Star.
London, England, 1810-04-17 00:00:00

I COIIVII

form al
the ma
who h 0
e Howa
theo
ideratioi
now thl

MC,ISUI

ce ; an,
e w:ts 0

ouse any,
Aerate
point the
d he W4l
hat prac.
whethei
1 against
Inces like
7171
? Fri

ages, be.
r, but ho
rted xs tc
e present
Id not IA

n, on thi
lad mid
tt he tva
all tiros'

t arise in
!d. Tl'e
as not ne-
iedgment
aestion to
that was
his vote
the argu•
!ct to r
'or an in.
a petition
order to
nator2ll/
of sorr°:
o ow*:
etitiontni
rr weisisu.

__.__--------- , ,
, 'l77' •
Ouse would be disposed to agree The nett question is, urhether he shalt' be kept in lionon-rabman (Mr. Secrerar
eherwise y 11% I .... ,
t.1:1:1 ii esv as eetrhre.lhOlthoutos break in upon those wage* prisonoailing to comply with the forms of the House? had called the able speech of his Honourable- and
t:• very loth to go to all the con- . With respect to that, he must say that his acinsole- Learned Friend common places, had certainly exhi-
;eel At the slrne t'mc might entail, for it might *o -lodgement was an answer to those Gentlemen who bited inhis own impressive, eloquent, illustrative, and
wh.ichf,t,l,.e,y,ns might he committed at chf- considered that his
, ext.n......, ~.. tvit;eicesrefusal was perhaps the effect of conclusive speech, a most striking contrast. to ,the
,;s of the Session for the same sort of some workings of conscience. His answer was a common places he described. It had been said, that
est pas( L,
might be committed at the corn- proof that he now dealt contumaciously' by thetlouse, in all such cases the House war bound to decide for
lice. A person
c.,,
io ec trent ()Ethic Seision, Tdo choosing to peti- by refusing to confirm that which. his conscience per- itself. That he denied. It had not done so in the
Gene-
t:ee Heuse not beingdisposed to relax its mitted him to acknowledge when first brought to the case of Stockiale or Reeves. The Attorney
t,•-• •
,11;erion may remain the whole of the Ses- bar. It was, in short, nothing more than a continu- cal was ordered to prosecute. The Right Hon.
.n alVage' .: • •ioother person, fen- a similar offence, • ante of that contempt and contumacy,, and made all Gentleman (Mr. Ryder) therefore had mistaken
,ier, in prison • oi
..on three or four days of the close of the Session,: the difference in the case. For a month past, Mr. and mistated the practice of the House. In all his
it
'', ,be committed, and petition, and then he dis. ' Jones had been tot's if he demeaned himself pro- arguments the Right Hon. Gentleman confounded
/vv.
~,,rei. One, therefore, lies in prison six or seven : perly, and petitioned, he might be discharged the the commitment of Gale Jones with commitments to
c,,. ~
.1 the other, because he chooses to peti. • next day. In any case much. might be said on the which it bore no resemblance. Why should it be con-
ra „uhs, ano d .
01, is liborate
lin three or four days. There was ! duration of punishment ; but in the present, when founded with the cases of Drake, of Clavering, and
o• dlennice, tacit, supposingthe measure of punishment, the party had the option of relieving himself by Sandon ? Forbid it, justice I forbid it, fair dealing 1
t,, .
11 dependent ( it to be so) on the coming to the House in the usual form, the House forbid it, the spirit of toleration ! Mr. Gale Jones had
aiici it
if Pailiament. Were a question to be put to . were, on his refusal to comply with the form, obliged been punished for a thing. that, to the knowledge of
c'geoii .. Master of the Rolls), " Do you think this' to look at the motive, and ascribe it to its true cause every Member in the House, had been practised
l•n1 ‘''' r 11the -. l
I, is sutiered a pulasoment which the of- . —contumacy. With respect to the cases of General every day for a considerable time past. As to the
r..ta
.ce jeni.„o, , I should answer, " I think he ; Claveting, Captains Sandon and Drake, those were privileges of the House, he conceived they should be
It leis been said, icily follow up the punish- cases distinctly different, for they had stated some- resorted to only in cases of necessity ; and he saw no
~..
for 1 'Nra period ? Why punish a man, not thing false, and consequently must in their petitions necessity for the House having exercised its power in
rot . . ~,
. aot be has been found guilty of; of a crime on admit it ; but here Jones had in the first instance ad- the case of Mr. Jones. He happened not to be in the
i, a
'vih eo sentence had been passed, but for the of- mitted his error, and was now desired to embody that House at the time the vote passed for his committal,
fe...ce ct ebstirocy, an offence hich
.is not to be admission into the petition, which he refused to do.— and he was now happy that he had in no degree
;,,1 th, cat ilogue of orfences cognizable by this Was there any thing either in the times or in the made himself a party to that vote. If ever a similar
t ism!
u.. io He is to be punished for something which `case which should make it necessary for the House question should again be brought forward, he should
lo
V,e, pease requires him to do, but which he objects to depart from the usual forms ? Were the rights, the not concur in such a vote. He should, on the con-
.
This was a species of punishment which is certainly ; privileges, and the laws of the House to be clipt ? trary, propose that the case should be referred to .a
to.
I.noi to the criminal jurisprudence of the coon- : Did it become necessary to diminish them ? The Jury. It was well known that many. things, which for
uses
What did it signify to the House his confessions l Riiit Honourable Gentleman agreed with his Learn- . a long time had been considered privileges, were
ty of • •
of sorroW ? What if he should, under the idea ed mild, that if the refusal to liberate Jones was an foundwhen examinedto be noprivileges at al Among
, ii„ „ti his liberty, being a forced confession ?Was : act of injustice, it ought not to be persevered in but that number, he would mention' manorial rights. He
re,a ~, .
liberty,
by keeping him (in the event of his ;it was not so. In his opinion, the submission of the would not contend that Mr. Gale Jones should be re-
s thing gain
refusal so to do) three or four months longer in pri- ;offender made a principal ingredient in the discharge. ;leased on account of any circumstances belonging to
on? W .ts any thing gained by the confession ? Were Tile House would see with what temper he was Cis- 1 the present time, but that he had a right to be rtleased
the privileges of the House so ranch in danger, that I posed to resist the forms of the House ; and seeing no loq the justice of his case. It would be cruelty to
toe wanted the mighty aid of Gale Jones's Petition 1 reason to induce the House to depart from its forms, I continue his punishment for a term offender than
ipport them. If he, should be discharged, and I the Right Honourable Gentleman should vote against could be considered adequate to his He
to sl
be kind again offending, might not he, by the same (the motiqa. knew nothing at all of Mr. Gale Jones ; but he had
ainfseity, he again taken up• and punished ? Thel Sir THOMAS TURTON, in explanation, stated heard that at the bar of the House he made a decent
