by. Why keep the man in prison? Was there any thing in the temper of the times to induce the House to that course? He could wish that the learned gentleman had not brought forward this question at this time. Though he thought that they should not act under the apprehension of being thought afraid yet he would rather be suspected of fear than convicted of injustice. He should, therefore, feel it his duty to perform an act of justice to the individual, by voting for the motion of the hon. and learned member who had so ably and eloquently recommended it to the House. influence his argument, if it were not reregular, he should not press the question, but assume the affirmative, and reason upon that assumption.-First, then, the reason why the practice of petitioning had grown into use was plain and obvious. The commitments by the House were for an indefinite time; and as the prisoner could have no knowledge of the time for which he was committed, he was usually led to petition early, in the hope that it might lead to his discharge. Into his petition, therefore, it would be natural for him to throw all the circumstances 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 too the parties might, by petitioning, have usually obtained their discharge sooner than they otherwise would. The House, shewing itself indulgent to those who thus respectfully petitioned, generally released them in three or four days after their commitment, unless in cases of an aggravated nature, which may have led to the practice of requiring petitions to be presented. The Master of the Rolls then rose to submit to the consideration of the House the impressions he felt upon this important subject, and stated, that according to his view of the motion under consideration, it might be reduced to two questions; first, whether the individual had suffered sufficient punishment; and 2dly, whether, such being the case, he ought to be discharged? He could wish, that he had been better acquainted with the practice of the House, in such cases; whether it was founded on established law or on-For himself, he was extremely loth to usage; and again, if upon usage, whether break in upon long established usages; that usage had been unbroken from time but he was not prepared to follow this immemorial. He should always be against usage to its full extent or into all its conbreaking in upon long continued usage, sequences. The effect of such an usage because the presumption in such a case as this would be, that different persons would be, that it had been founded on might be committed for the same or siwise and convenient grounds; and he milar offences, at different periods of the should, therefore, be inclined to abide by session, and, in consequence of this usage, the usage long established where it did be subjected to very unequal degrees of not lead to palpable injustice. If this usage punishment. Mr. Gale Jones might for were, as he must presume it to be, such, his offence, be committed at the comthat the party offending was not to be dis-mencement of the session, and not being charged until he should petition and acknowledge his offence, it would, he owned, lead to consequences to the full extent of which he would be unwilling to follow it. He agreed that a man must be taken for guilty, when the House has declared his guilt by a vote but then the individual may not think his act an offence, and in that case it would be cruel to insist upon his admitting or acknowledging it to be an offence. But the right hon. gent. (Mr. Ryder) seemed to think that such acknowledgement of the offence was not necessary. Upon this point, he should wish to put a question to some competent authority; and to none more competent could he apply than to the right hon. member in the chair. The question was, whether the established practice was as had been described; but though the answer might VOL. XVI. disposed to petition, might be confined for six or seven months, whilst another committed for the same offence may be confined only three or four days. Jones persists in not petitioning, and continues the whole of the session in confinement: the other submits, acknowledging his offence, and is discharged in three or four days. If a question were to be put to him after any given time of confinement, whether the prisoner had been sufficiently punished, he might answer in the affirmative, according to his idea of the proportion between the offence and punishment. But if asked why 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 confinement after sufficient punishment, was a punishment for an of27 fence, of which the House had not declared him guilty, upon which they had passed no vote; it would be a punishment, not for what he had done, but for what he had abstained from doing. According to any principles of jurisprudence with which he was acquainted, this would be a strange system of punishment. What difference could it make to that House if Mr. G. Jones were to acknowledge the offence? Would it be any satisfaction to their privileges, or any addition to their dignity, if he were to make a false acknowledgment to that effect? Under the present circumstances, it must be obvious to the House, that in such an acknowledgement the party would not act voluntarily; and that if he were even 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 be assured that Gale Jones would not again offend in the same manner? If he were however, to offend again, could they not commit him in the same manner as if he had acknowledged his offence in this instance: He knew of no analogy by which this right claimed to make a man confess his offence could be justified.