called the attention of the House to a direct breach of its privileges, in the way in which the speeches of some of its members were reported. He did not wish to object to the practice of reporting, nor was it his intention to follow up what he should now say with any motion. He only wished to awaken the House to the situation in which this indulgence of admitting strangers to hear the debates of that House, and to communicate what they heard to the public, now stood. Any interruption to the practice of reporting, in his opinion, would be ill-advised. Nothing could be more distant from his intention than to restrain this practice. Some gentlemen might think it more advantageous, others less so; for his own part, he thought the advantages arising from the practice were greater than its disadvantages. Two things, however, were absolutely necessary to be observed in carrying it on. First, a respectful decency towards the House; secondly, all that fairness in detailing the speeches of individual members, which, in the circumstances of things could be attained. Without the first, the sufferance would be dangerous—without the second, the practice be useless. He particularly meant to allude to a speech of a right hon. baronet (sir John Anstruther) a short time ago, which had appeared in a morning paper in such, a manner as to throw ridicule on the speaker, being accompanied with annotations, and some parts of it printed in a different character from the rest, so as evidently to betray the intention of the reporter. He reprobated the idea of encouraging such a practice. He had also remarked that the speeches of some of the most considerable and distinguished, members of that House were suppressed, and even where any allusion was afterwards made to the arguments or observations of those members such allusions were also omitted. In this manner did the proceedings of that House go before the public in a mutilated and partial form. If they were to be reported at all, they ought to be reported fairly. By suppressions of this kind the most destructive system of unfairness and misrepresentation might be introduced, and the liberty given by the House of reporting its proceedings fairly, would be completely perverted to an opposite purpose. He should make no motion on the subject at present, but should feel it his imperious duty to call on the House to resort to the measures, which might seem necessary on the occasion, if what he had now said was not taken as a sufficient warning. He should expect in this endeavour the support of every gen- tleman in that House, particularly of those who were most friendly to reporting; and he was also satisfied that he would confer an obligation on the public, who would naturally wish to see a fair, a full, and impartial account of the proceedings of the House.

disclaimed All knowledge of any intention on the part of the hon. gent. to submit any observations on the subject to which he had now alluded. He had never thought of doing any thing in relation to the subject, so far as he himself was concerned.

hoped that all combinations of the kind alluded to would be broken through, and that some paper would set the example of taking up the matter in a fair point of view, by giving the speech of every member impartially.

said, the hon. gent. must be aware that this was an irregular conversation.