Learned Gentleman was of opinion, that the mere ab- i that he bad presented no petition from General Cla- apology fot. his-offence, and he thought the House
staining from petitioning ought not to weigh with the ' vering, whom nothing could have tempted to acknow- ought not now to insist upon any more. It might
fisuei in detaining Jones in prison beyond the pre. lsdge that he had prevaricated, when conseious that i very well happen that in 'the mean time, he might
sent time. The convenience of petitioning was ad- he was wholly inapable ot such conduct. I have changed his opinion, and might now conceive,
erteol by most prisoners, because in eo doing they Mr.WHITBREA.D, if the explanation of the Henn ias many others did, that the anuse had no right to
woe snre to obtain their release. If the House Baronet had not anticipated hire, had intended to set l commit him. If this was the conviction of his mind
thocht the punishment already endured was suffici. the Right Hon. Gentleman right as to the allusion at present, it would be cruel to confine him until he
ent, he bought they ought to discharge him. Were mila to the case of General Clavering. No peti- seated a contrary opinion. A good deal had been said
Le o, he asked in this case to what peviod Jones whatever had been presented to the House from about the state of the public mind upon the present
should be confined, whether a month, six weeks, or General ClasTerio,; and so far as the-reasoning of the qiesticeo He must allow that it was impossible to be
two months, he should say in all conscience two Right Hon. Gentleman rested upon that case, it Intla entirely indifferent to that consideration ; and the opi.
tomtits was punishment enough ; and, being of that fall' to the ground. He was of opinion, that the nions which he had heard and read since this question
ripi&on, should vote for his discharge. He was not Right Hon. Gentleman, in the course of argument, NV As first agitated, had shaken most considerably the
snuated in giving such a vote by motives of fear ; had done great injustice to Gale Jones. By compa- opinion he oad before formed with respect to the pri-
tor, on the other hand; was he to do an act of in- ring his commitment to the case of persons committed vileges of the House on the point of commitment. He
justice merely to slew his courage ; all he desired the for falsehood or prevarication, the Right Hon. Gen- thought it was however most unfeir to make the state
Howe to consider with him was how they ought to tleman had done much injury to the person whose case of the public mind an argument for continuing Gale
adrn•nister substantial justice, and that was toise ad- was now under consideration. He was glad to find Jones in prison longer than the justice of his case re-
ministered in this case by discharging Mr. Jones. the Right Hon. Gentlemen opposite admitting that quired ; and that no man ought to be sacrificed in
The SPEAKER conceived, that as he had been the submission ofGale Jones at the bar was order to prove the privileges oldie House. If he was
illed to, it might be the pleasure of the House that sufficiently ample ; because, when he had stated that now to be discharged and commit another act of the
le should state the course of proceeding in cases like upon a former occasion, these Right Honourable same kind, he might be again taken up and punished
the present.—(lfear, hear. )—He would state what he Gentlemen had denied the fact. Now, however, the as if he had not been before imprisoned. The conti-
hod learnt from the Journals of Parliament as to the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite acknowledged that nuance of the punishment beyond all measure or ap-
practice of the House. The course generally pur- the submission was such at that time as to satisfy him, pearance of justice, would produce an effect on the
eel Liffered in respect to commitments to the cus. if only renewed in a petition. The Right Hon. Gen- public mind, very opposite to that which would be
eely of the Serjeant at Arms and to jail. In the in- tleman had made but a partial quotation from the wished by those who were for supporting the charac-
stiezecf commitment to the Serjeant's custody, peti- minutes, because if he had quoted the whole passage ter of the House with the country.
twos preparatory to discharge was the practice; in it would give a different appearance to the feeling Mr. CANNING did not feel it necessary to exa.
some cases, and in others the person in custody has that produced it. The passage should begin, mine the question, whether the House did or did not
been discharged in statements made to the House. reviewing the paper, however, I acknowledge my possess the privilege, or whether they were or were
The Members of a Committee before whom, perhaps, I error," &c. The House of Commons, he did think, not right in the exercise of. it ? These questions had
the person committed, a witness had refused to give had treated Gale Jones with cruelty in committing been already decided by the House. The simple and
Way, and conducted himself in an unbecoming him for such an offence after he had thrown himself naked question in the present instance was, whether
way, but being sensible of his error has apologised to upo argued mercy. But the Right Hon Gentleman the measure of
theistpunishmen inflicted was or was not
the Committee, and they have interceded with the had that lie now refused to acknowledge by adequate to the guilt of arty ?He had not heard
Heese, by stating that he has deported himself pro- petition what he had previously admitted, and that it any Honourable Member say, that he did not think
Feely. There was a case of this kind, of a man of the was okving to his own contumacy that he was not dis- it adequate ; arid therefore, being now forced to come
rian:e of Alcock, an attorney, a year or two back, he charged. What could the House think of Mr. Jones, to a decision, he must say, that it did appear to him
petitioned, and woks discharged the some night. In the or he of the House of Commons, that after having an adequate punishment for the offence. He felt,
1
Cl3e of Peter Stuart, the Printer, 3or 4 years back, admitted his error and thrown himself' upon its however, sorry that the question had been brought
WhO waS sent for a breach of privilege to the custody i mercy, it should be expected that lie should a second before the consideration f the House this eeening.
of Serjeant, he having petitioned, was discharged. • time acknowledge his offence et? ha
it not enough He had much rather, considering the particular
With respect to commitments to jail, the general . that he had once made the I.cknowledgement No ! circumstances of the time (Westminster, probably
cense was, not to relieve without petition. He did said the Right Hon Gendeman, in the spirit of alluded to the meeting at that the
Lot Gird any rule to the contrary ; the practice ap. ,his intolerance, we must have him again do that motion had been postponed for 43 hours; but as it
peared uniform. As to the sort of petition, it was ia . which he has done before. We shall have him again was brought forward now, he must determine on the