-His opinion of the original object and natural effect of petitioning was, that the party imprisoned might obtain his discharge somewhat the earlier. But he could not perceive why the abstaining from presenting a petition should on the other hand have the effect of lengthening the duration of his confinement. Putting the case in that way, the motive for petitioning, as well as for abstaining from petitioning, would be obvious. The person who presented a petition was generally liberated; but he who did not petition was suffered to remain in confinement. This was the reason why the preferring petitions became the practice, because there was scarcely any instances, in which the party committed did not present a petition, except in those cases, in which pride or conviction prevented the adoption of such a course. -Upon these grounds it was, that he was clearly of opinion that John Gale Jones ought to be discharged, if the House should be of opinion that he had suffered sufficient punishment. If he were to be asked what extent of imprisonment he should consider a sufficient punishment for the offence committed, he should say one month, or six weeks; but could not by any means extend it beyond two months. Considering therefore, the length of this person's confinement as compared with his offence, he should vote for his discharge. He agreed perfectly with the hon. baronet who spoke last, that they should not entertain any fear of being thought afraid of what might be thought of their motives. But he would not consent to do an act of injustice, in order that he might not be supposed to be afraid. Such a feeling he did not entertain. He should take the same course on any other occasion. He had not paid any attention to this subject before the present case had been brought forward. When he did turn his attention to it, he very quickly arrived at the conclusion which his hon. and learned friend had come to, and as he was convinced that the man had been sufficiently punished, he should therefore feel himself bound to vote for his discharge. The Speaker rose and said, that he did not know whether it might not be the pleasure of the House that he should give an answer to the questions which had been put to him in the course of the discussion, and particularly by the right hon. gent. who had just sat down. He was prepared to state to the House what he had gathered from the Journals, as to the practice of parliament on this subject. The course was different on commitments to the custody of the serjeant, and on commitments to his Majesty's jails. In the instance of com. mitments to the serjeant, which were but temporary, the practice was both ways. The party obtained his release by petition often, and often by statement made in his favour, as in case of a commitment of a witness by a Committee, when the Committee reported that the witness comported or demeaned himself properly. The House would recollect the case of Mr. Alcock, 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 night. The last case of that description was that of Mr. Stuart the printer, who was com mitted to the custody of the serjeant, and afterwards discharged upon petition. The practice on commitments to his Majesty's jails was different. He might venture to say, that in such cases the practice, if not universal, was general, not to release from such commitment, but upon petition. For this however, he could find no rule; it rested altogether on practice; and that, with the qualifications he had mentioned, was steady and uniform. As to the different forms of petitions, that must have arisen from the different and various circumstances which each petitioner might wish to bring under the consideration of the House. In general, the party acknowledged that he had offended against the privileges of that House, and expressed sorrow for that offence. He had thus stated what he had been able to collect from the Journals, and which he felt it his duty to communicate to the House. any opinions he had previously held? It was his own contumacy, therefore, in refusing to do by petition, what he had already done orally, that prevented him from being discharged. But it had been asked, why not discharge him upon their own sense of justice? To this he would answer, that the justice of such cases was always governed by the presenting a pe-. tition. Refusing therefore to petition, he was not entitled to be discharged. It was absolutely necessary for the House to abide by its forms, and that without sufThe Chancellor of the Exchequer observed, fering themselves to be bewildered with that, as the Speaker had stated that every reasoning upon abstract propositions. As person committed to a jail, according to to questions raised with respect to the inthe practice of the House, was required to equality of punishment in the exercise of petition, before he could be discharged, it this power of the House, he would admit, would not be necessary for him to say that the House had many infirmities in its much upon this subject. The question was constitution as to the power of inflicting not whether a petition presented was in- punishments. If Jones had any severity sufficient, but whether the circumstances to complain of, he brought it upon himself. of the time or the character of the occa- He had reason to believe, notwithstanding sion were such as to induce the House to what had been stated by the noble lord depart for the first time from its ancient, opposite to the contrary, that his right hon. uniform and established practice. He friend was correct in stating, that Gale could see nothing in either to call for such Jones had applied to a member to present an abandonment of the practice of parlia- a petition for him. The fact he had from ment. His hon, and learned friend had he more quarters than one, and from persons must allow reasoned