rose, pursuant to the notice he had given, to move that John Gale Jones be discharged from his confinement in Newgate, for an alledged contempt of that House. Though the opinions he had delivered in that House on the subject of the legality of his commitment remained unaltered, it was not his intention to call on the House to do any thing on the ground of the opinions he had then delivered, but he now built his motion on the simple ground, that the punishment already inflicted was sufficiently severe for the offence. He Understood, at least so he was informed, that, when the matter was formerly before the House on a similar motion made by an hon. bart. now in the Tower, several gentlemen had said, that they would have agreed to the motion for setting Mr. Jones at liberty, if it had been made on any other ground, than that the proceeding of the House in committing him to prison was illegal; and though many agreed at that time that the punishment was even then sufficient, yet they did not feel themselves at liberty to assent to his liberation, because they were afraid that they might thereby seem to acquiesce in the doctrine on which the motion for discharging him was then founded and supported. On this ground he (sir S. Romilly) should be careful not to say a word which could deprive him of a single vote of any gentleman who might be this situated. He should however have been happy of the opportunity of setting himself right with the House and the country, and should even have been anxious to be allowed to answer the arguments which had been urged against him. But he should never for the sake of any object personal to himself, or from any idea of enforcing his own opinion on any subject, however important, think of risking the imprisonment of an individual even for a single day. He submitted, that now, at least, the imprisonment of Mr. Jones would be admitted to have been a sufficiently severe punishment for the offence Committed. He believed it had been generally the practice of the House not to listen to applications on the part of persons imprisoned under their authority, but on petitions, admitting the justice of the sentence, and the contrition of the party for the offence of which he had been guilty. He could not pretend to be so well acquainted with the practice of the House, as to say whether this was an invariable rule. But he did not conceive that there could be any practice, or any rule of practice so binding upon the House as to preclude them from proceeding on their own ideas of humanity, and from recollecting that, in the dispensing of justice, it ought to be tempered with mercy. Was it to be esteemed an unalterable rule of proceeding in that House, that they were not competent to discharge any person who might have been committed under their authority, because he did not chuse to confess the justice of his punishment, and to express his sorrow and contrition? If that House had such a rule, it was one which did not belong to any court of justice in the kingdom; and it was extremely difficult to understand on what ground the House could have such a dominion as did not extend to the measure of punishment alone, but entitled them to call on the individual to abjure any errors or principle which he might maintain. This might have been the privilege of religious tribunals, which were content to make hypocrites when they could not make converts; but he hoped it would not be contended for in that House.—Let gentlemen but reflect what might in such a case be the situation of individuals who might from conviction entertain particular doctrines. One might publish a declaration, that this government was a pure monarchy, and that the two Houses of Parliament were emanations from it, which might be spared. Would the House contend, that previous to the liberation of such a man from confinement, he must abjure and renounce his theoretical opinions, and so complete by a confession of what he was satisfied was not true, the measure of his own disgrace? If the House had such a power it was greater than that which any court in the kingdom possessed. To insist on such a power, was to contend for what amounted to the height of degradation, against the person who was exposed to it. It went infinitely beyond any corporal punishments whatever. If such a power as this was to be asserted and maintained, if after imprisonment the person committed was to be forced to retract—if this was to be one of the privileges of the House—it was high time that the line of distinction should be drawn, and that it should be seen how far the principle was to be carried.—It would be necessary, in this view of the subject, to look back to times past, when they would see, that the form of proceeding with respect to the privileges of the House in this respect, had undergone as great a change as our general manners. Formerly, when a person was called to the bar to be discharged, it was not sufficient for him to petition and to express sorrow for the offence, but the prisoner was obliged to ask pardon on his knees. It was now half a century since such an exhibition had been made, and he believed the last person who had kneeled at the bar in that manner was Alexander Murray. Not only was kneeling at the bar formerly the practice, but on the occasion of a Cornwall election, two persons of considerable rank, one of them a baronet, who had incurred the displeasure of the House, were ordered not only to kneel at the bar to receive the Speaker's reprimand, but also at the assizes to acknowledge their offence before the judges and the county. He did not suppose the House would think these precedents on which they should act. He begged them therefore to consider, whether they now felt themselves intitled to impose any thing beyond an adequate punishment? If they did not, the question would then be, What was the punishment which the individual had suffered in this case? It was imprisonment for nearly two months. On the 12th of March last, at which time Mr. Jones had been in prison only 20 days, it was the general sense of the House that if a petition had then been presented, he should have been discharged. He had then suffered an imprisonment of 3 weeks, for a breach of the privileges of the House; and he had since suffered an additional punishment, by imprisoning for five weeks longer, for the omission of presenting the petition, in other words, for not complying with that formality which was usual op such occasions. No man, surely, would contend that the breach of privilege for which Mr. Jones was originally committed was not an offence of much greater magnitude than this latter omission; if so, and he ought to have been discharged fire weeks ago, having then suffered sufficient punishment for the greater offence, who would contend that he ought not now to be discharged for the smaller offence, unless, indeed, it was to be insisted, that besides submitting to an adequate, or more than an adequate punishment, he must also undergo that torture of confessing that to be an offence, which in his heart he did not feel to be one. On this principle, if he could not bring his mind to admit as true what he knew to be false, he must remain in prison till the close of the session, which might not be sooner than the latter end of July—a punishment which he (sir Samuel Romilly) could not but conceive to be inordinately severe.—Supposing Gale Jones to have an opinion, however erroneous, that he had committed no such breach of the privileges of the House, as warranted them in committing him to prison, and holding that opinion, to be impressed with the idea that it would be criminal conduct in him to confess the contrary—nay, that such a confession was a line of proceeding which as a British subject he could not adopt—he asked, if such were his conscientious feelings, was there a gentleman so intolerant as to contend, that on this account he ought to remain in prison as long as the House had the power of keeping him there, and that it would not relax even at the end of the session, were it not that its power then ceased? Supposing him to think that it would be an unpardonable crime in him to acknowledge guilt in this case and express his contrition, no judge could discharge him by Habeas Corpus. Was this, then, so serious an offence, that he must remain in prison after he had already suffered adequate punishment? What credit could the House acquire by such a proceeding? From the homage of so humble an individual as Mr. Jones, who gained his livelihood by presiding at a debating society, what additional honour could accrue to that House? No man of common sense could conceive the submission of such a person to be deserving, even a moment's thought. He concluded by moving, That John Gale Jones be brought to the bar to-morrow, for the purpose of being discharged.