many cases various, -as the petitioners in some in- . at the bar, aud make him shew that he has not elan- vote lie should give by the merits of the case itself,
stances thought the best mode to adopt for their en- - ged his opinion. • But, supposing him to have chan- independent of extraneous- considerations. The Hci
largement, but the petitions invariably acknowledged ged his opinion ; supposing that others toohave than- nourable Gentleman who brought forward the motion
that the party petitioning had offended against the , ged their opinions ; why should he compel him to (Sir S. Romilly) had declared that he had no man-
Pre:ileges of the Howe. It was not required that the say that what he thought true yesterday he continues tier of communication with Mr. Gale Jones upon the
petitioner should go into the particulars of that of. to think true this day ? He- was aware that the Right i subject of the motion. As Mr. Jones, therefore, had
Once, but merely that he should express his sorrow Honourable Gentleman was stedfastly fixed iii his I nothing to do with bringing forward the motion on
fur it. These were the modes of proceeding and prat religious opinions, and that he might call upon the I that particular day, he thought it would be very hard
toe of the House so far as he- had been enabled to House to believe sluth y had been taught when they I that he should suffer on account of the circumstances
ascertain from the Journals. were children. B, said the Right lion. Gentle- lof the time in which the motion was made. Would
The CHANCELLORof the EXCHEQUER was man, he is not to be called en to retract any theoreti- I the Honse determine to exhaust upon Mr. Gale
at:elm that the uniform practice of the House had. cal opinion. If he had changed his opinion upon the ; Jones th 6 whole measure of punishment that they
Leo, as seiteo oy the speaker so correctly—that with subject of that paper, which he had before admitted ; were capable of inflicting, or did they really think that
respect to persons committed to gaol, they must pe- to be an offence or view on his part, would it not be his crime desere'ed the greatest punishment which the
btturt before the House could entertain the question to call upon him to do vVence to his cenviction, to 1 House could inflict ? It was alledged, that, besides his
i' discharging them. The question was not whe- oblige hint to acknowledge 'vie the did not nOW be- 1 original offence, 1:c kid been guilty of contumacy,
1:•1* a petition must be preented, hot whether there hove ? Suppose a man to live before the Reforma- which deserved additional punishment. He really
'vansthis case circumstances, and whether the times don, and for disbelieving. transubstantiation tt; be •• could not discover this contumacy. When this person
such as to induce the House to thitik that they brought before the persecuting Inquisition. Suppose , sots brought to the bar, he, ia the first instance, eon-
U:euld act wisely in departing from the uniform prat- him, before that terrible tribunal, to admit that he : fessed his fault, and stoOolicated the mercy of the
cite? The Right Hon. Gentleman could see nothing believed the article, arid notwithstanding to be sent . lloese. After tn.:: supplicatiou of mei cy, it appeared
either in the case or in the times to justify him in to prison, where meeting with books to enlighten Ito many that it was . rather 'hard and severe for
drinking that the present was the period in which him, he discovers the error into which he had fallen, the House to send him to prison. But why should
i it was absolutely expedient to make a departure from 111 and reverts into his former opinion, would it be no :it lof said that he refuses nos to confess his
s'" established Maize. The Learned Gentleman retractation of his opinion for him to be obliged to ad- . fault ? Did the House ask him to do it ! Might
'-'lO brought forward the motion had made use of mit the doctrine of transubstantiatisin But the Right i not he well suppose that the sanie arguments and sup.
1 great deal of what he conoidered argument, to '.lion. Gentleman, if he did not acknowledge what he plications which failed. before might fail now ? He
i','J'ice the House to agree with him. He had par. had done before, would apply to him the torture of ,wished that this question (should be considered sepa-
tcul,irly argued against what he deemed the injus- the mind. Might not the man pi cperly avow, he rawly on its oit n merits ; and he agreed perfectly
ice of callin on ersons to recant any theoretical would rather rot in prison than submit to such a re- ' NVith the Right Honourable and Learned Gentleman
g p
or heretical opinions which they might have held. cantation ?than be driven talidmit that to be false (the Master of the Rolls), that it would neither be
Against all those arguments, lie must beg to state which he knew to be true is would be Jones's just nor suitable to the real dignity of the House to
fee there were no theoretical opinions which could case if he had conscientiously changed his opinion : keep this man in prison longer than appeared to them
be given upo—the House did not make any such call. since he had been at the bar of that house.e But the ! just, from the fear of appearing to be afraid. If Mr.
All that was desired Was that in point of form Mr. Right Hon. Gentleman would have nement Jones should now be discharged, after having re-
Jones should do that which he had done already, and continued to the end of the -Session, if he did not pe. , mained so long in prison, no one could say that the
:hich he ought to do before lie could be entitled to be tition, and that too at a time when he was remarking ;House had abandoned any of its privileges, or that
discharged. Having confessed his error, on what upon the infirmities of the House of Commons respec- • his release set that question at rest. As to the dig-
Principle is it now pretended that he ought to refuse thig the infliction of punishments. That Right Hon. nity of the House, he thought now the great offender
to repeat that statement and acknowledgment which Gentleman was the first man who in a British' House l (who he would contend had justly and legally been
when at the bar, he so voluntarily made ? Was lit be- of Commons desired that it might have the power of imprisoned) was suffering the punishment inflicted
Cause he found it to be the uniform Practice of the imprisoning for a certain dine. This was the first 'by the House, it could not lower the dignity of the
House.? Did he not, when at the bar, say " I have instance of such and octrine being broached since these -House to release the smaller offender, after having in-
teed, and I throw myself on the mercy of this assem- Ountions had bee canvassed by enlightened men. kf flitted on him a measure of punishment which an-
d Was it too much to require that he should now he for one vrete to be in the situation of Jones and to peared to be generally considered adequate to his ot-
,; •
"wait by petition which he before had done verbally i . Pe
titiebe he would be a hypocrite. The other Right fence.
•

