such an union. Indeed, he should rather apprehend the contrary. For according to the old adage, if new wine were put into old bottles it would spoil, but if new wine were put into new bottles it would be preserved. Mr. Windham, considering what was to take place to-morrow (the Meeting of the Westminster Electors), deprecated the idea of agreeing to the motion for liberating Jones. For that would be, on the vigil of their saint, giving up Barabbas to the people, who would not be imposed upon by the gift; who would not ascribe it to moderation or justice, but to fear. Was the House, then, disposed to shew that fear, or should they not rather, to repeat words already used in the course of the debate, be afraid to betray any such fear. Recurring to the cause from which this discussion originally sprung, the right hon. gent. expressed his unqualified approbation of the conduct of Mr. Yorke, notwithstanding all the consequences which followed, and his resolution to resist any such concession as this motion had in view, particularly at the present moment. Mr. Canning observed, that he was not the master of the time, at which the pending discussion had taken place; he had not sought for the agitation of it at the present moment; but as it had been brought forward, it was his duty to give his vote according to the best of his judgment. He was not one of those, who entertained the smallest doubt of the validity of the privileges of the House of Commons, or of the right and the power of exercising them. Those questions had already been deliberately and solemnly decided by the House; and, in that decision, his own individual opinion concurred. But the House were not by the motion under consideration asked to recant, either individually or in a body; they were not asked to give up the privileges themselves, or to call in doubt the propriety of their exercise in the present instance. The simple question before them was, whether the punishment which had been already dealt out to the individual who had incurred their displeasure, was adequate to his offence. No one being prepared to say that there was any precise or specific duration of punishment proportionate to the offence, and all being left to judge for themselves upon that question, he could not but think that the punishment which had been inflicted was not inadequate to the offence which had been committed. He allowed that he felt great repugnance in agitating the subject on that particular occasion. He could wish that it had been postponed at least for forty-eight hours. When, however, it was considered, that the agitation of the question was not the act of the party immediately concerned, but of another, it would appear that that was no ground for refusing to concur in the proposed motion. If he thought that the hon. and learned gent. had brought forward this question in consequence of a communication with the individual immediately concerned, he would be ready to agree with those who contended, that the choice of time ought to be conclusive against the motion; but any such communication he understood the hon. and learned gent. distinctly to disclaim. There was in this case an alternative which called for the exercise of the soundest discretion of the House, ought the House to exhaust on the offence of Mr. Gale Jones the whole of the punishment which they were capable of inflicting on the most aggravated offence, or could that be considered a very severe punishment which must necessarily soon arrive at a termination. The distinction which he had taken the liberty of marking between the mode in which this motion was brought forward, and the mode in which it might have been brought forward-in the one case, with the concur. rence of the prisoner, and in other without it, applied to another part of the argument, namely, the question of contumacy. If the application to the House were made without the concurrence of the prisoner, it could not, by any means, be contumacy in him not to have presented a petition, especially as he had immediately after the commission of his offence desired mercy, and as it might appear to him that the professions which were used in vain, to prevent the infliction of punishment, might be used in vain to shorten its duration. The question, however, having been brought forward, the House had to consider which was the most advantageous way of disposing of it. He was not one of those who thought it a matter of great congratulation that all these questions of privilege were brought to issue at the present time. He stated this as his sincere opinion, without imputing blame or even indiscretion to any man. The course of circumstances had produced what he did not conceive to be a very desirable conjuncture. That release; feeling that by so doing he should not in the smallest degree impugn a single privilege of the House. The Solicitor General contended against the release of Mr. Jones, without his presenting a petition in the usual form. He could not perceive 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 from the House than other persons who had been committed to prison by the House. He could not therefore agree with the hon. gent. that there was any necessity for Mr. Jones or any other petitioner, or that they were required to recant any particular opinion; it was only necessary that he should state generally his sorrow for having violated the privileges and incurred the displeasure 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 deny that Mr. Jones had been guilty of a violation of the privileges of the House; and if it were impossible for him to doubt, that he had been guilty of that offence, what reasonable ob conjuncture had however arrived, and must be met. He should not be suspected of wishing to shrink from the consideration of any circumstance, either from any apprehension of a direct sort, or from the fear so well described by his hon. and learned friend near him, the fear of being supposed afraid. He confessed that although he thought it would be unfair to allow any extrinsic consideration to operate on the manner in which the House might deal with the individual whose case was under discussion, yet, that he should part with that individual with more reluctance, if he conceived that it would be imagined by any one that the question of privilege was thereby set at rest, or supposed to be done away. But, on the discussion relative to the conduct of the great offender who had since been justly and rightfully imprisoned under the warrant of the Speaker, it had been well argued that it was on the great offender, and not on the small