eloquently against the to whom it had been communicated by severity of calling upon a man to recant the honourable member himself. In the heretical, or theoretical opinions, which case of general Clavering last year, the he may have entertained against the con- hon. bart. (sir T. Turton) would not even stitution. Against all such arguments the be heard without a petition. The case of only answer was, that he was not to be Drake, too, which had been referred to, called upon to abjure any such opinions. happened in a good time, as the gentleBut having been voted guilty of a breach men opposite sat then at the side of the of the privileges of that House, he saw no House, from which he spoke; and yet the reason why he should not do that which uniform practice of the House had in that he had already done. (Hear, hear!) The instance been adhered to. In these two hon. gent. seemed to think that Gale Jones recent cases, the House had shewn more had done enough in his former acknow- severity than towards Gale Jones; who ledgment. But why should he now re- was not called upon to admit the falsehood fuse to do what he had before done at the of what he had stated before, but merely bar, when it was requisite according to the to say that by petition which he had al practice of the House, that he should pre-ready said at the bar of the House. Was sent a petition to that effect to entitle him to be discharged? This single circumstance was in itself amply sufficient to get rid of all the argument of his hon. and learned friend opposite. It would appear, that he was not in being required to prefer a petition, called upon to recant any opinions, by a reference to the minutes of what passed when he was at the bar. From these, it would be seen that he admitted, "In this instance I have erred; and I throw myself upon the mercy of this assembly." Was it not clear then from this, that he was not to be called on to recant there any thing in his case that called for such departure from their usages? Was there any thing in the period that required them to descend 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; but strong as he felt that sentiment, he should not be influenced by it to do an act of injustice. He was of opinion therefore that Gale Jones should be made to submit to the practice of parliament. This he was convinced the case required; and as no circumstances had been shewn to induce the House to depart from its established usage, he should feel bound to vote against the motion. Sir T. Turton in explanation stated that he had presented no petition from general Clavering, whom nothing could have tempted to acknowledge, that he had prevaricated, when conscious that he was wholly incapable of such conduct. could the House know of Mr. Jones, or be of the House of Commons, that after having admitted his error and thrown himself upon its mercy, it should be expected that he should a second time acknowledge his offence? Was it not enough that he had once made the acknowledgment? No! said the right honourable gentleman, in the true spirit of his intolerance-no! we must have him again do that which he has done before; we shali have him again at Mr. Whitbread, if the explanation of the the bar, and make him shew that he has hon. bart. had not anticipated him, had not changed his opinion. But, supposing intended to set the right hon. gent. right him to have changed his opinion, supposas to the allusion he had made to the case ing that others too have changed their of general Clavering. No petition what- opinion upon the subject, why should they ever had been presented to the House from compel him to say that what he thought general Clavering, and therefore so far as true yesterday, he continues to think true the reasoning of the right hon. gent. this day? He was aware that the right rested upon that case, it must fall to the honourable gentleman was stedfastly fixed ground. The object of the hon. bart. on in his religious opinions, and that he might that occasion was to induce the House to perhaps be disposed to call upon the expunge the whole of the proceedings House to believe all they had been taught against general Clavering from its Jour- when they were children. But, said the nals, and thus to do away the foundation right hon. gent. he is not to be called on of the commitment altogether. He was of to retract any theoretical opinion. If he opinion that the right hon. gent. in the had changed his opinion upon the subject course of his argument, had done great in- of that paper, which he had before adjustice to Gale Jones. By comparing his mitted to be an offence or error on his commitment to the cases of persons com- part, would it not be to call upon him to mitted for falsehood or prevarication, the do violence to his conviction, to oblige right hon. gent. had done much injury to him to acknowledge what he did not now the person whose case was now under believe? The right hon. gent. must be consideration. He was glad however to aware that there had been such an event find the right hon. gent, opposite admitting as the reformation. Suppose a man to that the submission of Mr. Gale Jones at the have lived before the reformation, and bar was sufficiently ample; because when for disbelieving transubstantiation to have he had stated that upon a former occasion been brought before the persecuting inthese right hon. gentlemen had denied the quisition. Suppose him before that ter fact. Now, however, the right hon. gent. op-rible tribunal to admit that he believed posite acknowledged that the submission was such at that time as to satisfy him, if only renewed in a petition. The right honourable gentleman had made but a partial quotation from the minutes, because if he had quoted the whole passage, it