CMILLS..I.S. Vag -• _
ageinst the releasing Mr. Jones, without his present,
ing a petition in the usual forms. He could not see
any reason for excepting this case from the general'.
rule. He did not see. on what particular grounds. it
could be contended that Mr. Jones was entitled to
more favour froth the House than other persons Is ho
had been committed to prison by the House, He
could not agree with the Honourable Gentleman,
that there was any necessity for Mr. Jones or any
other petitioner recanting any particular opinion : it
was only necessary that he should seve generally his
sorrow for having violated the privileges of that
House. • Now he could not conceive what objection
Mr. Jones could have, in point of conscience, to
state that in writing, which he had. already stated
at the bar of the House. He believed that no
man could decay that Mr. Jones had been guilty of
a violation of the privileges of the House ; and if k
were impossible for him to doubt that he had been
guilty of that offence, what reasonable objection
could he have to comply with what was required by
the forms of the House, and say so in a petition ?--s
Confessionavould have nothing to do with the abstract
question of the right of the House to commit, or the
other questions which had recently been agitated.—
There were two remarkable cases, which were di-
rectly in point. In the last Session, the House had
committed Captain Sandon and General Clavering.
The former had evidently beer. guilty of the grossest
prevarication, which he confessei ; and the latter had
positively declared, and the declaration was believed
by his friends and many Members of the House, that
he never did intend to' prevaricate. Of this, however,
every body was agreed, that the guilt of Captain
Sandon, in concealing the note, and the many false-
hoods he told respecting it, was greater than the of-
tence of General Clavering. Nevertheless, Captain
Sandon was liberated after a month's imprisonment,
because he presented a petition; and General Cla-
vering, because he presented no petition, was suffered
to remain in prison till the end of the Session, which
was three months from the date of his imprisonment:
These recent instances would shew that the House
was accustomed to shew lenity to those. who asked it
by petition in the usual forms.
Mr. \V. SMITH could not see that the dignity of
the House absolutely required some petition, but that
any petition of any kind would be sufficient to sa-
tisfy that dignity. He thought nothing could be
more contrary to the real dignity of the House than
to confine a person longer that: the justice of the case
required, merely on a point of form. He thought
the H9li.lurable and Learned Gentleman (the Soli-
citor-General) who had just sat down had chosen
strange cases to sapport his argument. As to the
imprisonment of General Clavering for three months,
he believed there were very few who recollected the
evidence he gave, that considered an imprisonment
of three months as a punishment too great for his
offence; and therefore it was not at all surprising that
no Member shouldhave moved forhis beingdischarged
without a petition. The f.ict was, that it was the opi-
nion and the advice of the friends of General Clever•
ing, that it was more advisable for him to remain in
prison during the Session, than receive that sort of
reprimand which he would have been liable to, if he
had been discharged upon his petition. Capt. Sandon
had presented •a petition, and was discharged after a
month's imprisonment, upon receiving a reprimand.
It could not however be said, that he received more
lenity than General Clavering, as the friends of the
General thought it better that he should be some time
longer in prison than be subject to such a reprimand.
There was, however, a prodigious deal of difference
between the guilt of General Clavering and that of
Mr. Gale Jones. He believed that every one must
allow that the offence of the latter by no means me,
rited so severe a punishment as was due to that of
General Clavering. lie thought it would be an un
worthy and disgraceful reason for continuing Mr
Jones in custody, that to-morrow a great Meeting wee
expected inWestminster. (Hear, hear.) Why shoal(
he be imprisoned in consideration of the probability o
some other persons doing some other thing entirely un
connected with his offence ? As to the question which
would then probably be discussed, he must say that b
very much wished that the House had agreed to the re
primand instead of committing Sir Francis Burden
If they had done so, many disagreeable consequence
might have been avoided. At present, the minds c
the public were, and must necessarily be in a state(
suspence about the legality of the execution of it
warrant, until the trial should have taken place. II
thought that this question ought to be decided on
i
real merits, and that the further imprisonment of M
Jones should not be made to depend upon a me
point of form. If the House really conceived th
Mr. Jones had received sufficient punishment for
offence, he could not think that it would be at all f
their dignity to act contrary to justice.
Mr. MARRYAT did not consider that Mr. Ga
Jones should be punished merely for obstinacy.
the punishment be had received was considered sus
cientfor his contempt of the privileges of the Hott
it was his opinion that he ought to be discharged.
Sir JAMES HALL did not conceive that t
House would either consult its dignity or its char
ter by an unnecessary prolongation of the imprisc
meat of Mr. Jones. He did not know but that,
far from a punishment, it might be of service to hi
It might serve him in his debating society, and in
trade as an oreter, to have his case made interest]
to the feelings of the public. He would probably
considered as a martyr tb public principles, and wo
gain a degree of popularity that would abundar
repay him for his imprisonment.
Mr. WILBERFORCE observed, that no n
yet had attempted to answer the very able argumc
of his Right Honourable and Learned Friend (
Master of the Rolls). The powerful' argunnt
which he urged with so much weight remain
completely unanswered, be could not avoid agree
to his conclusions, and voting for the release of :
Gale Jones. The case of Captain Sandon only
ved that the House did, upon a petition, remit a
of the punishment which they would otherwise h
considered due to the offence. Their remitting, h
ever, part of the merited punishment on accoun
a petition, could not at all be produced as an argter
fur inflicting more than an adequate and merited de
of punishment on a person who did not petition (I
hear.) He thought this case ought to be decided
its own particular merits, without any considerate
circumstances which were extraneous to it.
all the views he could take of the subject, ha