alone that the House ought to feel disposed to assert its authority. In coincidence with that argument he was at liberty, without the hazard of any induction injurious to his sense, or the honour and dignity of the House, to contend, that the House might shew lenity to the minor offender, without the imputationjection could he have to comply with of fear, because the question remained alive in the way which was thought the 'most formidable. For his part, he saw no more to fear in the agitation of the question than to wish; but it would still re'main to be agitated, if the minor though original offender were set at liberty. It was no more necessary for the House to 'proceed to the discussion of their privileges with Mr. Gale Jones, in their power, than it was necessary for sir Francis Burdett to try the question which he disputed, by pushing his resistance to an extent, by which he forfeited not only the good opinion of those who best knew him, but also the favourable sentiments of many in that House, who were not of the number of his friends. Of the latter class he (Mr. Canning) was one; he had expressed his favourable sentiments of that individual, but the subsequent conduct of the hon. bart. induced him to recant them altogether. Under all the circumstances of the case, not thinking that the absence of a petition was a proof of contumacy on the part of the prisoner, and conceiving that the punishment which he had already sustained was commensurate to his offence, he was inclined to vote for his what was required by the forms of the House, and say so in a petition? Such a confession would 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 it appeared two remarkable cases which were directly in point. In the last session, the House had committed_captain Sandon and general Clavering. The former had evidently been guilty of the grossest prevarication, which he confessed; 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 capt. Sandon, in concealing the note, and the many falsehoods he told respecting it, was greater than the offence of gen. Clavering. Nevertheless, capt. Sandon was liberated after a month's imprisonment, because he presented a petition; and gen. Clavering, 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. W. 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 satisfy that dignity. He thought nothing could be more contrary to the real dignity of the House than to confine a person longer than the justice of the case required, merely on a point of form. He thought too that the hon. and learned gent. who had just sat down had chosen strange cases to support 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 should have moved for his being discharged without a petition. The fact was, that it was the opinion and the advice of the friends of general Clavering, 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 petiCaptain 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 merited so severe a punishment as was due to that of general Clavering. He thought it would be an unworthy and disgraceful reason for continuing Mr. Jones in custody, that to-morrow a great meeting was expected in Westminster. Why should he be imprisoned in consideration of the probability of some other persons doing some other thing entirely unconnected with his offence? As to the question which would then probably be discussed, he must say, that he very much wished that the House had agreed to the reprimand instead of committing sir F. Burdett. If they had done so, many disagreeable consequences might have been avoided. At present, the minds of the people were, and must necessarily be in a state of suspence about the legality of the execution of the warrant, until the trial shall have taken place. All such considerations, however, were extraneous. The true question was, if the party offending had suffered a punishment adequate to the offence. Conceiving that to be the case, he should vote for the motion. Sir James Hall said, that if the House declined doing that which was just in itself, because such an individual as Mr. Jones thought proper to act as he had acted, it was in fact putting themselves under the controul of that individual. He had heard that he gained his bread by speech-making. He was, it seemed, a sort of trading orator; to a person of that description the notoriety of his sufferings would more than compensate for the length of them. He, therefore, perhaps might not be at all anxious for enlargement, and continuing him in prison would be confining him not at the pleasure of the House, but at the pleasure of Mr. Gale Jones. He should, therefore, vote for his enlargement. Mr. Wilberforce spoke in support of the motion. He did not think the cases of Clavering and Sandon in point. With respect to the latter, his acknowledgment was not so much an appeal to the justice as to the lenity of the House, and the appeal having been made, it succeeded in prevailing on the House to remit much of that punishment which otherwise it would have been justified in inflicting. But in the present case the punishment was universally allowed to be adequate to the of fence, they ought not, therefore, thus to prolong that punishment beyond just limits. Mr. Wardle said, that as at no distant day there would be an opportunity of as. certaining whether or not such a power did exist in that House, and as he still remained satisfied that no such power did belong of right to that House (Order!) as he still remained of that opinion, it was unnecessary for him to go at all into the merits of the question now before them. He should, therefore, reserve himself for that opportunity, which he believed not to be very distant, of stating fully the reasons which had satisfied him, that no such power existed in that House. Mr. Croker objected to the motion, on the sole ground that it was in opposition to a long train of uninterrupted precedents founded on a principle never heretofore tually continuing to the House to release him at their pleasure. Thinking the punishment that Mr. Gale Jones had undergone 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 before they could agree to his release. It was not improbable that former parliaments considered the presenting a petition as a part of the punishment of the offender. Mr. C. W. Wynn was the last man who would weaken 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 gen. Clavering, which had been alluded to, he had abstained from moving the release of gen. Clavering, before the questioned. If any deviation from such an established usage could be admitted, he was ready to allow, that