of evidence taken before the Great Marlow
Election Committee be laid before the House.—
Agreed to.

THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN.
- Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN - said as the Lord 11\layor
of London had been created a Baronet, he wished
to ask the Right Honourable 'Gentleman opposite
whether he intended to advise her Majesty to confer
a similar distinction upon the Lord Mayor of Dublin.
—(Cries of " Hear," from all parts of the House.)
Sir R. PEEL said he hoped that neither the Hon.
Gentleman nor the House would consider it disre-
spectful if he refrained from making any statement
as to the advice which he intended to give to the
Crown with respect to conferring civil distinctions.—
(Hear, hear, and cheers from the Ministerial benches.)