vr.• • N.. • 1.11. • %JAM
cones.
Mr. WARDLE said, that he should vote for the
release ; and he trusted that, on a future day, he
should be able to prove to the House the truth of the
opinion which be had entertained all aleng, that the
House had no power to commit.
Mr. CROKER could not see any reason why the
present case should he determined in a manner dif-
ferent from what appeared to be the established usage
of the House on similar occasions. He could not see
that this case stood on more favourable circumstances
than other cases, and therefore he should vote against
the motion, merely on the ground of conforming to
established precedents, and to the usage of the House.
Mr. BANKES observed, that the House were
called upon to do no less than to depart from an un-
interrupted line of precedents. At what time too
were they so called upon ? At a time when those
privileges were questioned, essential to the constitu-
tion of the House of Commons, without which it
could not exist ; without which it could not resist the
encroachments of the Crown, or protect the privileges
of the people. He had no disposition to press for a
too severe punishment upon the offender ; but what
great thing was it that he was required to do ? He
was required merely to approach the House with that
due humility which was proper for a person in.his
situation. What was the peculiar merit of Mr. Gale
Jones that the House should do that in this case
which they had never done before ? He could not
conceive that under such citsumstances it was unjust.
to refuse to liberate any one. The fault was the in-
dividual's own. Above all, he deprecated the success
of the motion at such a moment as the present, and
-conjured the House riot to accede to it.
Mr. H. ADDINGTON, adverting to the able
statement of the Right Hon. the Speaker, observed,
that the generality of the cases adduced by that high
authority might probably differ from the case of Mr.
Gale Jones. The individuals to whom those cases
referred, had perhaps been committed to Newgate
without having expressed any contrition. Now as
he understood (for he was not present) Mr. Gale
Jones expressed his contrition at the Bar in a most
decent auk becoming manner. It was not common
to commit after the expression of such contrition. At
the same time he would say, that had he been present
he should have voted for the committal of Mr. Gale
Jones, not as a punishment, but as an example to
deter others from the commission of similar offences.
Mr. Jones's vies Tore contrition was a. sort of petition
that he might not be sent to Newgate at all, and
rnight be considered as a petition virtually continuing
to the House to release him at their pleasure. Think-
ing the punishment that Mr. Gale Jones had under-
gone sufficient, he should vote for his release.
Mr. OWEN contended, that justice required that
the House should regard their own privileges, and
that Mr. Gale Jones ought to present a petition be-
fore they could agree to his release. It was not im-
probable that former Parliaments considered the pre-
senting of a petition as a part of the punishment of
the offender.
Mr. W. WYNNE was the last man who would
werken the privileges or authority of the House, but
the adoption of the present motion would not in his
opinion endanger either. With • respect to the case
of General Clavering, which had been alluded to, he
had abstained from moving the release of General
Clavering before the end of the Session, because he
conceived that it would be a lighter punishment to
remain in prison a month longer than he might have
done, than to be brought to the Bar of the House and
receive a reprimand from the Chair. He regretted
the day that had been selected for this motion, but
when he considered that if it were not adopted to-day
it could not in all probability be brought forward
again for a fortnight ; when he also Ironsidered that
the punishment of Jones had been sufficient for his
offence (which was one that he had no hesitation in
declaring deserved punishment), he could not with-
hold his consent from it.
Mr. ADAM notwithstanding what had fallen from
an Honourable Gentleman on the floor (Mr. Bankes),
Was yet inclined to doubt whether the rule requiring
petition previous to enlargement, was a rule invari-
ably obserired. He apprehended that there had
'been instances of liberations without petitions, but
this he would not take upon himself to assert posi-
tively. It was however an usage, and then the ques-
tion was, whether it was an usage amounting to a