said, that for one, he could not concur in the motion. If the hon. and learned gent. had been correct in stating, that it was necessary for an individual to retract his sentiments before he was discharged, that might in some respect have altered the question. That, however, was not the fact; all that was required was, that the person should express his sorrow that he had incurred the displeasure of the House. If this had been a case where the individual had used speculative opinions, and the usage of the House was to require that those opinions should be disclaimed, then the arguments and eloquent common places of his hon. and learned friend would have applied, which, he submitted, they did not, as things now stood. The question was, if the House was now, for the first time, to depart from their established rule, and discharge Mr. Jones without any petition from him expressive of his sorrow for having incurred the displeasure of the House. What was this requiring of him more than what he himself had voluntarily stated at the bar? He was sorry not to see a right hon. gent. present (Mr. Sheridan), who had on a former night, if he was rightly informed, been solicited to present a petition from Mr. Jones. There was no gentleman, indeed, in that House who would refuse to present a petition for him. He continued a prisoner, however, not because his offence was such as that he ought on account of it to continue a prisoner, but in consequence of his desire to put the House of Commons at defiance, and that he might have it in his power to say, that he had been the person to shew them that they had been wrong in all their former practice of commitments. He was one who wished no rigour to be observed in this instance, but he had not heard any reason to induce the House to depart from their uniform practice.

felt particularly anxious that no doubt of his sentiments should be felt on this occasion, as he entirely concurred in the propriety of the present motion. The doctrines of the right hon. secretary were not, in his opinion, of an order to heal the breach that existed between the House and the country. The person whose case was now under consideration had done nothing derogatory to the privileges of the House. Breach of privilege was a general unmeaning cry, an undefined cant, which never struck his ears without raising in his mind a suspicion of those from whom it came. Reporting the debates of the House had been idly construed into a breach of privilege, though at length it was peaceably acquiesced in as an advantage. But he was glad to find that no appendage had been hung to the question of the release. He had stated his opinion when the question first came before the House; he then thought that the House wandered strangely from its due constitutional course when it condescended to take up a private quarrel; the offence having been given by Mr. Jones, to Mr. Yorke; which made it the case of an individual against an individual. As the quarrel was private, it ought to have been determined as all such quarrels between private persons. The House, occupied as it should be, in the great concerns of the empire, should not have stooped from its dignity, to pour the weight of its vengeance on a man, of whom they knew nothing more than that he turned Mr. Yorke, the teller of the exchequer, into ridicule. By the unfortunate notice which the House was led to take of that quarrel, a train of circumstances, some disgraceful, some most disastrous, was drawn on, till the privileges of the House began to be looked on by the people as instruments of danger, and questioned by even themselves as rights of usurpation. Perhaps the circumstances under which Mr. Jones's irritation arose, were such as might justify no slight popular discontent. A great expedition, the greatest that ever left a British port, had failed; the officers threw the blame on each other; the ministry came to open violence upon it; the people demanded an inquiry into the causes of that most dreadful calamity; the House promised it; public expectation was awakened, and waiting to see justice done. The trial began, and instantly the gates of that great temple of national justice were shut. Was it not natural that the excluded people should at least express their surprize? that wandering round the courts of that temple, they should be dissatisfied with hearing only the broken and scattered responses that might be periodically issued out from, the shrine, to feed and to elude popular anxiety? Admitting that such a feeling was wrong, it was natural; and Mr. Jones was only one, among many, who, felt displeased at the act and its author; but his offence was not levelled at the House. In what predicament would the House be placed by the doctrines of the right hon. secretary? He admitted that the person in confinement had at the bar expressed his sorrow for having incurred the displeasure of the House, and did the right hon. secretary then actually think it becoming the dignity of that House, to measure its punishments, riot by the quantity of the offence, not by the natural principles of justice, but by the power of the offender to hold out in his opinion; thus making the wisdom of the House to be the idle combatant of the folly of any individual, and forcing their good sense to depend upon Mr. Jones's obstinacy. An adjournment might be so managed as to confine the prisoner for any indefinite time; and was this to be called only a fit punishment, for want of facility in the accused person? With respect to parliamentary privileges, he revered them, as they ought to be revered, in the mild exercise of their power; but if that power was strong, its use ought to be delicate; and to make their privileges what they ought to be in point of vigour, they must be used in that form, from which they should never have been diverted in point of principle. They should be used for the protection of the rights of the people.

