Star. — London, England, 1812-03-06 00:00:00

0 . A __ - —.—.---=-.-------e- hesitated to exercise whenever ouch cases were f HOUPE OF COMMONS. the . broOglit before them, and particularly in cases of libel, I Before the Speaker had taken the Chai r , M r . Qua,ame, whether the words were soken in or out of the , Deruty Usher of the Black Rod, summoned th e House in the p • name of the Lords Commissioners, to attend in the House of House. Instances of gross immorality had also been, Lords to hear the Commission read for giving the Roya) Assent visited with punishment, and there were cases, as ap e l • to certain Public and Private Bath. e peered on the Journals, where Members had been The WEAKER, on his return, f.ecitninttd the House, that the called to account and punished by the House for de now had been in the House of Lords, and that the Rove As !lying religion. He mentioned these cases, not to sent had been given by Commission to the Exchequer Bills An nuity B 11. the Sugar Drawback Bill, and the Sugar Drawback justify the whole of them, but to shew that the Hour • Suspension Bill. had not been sc, ueulous to exercise this inquisitorial Mr. GRA'I'T.AN rave notice, that it was his intention, on the m - .ser. Not longer ago than in the year 1796, Co nte of April, t.. 9 move for a Committee to inquire into the state • of his Majesty's subjects professing the Roman Cathol:c religion lon.el Cawiliorne had been called to an account, and in Irel aid. ' expelled by a vote of the House for impropriety of Sir EDWARD KNATCHBULL moved the postponement of -conduct. flut of all the instance of this sort, none the third r,ading of the Stroud Poor Bill, which stood for this had been more severely punished than fraud, breach day, oil this day fortnight, wiii.th was postponed accordingly.' of trust and undue emolument. _Mr. JOHNSTONE presented certain Papers relative to Of public delin- Iteland. quencies of this sort, the instances were not rare ; • ot d: red, on the motion of Load BINNING, that a Messagebe frauds of a private nature, and committed on private sent to Abe I.ords, requesting their I.ordships to permit the alters- persons, had been more seldom brought under their asaesegehe Earl of Liverpool, in the Committee appointed to inquire ento the American Claims. review, and, it was natural, that tie latter cases The etainniitment of the Pilot's Bill was postponed till this day ' should be less numerous than the former, as the House se night. • .I was more watchful over public matters. There were Lord FOLKESTONE presented a Petition from certain Insol- ; numerous instances of Contractors having misapplied rent I 'ebtors in the King's Bench Prison, praying for relief,,and j the public money, but private cases appeared to him ' that some alteration should be made in the Acts on that subject. to be equally worthy of notice, especially wheo their ThcOak Nat Bill went through a Committee, and was or- &red to be reported to-morrow. notoriety and publicity were such, that they must be The Tobacco and Timber Bills went also severally through a known to every individual in the kingdom. The Committee, and were ordered to be reported to-morrow. present case was one of that description. Could any The Lottery Bill went through a Conunittee; to be reported . terumarrow. thing be more public than the case of a man tried at ' Mr. WciARTON presented certain Papers relative to the tie Old Bailey, and found guilty by a Jury of the Civil List, which wens ordered to be printed and referred to the country ? It might, perhaps, be argued, that the tonuisittee appointed to inquire into that subject. question was altered 'by the pardon that had been Mr. WELLESLE.Y POLE brought in the Irish Poor Coals ; Bill, which was read a first, and ordered to be read a second time ! subsequently granted. The case was, no doubt, an to-morrow. I unusual one, and the mode of acquittal by no means Mr. WELLESI.EY POLE brought up the Report of the Irish such as to satisfy the delicacy or feelings of the • Warehousing Bill, which was agreed to, and the Bill ordered to House, or any thinking man on the subject. Imme be read a third time. diately after the conviction, the next intelligence we The Committee of the whole House on the Irish Sugar Draw back Act was postponed 01l to-ntorrow. hear, is that of a pardon. He knew that this pardon Mr. HUTCHINSON presented a petition from certain Inha- was represented not as a matter of grace or favour, bitants of the C'ty of Cork, complaining of a privation of their but as a matter , of right, and that it could not be rights with respect to Weigh Houses, and praying for the recto- otherwise by the construction of the law of the laden or Weigh Masters. 