law? if it was an usage amounting to a law, then it
brought down the right of commitment to a right of
committing for contempt in the narrowest sense—
contempt in the narrowest sense was physical obstruc-
tion, in that case the person committed was neces.
satily bound to acknowledge his offence as a security
against the repetition of it. here then the regula-
tion might be said to be inveterate law, but then there
were constructive obstructions respecting which the
House in the exercise of their judgment had a wider
latitude of discretion. The exercise of that discre-
tion must, of course, vary according to the circum-
stances of different cases ; they did not question the
right of the privilege itself, nor at all weaken it by
such a variation, since the discussion was not upon the
existence of the privilege, but upon the extent and de-,
gree to which it had been violated, and he thought
that their not being tied down to a strict observance
of. the same uniform proceedings in all cases, rather
strengthened than weakened their privileges, whereas
the confining the breach to the narrow ground of a mere
contempt, was taking out of the ckss of constructive
obstructions, and reducing to that physiealobstructions
nierely. If, then, the case now before them was not
one of these, but a constructive obstruction, then

the question was reduced to one of distributive justice,
and looking at it in the light of a question of distri-
butive justice, he bad no hesitation to say, that the
arguments of the Right Honourable and Learned
Gentleman (the Master of the Rolls) were unanswer-
able. If then it did appear that justice was in favour
of the motion, what was to deter that House from
acting justly ? He thought, for his part, that it would
shew more courage to do their duty openly and in de-
fiance of vulgar calumny, than to be deterred from it
by the fear of being afraid—they had demonstrated
their power not to be at all afraid of committing their
authority by the liberation of Mr. Jones. He should
suggest, however, to his Learned Friend the propriety
of substituting Wednesday in his resolution in place
of Tuesday, on account of. the popular meeting to be
tad on that day in Westminster Hall.
Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY readily acceded to the
1-ggcstion of Mr. Adam, and varied the wor4ipg of