thought the question lay within a narrow compass. To his mind it appeared to be only whether the prisoner had been sufficiently punished or not. If he had been sufficiently punished, why were they to have him called to their bar to acknowledge his offence? That House had nobly cut up the prerogatives of the crown, which had been previously undefined; it now became their duty to reduce to some definite state its own privileges, which even the right hon. member in the chair would find difficult to understand. They were bound to define their privileges, and not continue the practice to commit during the session. It was no matter whether a party were committed for three days or three months, as nothing could be more absurd than to commit without any certain rule to go by. The subject in this free country had a right to have some measure of offences and punishment established. They ought to enact a Magna Charta of parliament, as they had the Great Charter of their civil liber- ties and rights.—As it was submitted on all hands, that Gale Jones had been sufficiently punished, he ought to be discharged. If they should not enact some statute on the subject, he was determined, whenever a question arose for a commitment, to vote for it for a certain period only. If their privileges should be left in their present vague and undefined state, no man's house could be safe. But as he had been already very severely reprimanded for a breach of those privileges, in order to avoid being led too far by irritation, he should read from a paper what undefined privilege could do. The hon. member then read, that such privilege could put it in the power of a nervous chairman of a committee to call upon the Speaker for protection; it could give the Speaker the power to order a person to withdraw, and to the House that of ordering him into custody, without allowing him the opportunity of hearing the charge against him; it could give the power of keeping him in confinement, to the great affliction of his family, and so as nearly to cause the death of some of his connexions; and then it could give the power of imposing a heavy fine, and of reprimanding the person for an offence, which at common law would not be punished by a fine of five shillings. If that reprimand should go down to posterity upon the journals, it would be more injurious to the House than to the individual, in the minds of the people.

denied, that any application had been made to have a petition presented on behalf of Mr. Gale Jones. But he had risen principally from a wish to set the right hon. Secretary right. as to what he had erroneously conceived and stated to be the practice of the House respecting petitions. That right hon. gent. had said that it was not necessary for Mr. Gale Jones to acknowledge his offence, or retract any opinion upon his petition, in order to his being discharged, but merely to state his regret for having incurred the displeasure of the House. To shew that the right hon. gent. was not correct in this statement, he had only to refer to a petition which he remembered to have been presented a few years since, from a Mr. Drake, who had been ordered into custody for prevarication in his evidence at the bar, for having told lies and incredible stories, respecting himself, during his examination as a witness before that House. That petition he had himself brought up, and when it had been read, he moved that it be laid on the table; but was then informed by the Speaker, that it was contrary to the established practice of the House to place any such petition on its table, unless the petitioner submitted to the authority, and craved the mercy of the House, at the same time acknowledging the justice of the sentence. Some days after he had presented the petition, however, it was found that all that Mr. Drake had said was perfectly correct. The consequence was, that Mr. Drake having been committed for supposed lies and prevarication was suffered to remain in confinement because he would not acknowledge that to be false which was afterwards found to be true. Though he had not remained long in such confinement, the parliament having been dissolved in three or four days after, yet that did not alter the nature of the case. Having stated this case, and the decision of the chair upon it, he was authorized to assume it to be the invariable practice of the House to require a petitioner to submit to the mercy of the House, and acknowledge the justice of his sentence. As the right hon. gent. therefore had stated that, if that were the practice of the House, he should vote that Mr. Jones be discharged, he had a right to expect that the right hon. gent. would be as good as his word, and vote for the motion of his hon. and learned friend, whose common places, as represented by the right hon. gent. appeared to him to consist of most able, and eloquent, and conclusive arguments. Upon the whole, he was convinced that Mr. Jones ought to be discharged, and should therefore vote for the motion.