'I he Honourable Member supported the Petition at cet,siderable length, and was solicitous to ton. case. The mode, however, in which this acquittal wince the House of the importance of the subject, the rights of had been effected, was Still attended with inconve which the Petitioners were deprived, baying been protected and nieece, and must prove injurious, if unnoticed, to secured to them by several Acts in the reigns of William, Anne, the character of the House. Had the verdict been send George I. a special one, mould not this proceeding have Arr. W.ELLESLEY POLE stated, that the office referred to In the Petition, was held under an Act of Parliament w hiell did been adopted ? and he did not see that the pardon not expite till September next. It would then be for the House could alter the case, or take the censorial power out of to consider the subject. Till the expiration' of that Act they their hands. The crime itself was acknowledged ; could not, with propriety, interfere.—The Petition was ordered to lie on the talk.the Judges had only taken away the denomination • The"C:HANCELI.,OR of the EXCHEQUER, alluding to of the offence, but not its moral turpitude, neither w h a t had been said on a former night, observed, that the Lord the delinquency nor the notoriety. There was no Steward, though appointed, had not yet taken the oaths of office, room in that House for the consideration of legal and having acted, in these circumstances a Bill of Indemnity would terms. They were not bound to adhere to the tech beueceteary. H, ac t iei-ted the individual, however, of any neglect tan his part, and g ave notice, that it was his intention to move nical definitions or distinctions of law, but were to be for a Biil of Indemnity to-morrow. guided by right and the fair and obvious principles • ' Mr. C. WILLIAMS WYNNE observed, that the neglect lay of eternal justice. The law and custom of Parlia with those who bad the r r ppointment, and did not make that ap- meat were different from those of the Courts below, poisiment more early. 'lhe Comittee on the Marriage Act was postponed till Mon- and were not to be regulated by any of their modes m day next . of proceeding or the reports of the judges. It would • IEXPULSION OF MR. WALSH. augur the dissolution of Parliament, should strict The Ordei of the Day for the attendance of Mr. !eget evidence be deemed necessary for their procee- Walith.liaving been read, ' dings. The letter itself' of Mr. Width was a conies- Mr. BANKES moved, that the Messenger of the sion of the delinquency, and could not be miscon- House who had delivered the summons, should be strued or evaded. Even the pardon itself was a proof examined to establish the fact. of the guilt, while the letter admitted neither of de- Mr. Thomas Skelton was accordingly called to the fence nor palliation, ancerendered all nom:, of the re• Bar, and on being interrogated by the Speaker, de- port of the trial unnecessary. He had therefore posed, that yesterday morning, at eleven o'clock, he confined himself in moving for the necessary &cu . kerne/ the potice upon Mr. Walsh himself. ' meats to the letLer, a cop/ oaf the pardon, and a ' The SPEAKER—ii I should now inform the copy cf thh Judge's letter, thinking them proof sof : House, that 'I have received this day another letter 1 ficient and ground enough_ for the: House to found front Mr. Walsh, in which he states his physical in- I their proceedings. There was a transaction in 1732, ability to attend inh:s place, or to face this House on 1 which bore him out in the proceeding he had adopted .' this ceceasiten.“ He hopes that the House will allow I and would justify the Motion he intended to make. • to be read his foriner letters, in which, to use his own I This was a case not of revenue, or public money, • kvotds, ii he does not set .about to justify, but to pal- I but of a private nature—as it related to charitable hate, his conduct ;" 'and he concludes with saying, l incorporations. The House did not look here at the - di that whatever may be the pleasure of the House, he. denomination of the crime, but, because one of their hopes they will - now proceed to determine upon his Members had been ecncerned in promoting and abet. case." ting fraudulent practices; though it did not appear ' Mr. BANKES then rose, and said, that in bring. that he-applied them to his own benefit, thought him • ing this charge of so serious a nature against a Mem- ,no longer worthy to be ' a Member ; and on this barof the House, and' wishing his offence to be visit -. I ground alone expelled him the House. There was ed with the greatest punishment the House could in. still an older precedent of the House interfering in *flint, he' should be sorry if, at a future period, any private transactions, respecting its Members. '!' his ' innocent man should suffer by such a precedent.