his Resohnion tabtdingly. He couTd -not as easuy
accede to the suggestion of a Right Hon. Gentleman
respecting the inserting in the Resolution a requisi-
tion of that submission from Mr. Jones, which he
(Sir Samuel) had frankly declared the House, in bis
humble judgment, had not any right to exact. He
thought it necessary, however, to- read from the Jour-
nals what was there recorded respecting that submis-
sion. It there appeared, that Mr.. Jones had, when
called to the Bar, expressed his sorrow for having
erred therein. He said that he did not rise to add
any thing to the strong arguments brought forward
in support of his motion, but to observe upon one or
two indirect insinuations which had been thrown out
against his motives in bringing forward this motion.
It had been said, in allusion to the Westminster Meet-
ing that was to take place to-morrow, that the oppor-
tunity had been anxiously wished for oreagerly caught
at. If any man thought that he (Sir Samuel) could be
so influenced in that or any other proceeding, to that
man he would not condescend to justify himself (Hear,
hear.) He could not have foreseen, when he had
early given notice of this motion, that it wouldnot have
come on till then. Neither could he, with propriety,
have consented to postpone it till after the recess, as
that would be delaying for three weeks from the time
first fixed upon for the enlargement of the person, in
case the'House should then agree in his motion. This
was no trifling consideration to a man in such ill health
' as he understood Mr. cones to be. Another considera-
tion in favour of bringing on this discussion rather ',e-
-1 fore than after the meeting at Westminster was, that
he could not be certain that there might not be Re-
solutions proposed to which he (Mr. Jones) was not
at all instrumental. He might yet suffer in conse-
quence of the nature of such Resolutions, making it
rather a delicate matter to submit that proposition to
the House. Sir Samuel then proceeded to argue briefly
that there was no invariable rule requiting petition
on the part of the prisoner, since the warrant stated
simply " during pleasure ;" whereas, was that the
rule, it ought to contain also the words " and until
the said prisoner has submitted to the House."—
Another thing that shewed the usage not so general
was, that different Gentlemen did not agree among
each other as to the forms of the practice—as whe-
ther the petition should simply express sorrow ; or
also confess guilt, and acknowledge the justice of the
punishment. A Right Honourable Gentleman had
denied that the punishment was sufficiently severe.—
This was not to be argued upon—it was matter of
feeling. He had also been charged with sophism,
and a blow had been given by anticipation to Bills
now pending, and in the success of which lie acknow-
ledged he telt a lively interest. The principle on
which they had been founded was said to be a sophism,
but he felt consoled by the assurance that whatever
were their merits the House would not prejudge
them.—(Near.)—But it had been said that the pu-
nishment for contumely, was a punishment for an
offence in addition to the first, and that it was in
Mr. Jones's power to terminate that punishment.—
There was a law once very prevalent in different
parts of the Continent, and he believed now existing
in some countries, that no malefactor condemned
for a capital offence should be executed before he had
confessed his crime, and this confession was extorted
by the torture rack. The cases of Clavering and
Sandon had been relied upon, but they really ap-
peared as cases that ought to have been cited, in or-
der to sliew the injustice of such a rule—Sandon was
committed for prevarication of a very gross and
wanton nature—the other was committed tor preva-
rication by no means so aggravated. Sandon sent in
an abject petition, acknowledging his guilt, and was
forthwith discharged ; the other continued a prisoner
the whole of the Sessions, rather than say that he was
conscious of prevarication. He might plead confu-
sion of understanding, and so far comparatively re-
deem his character. It had been said, that the pu-
nishment was, after all, limited, as he must be en-
larged at the end of the Sessions ; but this meant
rather that their power was limited, not the punish-
ment, for the King was not bound to prorogue a Par-
liathent, and thus the liberty of the subject was trans-
ferred to the power of the Crown. and was that a
state in which the criminal jurisdiction of that House
ought to remain ? He concluded by a solemn decla-
ration, that if he were in the situation of Mr. John
Gale Jones, lie would sacrifice his liberty, highly as
he valued it, before he would conserit to purchase it
by a pitiful retractation of his real sentiments, com-
promising his character, and violating his integrity.
The House then divided, when the numbers were,
For the Motion 112--Againbt it 160—Majority
against it 4S. •