observed, that the able speech of the hon. and learned gent. who brought forward this motion, was in itself sufficient to recommend this very important question to the most serious consideration of the House. The case of Gale Jones at present seemed to him to be, not that he should be continued in confinement for a contempt, but for the obstinacy and pertinacity with which he persisted in declining to submit himself, by petition, to the mercy of the House. Though he had not been present on the occasion, he was well informed that Mr. Jones had conducted himself with propriety, and respectfully submitted to the authority of the House, when first brought to the bar. That having been the case, then, he would ask, whether the House would consider it becoming or just to pu- nish him for that obstinacy, to which he might perhaps have been worked up by others, in abstaining from applying for his release by petition. The House on this occasion should leave out of its consideration every thing concerning Mr. Jones, or the circumstances which might have prevented him from petitioning. In that it would do what became its own dignity; and he was persuaded it would be more honourable to them, as well as gain them more respect from the public, to discharge this man, than to continue his imprisonment. There might be, and he had no doubt, there were persons who would attribute such an act to motives dishonourable and base. But were they, as upright representatives of the people, in the conscientious discharge of a public duty, to regard such feelings? Were they to neglect to do a duty, because wicked men might ascribe bad motives to them? He concurred in all the sentiments of the honourable and learned member who brought forward this question; he was persuaded that it would be cruel to call upon a man to retract or renounce opinions, the truth of which he might still continue conscientiously to believe. Such a principle was unknown to the laws of this free country; at least, he knew of no law that called for such a renunciation. If the dignity of that House required that such a principle should be acted upon, he should be the last man that would vote for the discharge of Gale Jones without requiring him to comply with the established forms. Whatever might have been his opinion as to the nature of the offence, as the House had decided it to be a breach of its privileges, it was not for him to dispute the propriety of such a decision. But the right hon. secretary seemed to have argued the propriety of requiring a petition, on the ground of precedent. Could not that right hon. gent perceive, that if there were any value in that argument, he might on the same ground refuse his assent to the discharge of Gale Jones, if he did not appear at the bar on his knees, as in the case of Murray, alluded to by the hon. and learned gent. on the floor? Whatever might be the course of precedents heretofore, this was a time when he was of opinion the House ought to make a different precedent. He was determined to stand by the House in every thing that was necessary to its dignity; but he did not think that would be best consulted by protracting the punishment of an indivi- dual, because he would not apply for his enlargement, by submitting to acknowledge the justice of his sentence, and craving the mercy of the House.—At this critical and awful period, it was his settled and decided opinion that the House should not shut its eyes to the real state of the country. He was one of those, who, so far from thinking, as had been sometime since stated within their walls, that that House, in point of reputation, had not a leg to stand on, were fully and satisfactorily persuaded that such an aspersion was absolutely groundless—was in reality false. He was bound, nevertheless, to admit that they did not possess that high degree of public estimation and confidence which ought to belong to them. If by forbearance to discuss their real difficulties, they could remove them, that might be a reason why they should pass them over without notice. But, in his opinion, the only true way of averting danger was to look it boldly in the face; and these were times which imperiously called upon them to meet every difficulty with fortitude and spirit. The great bulk of the nation, he was convinced, was firmly attached to the constitution and the government, and ready to make all the sacrifices which the circumstances of the times might require. He was constrained, however, to allow that the country had many grievances to complain of; and these that House was most particularly called upon to attend to and redress. Under this impression, it was with considerable satisfaction he learned that an hon. member (Mr. Brand) had that evening given notice of a motion for a parliamentary reform. It was impossible for any honourable member to listen to the sentiments expressed out of doors, and not be convinced of the necessity of some reform of the representation of the people in parliament. In order to shew how the feelings of the House and of the country pointed out the expediency of adopting some measure for that purpose, he had only to advert to the attention, which was uniformly paid to every thing that fell from the honourable member for Yorkshire (Mr. Wilberforce). This mark of respect that honourable member received in a much higher degree than many other hon. members, who, without meaning any thing offensive to that hon. member, might justly compare with him in every other respect. To what was this owing but to the great weight which most naturally belong to any thing coming from the representative of 50,000 constituents? This too shewed how necessary a reform was, which would give to the members of that House the representative respectability of the collective number of their constituents. When he talked of reform, he did not mean any of those wild and visionary theories, which had so frequently been recommended for adoption in latter times. His wish was to infuse into that House a greater portion than it contained, in the present state of its constitution, of the landed interest. Feeling as he did upon this head, he could not but condemn that extravagant prodigality of the honours of nobility, which had robbed that House of so much respectability, without adding any thing to the consideration of the other House of parliament.—There was another point also, upon which he must express his most decided regret and unqualified disapprobation; namely, that list, which, upon the motion of the noble lord (lord Cochrane) the member for Westminster, had been laid upon their table. In that list of pensions he was sorry to find the names of persons without merits; to perceive that pensions were granted to the relatives of persons, who would and ought to be ashamed to take such paltry sums from the public purse. It was by no means his opinion, that if the whole of such pensions were done away, they would in any material degree contribute to relieve the public burthens: but when it was found that such grants were taken by persons connected with the higher classes, the circumstance would tend greatly to excite and continue that distrust of public men, which had unfortunately risen to a greater height of late than ever in this country.—There was another circumstance too more immediately connected with their proceedings, which was likewise an object of regret in the present situation of the country; he meant that practice of personal crimination and recrimination which had too often lately disgraced their proceeding in that House. The chair, he was convinced, had never been more ably filled, nor its duties performed with more dignity and satisfaction than by the present Speaker: yet he must observe, that a great laxity of order and decency had crept in of late which brought public men into discredit. Though he was persuaded that there was much integrity and talents on both sides of the House, he must be al- lowed to say, that the personal altercations, to which he had alluded, had a direct tendency to lower them in the public estimation. His most anxious—his only wish was, that the House should be rendered respectable, and though he certainly thought every item of saving of importance, yet it was not according to any view he could take of the subject by subordinate retrenchments, but by the reduction of the great establishments, that the country was to be saved. Whenever peace may come it would be a serious question how far such reduction could be effected; but the difficulties attending that question were only to be removed by a strong, firm, and efficient administration, combining all the weight, ability, and talents in the House. For the propriety of forming such an administration, he could appeal to the House whether they thought it could, under any circumstances of difficulty, be driven from its bias to the public interest, by any minor considerations. Such an administration, however, he must say, could not be formed from either side of the House. It was the duty of all the members of that House to attend to this great subject; and of all those who had high characters in that House, and great weight as well as stake in the country, to unite for that important purpose. If such a body should declare themselves, the country would soon rally round them: and then their privileges would be cheerfully acquiesced in as privileges given solely because exclusively exercised for the interest of the people. The bill he had the honour to bring forward last year, though abused by some, and ridiculed by others, had yet, he trusted, produced some good, and would lead to that gradual and temperate reform which was the most difficult to be accomplished. Of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer he was always disposed to speak handsomely; but he could not look upon him as possessed of force and vigour enough for the administration of public affairs in times like these. The hopes of the country, he should repeat, depended altogether upon a combination of all the talents and respectability in that House. Having stated thus much upon the general situation of the country, he should revert to the question before the House; and on this he should only say that he would vote for the liberation of Gale Jones, conceiving that such a measure would not compromise the honour, the dignity, or the character of that House.