the present was a fit case; but when he recollected, that in the whole history of Parliament there was not a single instance of such a deviation, he could not think that this was the particular case, or this the particular time which should induce the House to depart from their long established customs. Mr. Bankes observed, that the House were called upon to do no less than to depart from an uninterrupted line of precedents. At what time too were they so called upon? At a time when those privileges were questioned, which were essential to the constitution 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 punish-end of the session, because he conceived ment 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 then was the peculiar merit of Mr. Gale Jones that the House should do that in his case which they had never done before? He could not conceive that under such circumstances it was unjust to refuse to liberate any one. The fault was the individual's own. Above all, he deprecated the success of the motion at such a moment as the present, and conjured the House not to accede to it. that it would be a lighter punishment to remain in prison a month longer than he might have done, than 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 fort night; when he also considered 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 withhold his consent from it. Mr. Adam said, that notwithstanding what had fallen from an hon. gent. on the floor (Mr. Bankes) he was yet inclined to doubt whether the rule requiring petition previous to enlargement was a rule invariably observed. He apprehended that there had been instances of liberations without petition, but this he would not take upon himself to assert positively. He said, he believed that what had been stated by the Speaker was as nearly correct as such a negative assertion, to be derived from such a mass of matter, could be; especially if it referred to the period from the restoration. But he believed that before the usurpation there might be instances of proceeding without petition or 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 these cases referred, had perhaps been committed to Newgate without having expressed any contrition for their offences. Now, as he understood (for he was not present) Mr. Gale Jones expressed his contrition at the bar in a most decent and 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 ex-personal apology. There was no doubt, ample to deter others from the commission of similar offences. Mr. Jones's viva Doce contrition was a sort of petition that he might not be sent to Newgate at all, and might be considered as a petition vir VOL. XVI. however, that such had been the usage, and then the question 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 3 A of committing for contempt in the narrowest sense; contempt in the narrowest sense was mere obstruction: the security against the recurrence of which required that the person committed was bound to acknowledge his offence as a security against the repetition of it. To this mode of considering it he could not assent, because it was a limitation of the privilege totally inconsistent with his views of it; which, as he had formerly maintained, he considered to extend to contempts and breaches of privilege destroying the efficacy of their proceedings, by degrading their character and vilifying their conduct. Privilege then extending to libel on the House and its members, for their conduct therein, it followed that this large, and, as he contended, just view of the subject, should be accompanied with the power of mitigation by the voluntary and unsolicited discretion of the House. The exercise of that discretion must of course vary according to the circumstances of different cases, and 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 degree 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, by confining the breach to the narrow ground of a mere contempt, reducing it to physical obstructions merely. If the case now before them was not one of these cases of new obstruction, then the question was reduced to one of distributive justice, not tied up by a strict rule, but resting on discretion. Looking at it, therefore, in the light of a question of distributive justice, he had no hesitation to say, that the arguments of his right hon. and learned friend (the Master of the Rolls) were unanswerable. If then at 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 defiance of vulgar observation, than to be deterred from it by the fear of being thought to be afraid. They should therefore exercise their discretion, by shewing that they were not afraid to liberate Mr. Jones. He should suggest, however, to his learned friend, (sir Samuel Romilly) the propriety of substituting Wednesday in his resolution in place of Tuesday, on account of the popular meeting to be held on Tues day in Westminster-Hall. Sir S. Romilly readily acceded to the suggestion of his learned friend (Mr. Adam) and varied the wording of his Resolution accordingly. He could not as easily accede to the suggestion of a right hon. gent. respecting the inserting in the Resolution a requisition of that submission from Mr. Jones, which he (sir S.) had frankly declared, the House, in his humble judgment had not any right to exact. He thought it necessary, however, to read from the Journals what was there recorded respecting that submission. It there ap peared, that Mr. Jones had, when called to the bar, expressed his sorrow for having erred therein. 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 meeting, that was to take place tomorrow, that the opportunity of bringing forward his motion had been anxiously wished for or eagerly caught at by him. If any man thought that he could be so influenced in that or any other proceeding, to that man he would not condescend to justify himself. He could not have foreseen, when he had early given notice of this motion, that it would not 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. Jones to be. Another consideration in favour of bringing on this discussion rather before than after the meeting at Westminster was, that he could not be certain that there might not be resolutions of a strong character, proposed at that meeting, to which he (Mr. Jones). was not at all instrumental. He might yet suffer in consequence of the nature of such resolutions, making it ra-, ther a delicate matter to submit that proposition to the House.-Sir Samuel then proceeded to argue briefly that there was no invariable rule requiring a 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 pri 1 |