%II Vl44liall a 1.,%, 11. 47LOUVG all, Ll‘'
of the motion at such a momer
-conjured the House riot to accec
Mr. H. ADDINGTON, a
statement of the Right Hon. tl
that the generality of the cases
authority might probably differ
Gale Jones. The individuals
referred, had perhaps been et
without having expressed any
he understood (for he was nc
Jones expressed his contrition a
decent auk becoming manner.
to commit after the expression i
the same time he would say, tit:
he should have voted for the c(
Jones, not as a punishment, t
.
deter others from the commissii
•
Mr. Jones's Tiro Tore contrition
that he might not be sent to
cnight be considered as a petitic
to the House to release him at
ing the punishment that Mr. G
gone sufficient, he should vote
Mr. OWEN contended, tha
the House should regard their
that Mr. Gale Jones ought to
fore they could agree to his reli
probable that former Parliamei
seating of a petition as a part
the offender.
Mr. W. WYNNE was the I
weiken the privileges or author
the adoption of the present mo
opinion endanger either. Wit
of General Clavering, which ha
had abstained from moving t
Clavering before the end of th
conceived that it would be a I
remain in prison a month longe
done, than to be brought to the
receive a reprimand from the '
the day that had been selected
when he considered that if it we
it could not in all probability
again for a fortnight ; when he
the punishment of Jones had b
offence (which was one that he
' declaring deserved punishment)
hold his consent from it.
Mr. ADAM notwithstanding
k`
an Honourable Gentleman on tl
was yet inclined to doubt whet:
: . petition previous to enlargemen
ably obserired. He apprehen
'been instances of liberations v
F. this he would not take upon hi
Lively. It was however an usal
' tion was, whether it was an us,
law? if it was an usage amoun
brought down the right of com
committing for contempt in tl
contempt in the narrowest sense
Lion, in that case the person ci
1 . satily bound to acknowledge his
i against the repetition of it. I
i . tion might be said to be invetera
I ' were constructive obstructions
House in the exercise of their ji
latitude of discretion. The exe
tion must, of course, vary acco
stances of different cases; they
I right of the privilege itself, nc
such a variation, since the discus
existence of the privilege, but u;
gree to which it had been viol
that their not being tied down •
of. the same uniform proceedin,
strengthened than weakened the
the confining the breach to the nai
contempt, was taking out of the
obstructions, and reducing tothat
merely. If, then, the case now
one of these, but a construct
. the question was reduced to one
. and looking at it in the light of
butive justice, he bad no hesita
arguments of the Right Hone
' Gentleman (the Master of the f
able. If then it did appear that
of the motion, what was to de
• acting justly ?He thought, for 1
shew more courage to do their d
fiance of vulgar calumny, than t
by the fear of being afraid—th
- their power not to be at all afrail
, authority by the liberation of Mi
I suggest, however, to his Learned
/ .
' . of substituting Wednesday in hi
~I, , • of Tuesday, on account of the pc
Il . tad on that day in Westminster
Sir SAMUFA. ROMILLY ri
luggcstion of Mr. Adam, and y