was of opinion, that the individual, to whom the motion referred, had already suffered punishment enough. If he had, then, he would ask whether it was consistent with their dignity not to put an end to the punishment? The offence for which he had been imprisoned had existed for several years, and might have been borne either by the House collectively or any individual member. These debating societies had been held for several years without having been taken notice of; and gentlemen might recollect to have seen the names of Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox, men great in mind, eminent in station, and great in character, placarded in the same manner as in the instance which had been recently complained of. He had no doubt that the placard was a libel; but he thought that it was unworthy of the hon. member to notice it. But when it had been brought under the observation of the House, it must have been punished, though not severely. When Jones had expressed contrition for his offence at the bar, it was his opinion that it would have been most consistent with the dignity of the House to have discharged him. As a difference of opinion prevailed upon the subject, both in and out of the House, it would have well become that House not to appear to punish the offence vindictively. As to what had been said of the propriety of requiring G. Jones to petition, he must observe, that it was scarcely to be expected that a man, convinced that he was right, could be brought to acknowledge himself wrong. When he had last year moved for the release of general Clavering, he was told that his application would be fruitless, unless general Clavering should, by petition, acknowledge his error, and submit himself to the mercy of the House. But general Clavering would have submitted to rot in prison rather than admit what he was convinced he was incapable of, that he had been guilty of prevarication. Then it was said that it was enough that the person should say he was sorry for having incurred the displeasure of the House. But could any one suppose that he was not sorry for it? As to the obstinacy that was imputed to him, would not persecution or prosecution be likely to make any man obstinate? But by keeping Mr. Gale Jones in confinement, would he be likely to come out either a better subject or with fewer partizans? This was a case in which they ought to make a precedent, if they had none to go 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.