— I was the case of a father and son, between whom the neither did he wish, iii bringing this charge, td in-1 House felt it its duty to interfere, and ordered an in vest the House with any inquisitorial power respec- ' quiry into the complaints of the son against his own iing,priyate transactions. *lf the letter of Mr. Walsh father, whom he accused of conduct, in the opinion te fi.s brother, that was now printed and before the of the House, not becoming one of its Members.— ' House, had come into his hands as a private commu. , This was in 1(370, and though the Committee re : eilcafion, the House should net have-heard from him ported that there was no ground for the petition com iny proposition on the subject. He agreed in think. , phtining of such misconduct, it yet skewed the clu ing that the House should interfere, as little as pos. ; cretionary power exercised by the House. It was the sible, in judidial functions ; but there were occasions case of Sir Edward Thomas, on the complaints of when it was necessary to vindicate their own charac- whose son the Howe appointed a Committee ef In ter and purify themselves. He had precedents suffe- .quiry into the various subjectsof complaint,though not cieet to justify his proceeding. It was competentfor I known to the public, end nothaving the same claims the House at all times to watch over the conduct and to attention as those of greater notoriety. They were purity of it Members. It was competent for the not•bound by any legal forms. They had frequently House, and for every body of men, to draw its re- expelled Members and afterwards instituted a legal I SPOCCAbillty and claims to public estimation from the trial, so little were they attentive to all the terms of character and respectability of the individuals of evidence Which the law prescribed, when it was ne- Which it was composed. If they felt elevated in the cessary to vindicate the character and purity of the public estimation, from the high character, from the House. Having thus stated theprinciples that ought talents and' integrity of its Members ; if they felt to.guide the House in such proceedings, the notoriety proud in contemplating the valour, heroic achieve- and publicity of the present case might be urged as a talents, and public services of some illustrious Mem- further argument. The papers before the House de bers of their body ; were they not to suffer, in a like monstrated clearly, that there had been committed a degree, from the vices and corruption, from the mal- notorious breach of trust. Nobody, with such evi r •practices and profligate character of any of their dente in his hands, could doubt it. With respect to Mernbtrs ? So midi was this the case, that such a the Member's non-attendance, he did not mean to body could never retain its dignity, nor preserve its urge that as any aggravation of his offence; on the claims to public respect, without the power of purl- contrary, had lie attended, and attempted to justify • eying its If.• Those conveitane with history would himself, he should have regarded this circumstance r: cngnise this principle operating strongly in the as a proof of his mind being hardened, and insensi- Constitution of the Roman • Govel twnent, where I ble to shame. It gave him pleasure that he had the Censor i f the City, even in times the most made no such attempt, and he trusted his future life corrupt, exercised his inquisitoriarpower, 'and ex- would exhibit impressions of a similar description, relied Isom 0 e Settaie such Members as he thought and atone, in some measure, for the former. The Isy their conduct were a disgrace to that body. There case, en the whole, was not a new one, and it would Was no doubt, that too often this power was exer- be for the 'Riese to exercise its discretion. It was ' Cised from caprice, and that Senators were sometimes clear that the House possessed the power of punish expelled for no fault at all, - or for such as weft only ing its Members, and if they did not, in this instance, of a slight nature. The principle, hos.teer, was the so strongly pressed upon them by all the dircum same, and such as must, in some shape or other, be stances, and by the notoriety cf the case, they might e xercised by