would give a different appearance to the feeling that produced it. The passage should begin, "On reviewing the paper, however, I acknowledge my error, &c." The House of Commons, therefore, he did think, had treated Gale Jones with great cruelty, in committing him for such an offence after he had thrown himself upon their mercy. But the right hon. gent. had argued with an air of triumph, that as he now refused to acknowledge by petition what he had previously admitted, it was therefore owing to his own contumacy that he was not discharged. What the article, and notwithstanding 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 retractation of his opinion for him to be obliged to admit the doctrine of transubstantiation? But the right hon. gent. if he did not acknowledge what he had before admitted, would apply to him the torture of the mind. Might not the man properly avow he would rather rot in prison than submit to such a recantation? than be driven to admit that to be true, which he knew to be false? This would be Jones's case, if he had conscientiously changed his opinion since he had been at the bar of that House. But the right hon. gent. would have his confinement continued to the end of the session, if he did not petition, and that too at a time when he was remarking upon the infirmities of the House of Commons respecting the infliction of punishments. That right hon. gent, was the first man who, in a British House of Commons, desired that it might have the power of imprisoning for a time certain. This was the first instance of such a doctrine being broached, since these questions had been canvassed by able and enlightened men. If he for one were to be in the situation of Jones and to petition, he would be a hypocrite. The other right hon. gent. (Mr. Ryder) who had called the able speech of his honourable and learned friend, a collection of common places, had certainly exhibited in his own impressive, eloquent, illustrative, and conclusive speech a most striking contrast to the common places he described! But it had been said, that, in all such cases as that of Jones, the House was bound to decide for itself. That he denied. It had not done so in the case of Stockdale and of Reeves, in both of which the attorney-general was ordered to prosecute. The right hon. gent. (Mr. Ryder) therefore had mistaken and mis-stated the practice of the House. In all his arguments, the right hon. gent. confounded the commitment of Gale Jones with commitments to which it bore no resemblance. Why should it be confounded with the cases of Drake, of Clavering, and of Sandon? Forbid it, justice! forbid it, fair dealing! forbid it, the spirit of toleration! Mr. Gale Jones had been 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. He happened not to be in the House at the time the vote passed for his committal, and he was now happy that he had in no degree made himself a party to that vote. If, however, he had happened to be present at the time the question respecting the commitment of Jones was put to the vote, he should have rather voted to have it referred to a jury. It was preposterous to maintain, as the right hon. gent. who spoke last asserted, that ancient privileges should be tenaciously preserved; for how many of these privileges had been found untenable consistently with justice and the common sense of mankind? They all knew that manorial rights, for instance, had fallen to nothing. So ought the unnecessary privileges of that House to have been abated. All that was not necessary to be retained should be given up; and there was no privilege more odious in principle to the public, or at least more exceptionable in practice, than that under which Gale Jones was imprisoned. Therefore, every hour this man was detained in prison must increase the odium prevailing against the privilege, while it was an aggravation of the injustice and cruelty practised towards the individual. What, he would ask, could the House gain for even this privilege, or for any alleged claim to dignity, by imprisoning this man until the end of the session? Was it to be argued, that unless Mr. Jones acted the hypocrite, by acknowledging himself wrong, the House would not liberate him? It might be said that he would not act the hypocrite by stating in a petition, merely what he had said at the bar. But supposing he had changed his opinion since he had been at the bar, would the House punish him for that change by a prolonged imprisonment? If change of opinion were a penal thing, he felt that he (Mr. W.) would not himself be exempt from penalty; for his opinion was directly the reverse of what it had been when first this case was brought before the House. In fact, a change of opinion, when sincere, when the result of an honest conviction, could in no instance be justly the subject of punishment or censure. But to return to the privilege under consideration, it was to be recollected, that this privilege would not be surrendered by the adoption of the motion, and that recollection must obviate many of the objections urged against it. For if Jones should be liberated to-morrow, and should attempt to violate the privileges contended for, he might be re-committed under the sanction of the same privilege, to prison upon the next day. The House then having this power, what reason could be advanced for resisting this motion? certainly none upon the ground of an adherence to privilege, because not a doubt as to that privilege would be expressed or implied by the passing of this motion. As to the recommendation of his hon. friend (Mr. Curwen), that an union should take place between the ministers and those by whom they were generally opposed, he must observe, that he could not see that any good would result from |