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 usage; and again, if upon usage, whether that usage had been unbroken from time immemorial. He should always be against breaking in upon long continued usage, because the presumption in such a case would be, that it had been founded on wise and convenient grounds; and he should, therefore, be inclined to abide by the usage long established where it did not lead to palpable injustice. If this usage were, as he must presume it to be, such, that the party offending was not to be discharged 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 influence his argument, if it were not regular, 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.—For himself, he was extremely loth to break in upon long established usages; but he was not prepared to follow this usage to its full extent or into all its consequences. The effect of such an usage as this would be, that different persons might be committed for the same or similar offences, at different periods of the session, and, in consequence of this usage, be subjected to very unequal degrees of punishment. Mr. Gale Jones might for his offence, be committed at the commencement of the session, and not being 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 of- 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 arty 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.

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 commitments 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 committed 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.

observed, that, as the Speaker had stated that every person committed to a jail, according to the practice of the House, was required to petition, before he could be discharged, it would not be necessary for him to say much upon this subject. The question was not whether a petition presented was insufficient, but whether the circumstances of the time or the character of the occasion were such as to induce the House to depart for the first time from its ancient, uniform and established practice. He could see nothing in either to call for such an abandonment of the practice of parliament. His hon. and learned friend had he must allow reasoned eloquently against the severity of calling upon a man to recant heretical, or theoretical opinions, which he may have entertained against the constitution. Against all such arguments the only answer was, that he was not to be called upon to abjure any such opinions. But having been voted guilty of a breach of the privileges of that House, he saw no reason why he should not do that which he had already done. (Hear, hear!) The hon. gent. seemed to think that Gale Jones had done enough in his former acknowledgment. But why should he now refuse to do what he had before done at the bar, when it was requisite according to the practice of the House, that he should present 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 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 petition. 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 suffering themselves1 to be bewildered with reasoning upon abstract propositions. As to questions raised with respect to the inequality of punishment in the exercise of this power of the House, he would admit, that the House had many infirmities in its constitution as to the power of inflicting punishments. If Jones had any severity to complain of, he brought it upon himself. He had reason to believe, notwithstanding what had been stated by the noble lord opposite to the contrary, that his right hon. friend was correct in stating, that Gale Jones had applied to a member to present a petition for him. The fact he had from more quarters than one, and from persons to whom it had been communicated by the honourable member himself. In the case of general Clavering last year, the hon. bart. (sir T. Turton) would not even be heard without a petition. The case of Drake, too, which had been referred to, happened in a good time, as the gentlemen opposite sat then at the side of the House, from which he spoke; and yet the uniform practice of the House had in that instance been adhered to. In these two recent cases, the House had shewn more severity than towards Gale Jones; who was not called upon to admit the falsehood of what he had stated before, but merely to say that by petition which he had already said at the bar of the House. Was 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.

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.