every public body that claimed . the con- I s'ew, in some degree, the ignominy, if not the guilt. fidence or respect of the public. In their own House He concluded by moving, there was no want of precedents, though they had .. i bet Benjamin Walsh, having been tried, •in the month of Jat.at ylast, theat Old Bailey, for telony, and Lis offence, in g never thou ht it safe to trust this censorial power in the opinion tit t h e Judges, and by the constietoanni not amotuli any other hands than their own. After alluding to ing to, but being a fraud and breach-of trust, be is no longer the case of 1 809 , he stated there were cases ot• al - worthy to continue a Member of ills House." most every description, -in whit* the House had vi- On the suggestion of the SPEAKER, the docu sited, with due indignation, the offences and miscon- ments before the House were ordered to be recorded duct of its Members. This power they had never on the Journals, as the ground of this proceeding. --•-- " • -; . sag that this case shootd stand on any ur a Committee of that House. The prose ' P d 4 ready had, was sufficiently notorious ; and locust the offentx did not in law amount to a felony, • Sir ARTHUR PIGOTT professed so pinch re spect for the Honourable Member who had brought forward this Motion, and so much con fi dence in his ity, that on all occasions he should readily se- Integrity, " it t r a t tend whatever he might offer, .upless some strong net follow that it wits not a very gnat oi and important principle imperiously called for a din- Was very well known that the person in questio n d,i ferent proceeding. He thought it, however, his duty parry away, and appropriate to his own.use, to oppose the motion, from the deep conviction that petty of Sir T. Plenier. Could the Hose claw r ir the House could not legally and sonstitutianally estate as to the opinion it must form of such am eetl adopt this proceeding, nnwithstanding the odium, Would it be said there was no crime, betas)" thet a he was aware, would be attached, from the circum• i was no felony ? The Judges had ne . re l y found, ,e. ' stances of the case, to all such as might entertain an t the offence did not amount to a felony. World opinion similar to is own. The motion had no foun- •be said then, that Mr.. Walsh was an in eeee ,,, ie .. 1 dation in any rational or just parliamentary proceed.; because he had not committed felony ? Wa s e e - 7 4 ings. The measure, if adopted, would be a prece. i convicted of moral turpitude? Were not Pe d am dent dangerous to the public, and might interfere ; men• already alluded to, expelled for m; na d with the privilege of Members, and the freedom of i rude alone ? They had not been convicted t rr',.. election. He would state the grounds of his opinion ,',.legal offence ; for the House, after t h e etpetel e i: 4/. ! without entering into the jurisdiction of the I louse ' dered a criminal prosecution to be isatituted. in e 1 over its own Members. There had been nothing seen House did not then wait for a legal ct nv ctisa, lea that could call for their interference. The case of having ascertained the existence of moral tutp• j libels had be referred to, but these must first be ' the Members deelared, that such delinqii, ots i proved, and were a public offence, the violation of not fit to sit among them. With respect to the some existing law. The House had also a right to . don, it was not granted as a matter of g lue, Lo ll; interfere in cases of breach of public trust. They ' consequence of an opinion expressed by the Jed" had a right to see that the servants of the public did ' that his offence, with all its moral turpitude, &do se their duty, and that the public should sustain no in.' amount to a felony. Under all cline cit r jury from fraud or corruption. The House had a he felt :t his duty to give his support to the a : right to see all public money properly applied. l'he ' Sir A. PIGOTT explaired, that what h e w hat. House were the guardians of the public purse, and was applied to the question solely in a lesal mese. to the House all Members guilty of public fraud i Mr. HUME thought tLet if they aere t h ee to , were respoesible, whether that fraud might be real or' reed to punish the misappruptia4oe of supposed. In times when the Constitution was not might shortly have little else to do. As Mr. fully understood, there might be cases of inquisitorial bad been is effect acquitted, he Utensil' m e H ew power exercised by the House with respect to private ought not to concur with the motion. If ea lee k concerns ; that could not be now justified or