, if the explanation of the hon. bart. had not anticipated him, had intended to set the right hon. gent. right as to the allusion he had made to the case of general Clavering. No petition whatever had been presented to the House from general Clavering, and therefore so far as the reasoning of the right hon. gent. rested upon that case, it must fall to the ground. The object of the hon. bart. on that occasion was to induce the House to expunge the whole of the proceedings against general Clavering from its Journals, and thus to do away the foundation of the commitment altogether. He was of opinion that the right hon. gent. in the course of his argument, had done great injustice to Gale Jones. By comparing his commitment to the cases of persons committed for falsehood or prevarication, the right hon. gent. had done much injury to the person whose case was now under consideration. He was glad however to find the right hon. gent. opposite admitting that the submission of Mr. Gale Jones at the bar was sufficiently ample; because when he had stated that upon a former occasion these right hon. gentlemen had denied the fact. Now, however, the right hon. gent. opposite 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 could the House know of Mr. Jones, or he 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 shall have him again at the bar, and make him shew that he has not changed his opinion. But, supposing him to have changed his opinion, supposing that others too have changed their opinion upon the subject, why should they compel him to say that what he thought true yesterday, he continues to think true this day? He was aware that the right honourable gentleman was stedfastly fixed in his religious opinions, and that he might perhaps be disposed to call upon the House to believe all they had been taught when they were children. But, said the right hon. gent. he is not to be called on to retract any theoretical opinion. If he had changed his opinion upon the subject of that paper, which he had before admitted to be an offence or error on his part, would it not be to call upon him to do violence to his conviction, to oblige him to acknowledge what he did not now believe? The right hon. gent. must be aware that there had been such an event as the reformation. Suppose a man to have lived before the reformation, and for disbelieving transubstantiation to have been brought before the persecuting inquisition. Suppose him before that terrible tribunal to admit that he believed 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 practiced 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 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.

, 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 scribe 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.

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 hail 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 concurrence 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 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 imputation 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 remain 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 release; feeling that by so doing he should not in the smallest degree impugn a single privilege of the House.

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 objection could he have to comply with 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.

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 petition. Captain 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 air 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.

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.

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 offence, they ought not, therefore, thus to prolong that punishment beyond just limits.

said, that as at no distant day there would be an opportunity of ascertaining 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.

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 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.

observed, that the House were called upon to do no Jess 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 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 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.

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 example to deter others from the commission of similar offences. Mr. Jones's viva voce contrition was a sort of petition that he might not be sent to Newgate at all, and might be considered as a petition vir- 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.

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.

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 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 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 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 with hold his consent from it.

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 personal apology. There was no doubt, 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 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 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 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 Tuesday in Westminster-Hall.

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 appeared, 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 rather 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- soner 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 whether the petition should simply express sorrow; or also confess guilt, and acknowledge the justice of the punishment. One right hon. gent. had denied that the punishment was sufficiently severe. This was a part of the cause 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 he acknowledged he felt 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. But it had been said that the punishment for contumacy 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 of the rack. The cases of Clavering and Sandon had been much relied upon, but they really appeared as cases that ought to have been cited in order to shew the injustice of such a rule.—Sandon was committed for prevarication of a very gross and wanton nature—the other was committed for prevarication 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 indeed plead confusion of understanding, and so far comparatively redeem his character. It had been said, that the punishment was, after all, limited, as he must be enlarged at the end of the sessions; but this meant rather that their power was limited, not the punishment, for the King was not bound to prorogue a parliament, and thus the liberty of the subject was transferred 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 declaration, that if he were in the situation of Mr. John Gale Jones, he would sacrifice his liberty, highly as he valued it, before he would consent to purchase it by a pitiful retractation of his real sentiments, compromising his character, and violating his integrity.

The House then divided on the motion, for the enlargement of Mr. Gale Jones. Ayes 112—Noes 160—Majority 48.

wished to state to the House a fact which had just come to his knowledge since he complained to the House respecting the misrepresentation of a speech of an hon. bart. Subsequent to the publication of the speech of the hon. baronet opposite, he understood an apology had been sent highly creditable to the editor of the paper in which it appeared.

wished it to be understood, that he had not caused in any way the subject to be brought forward. He did not know that it was the intention of the hon. gent. to take up the subject, or he would have desired him to give up his design, and let it alone. He first knew of the offence from the receipt of the apology.

confirmed the statement of the right hon. baronet, as to his being wholly unacquainted with his intentions.—[Here the conversation ended.]