followed. grounds Mr. Walsh were expelled, it would s em The case of 1670 that had been referred to, with re. dangerous precedent, and hereafter, if any iodied u l spect to a father and son, was not to be regarded as were to misapply £5O, nay, but Litt, of money , a precedent in this case, as no proceeding was held which he had been entrusted, the circomeere nen on it that could justify this, and this was the only in- be maliciously brought forward as a rattad kg li t stance of interference in private concernsthat had been expulsion of the party ; and, perhaps, there was wt adduced. The other cases bore no analogy at all to a man in the House who might enc. at kat ties the present question.—With respect to the case of were a great many who might, be brought fire s a charitable donations he should speak by and bye, but charged with such offences.—[A langh.l—li e t e . now he should ask, What they really knew of the lieved it was known, that many who had mot e l charge or complaint made against Mr. Walsh ? means of paving £lOOO, but who were constately i They had before them the record of the trial at the taking every means (by fraud he woad say) to pe t , Old Bailey. There were several counts in the indict. seas themselves of property which quadrupl e d a e ment, and there was a general verdict finding him amount. The crime which Mr. Wald' had comae guilty of felony. This verdict, however, was follow- ted he did not think was so bad as it 11. d been teen, ed up by no judgment. He was surprised that any rented to be by the Honourable Gen:knish. Prea person should use this record as a foundation for any • the letter which he had written, he thou iris, proceeding whatever, as there was a stay of judg- that deliberate guilt, arising from a b a d Ins ment consequent upon it. No Court of Justice would not to be charged to him, and from that it easels act upon this record, because non tomcat what judg. evident, that he had no sooner committed the act, ment it led to. Would such a record lead to the fur- than he felt conscious of having acted wrong._ A. feiture of lands, goods, or chattels? The judgment laugh.J—They suffered men to it in that Homo was reserved for the other, Judges, ' and their opinion who had been guilty of conduct more destructive,' was, that the offence charged did not amount to le- domestic happiness than had been the conduct ufMr. luny. I have no knowledge at all of the charge. I Walsh. If then they proceeded to punish a Matt only see that he was charged with felony, and' the • for a moral offence, they aught to begin with dolt Judges say it is not felony ; that the facts charged did conduct which had been mast mischievous. Feed" not amount to felony ; but I do not know these facts reasons he should oppose the notion. from any thing before me. There being no felony, Sir FRANCIS BURDETT said, that he wastes. and the verdict being felony, there must necessarily : tainly no stickler for what was valued piiieleges t yia be an acquittal. Does not the question then stand 'he thought, that if any power could be considered* precisely in the same situation as if Mr. Walsh had cessary to that House, or to any other body, it sae been acquitted ?- He was entitled at the time of his from the nature of things, a power to expel a pence trial to an acquittal, and so far as the verdict was , who had been guilty of a notorious offence, 'which otherwise, he had suffered injustice. Had he then was considered a disgrace in society at bulge. 'i Mil been acquitted by the Jury, what could the House ' grounds of expulsion, as it appeared to him, text have done in the case ? and the result was the same oil principles which were among these least laxly 0 as if acquitted at the time. The pardon was nut create inconvenience. or cause abuse, if properly can strictly a pardon ; that was not necessary. It was not sidered. When they declared that an Wielded under the Great Seal ;it was only an authority to the ought to be expelled from their body, thuilli Sheriff to discharge the prisoner, and all the confine- might happen from party zeal or perseeal mice I ment he had experienced was only to be considered tion, all they shoo d do was to send his luck to his as a misfortune and hard:lip to him, without having constituents. if there was a dispute between slim. been guilty in the eye of law of any crime. The , tier and his constituents, as to his unfitness to House should be cautious insestablishing a precedent,: sent them, the House could not settle it ; if bemire the consequences of which might be felt when Mr.! him and the House, he must be sent Lack to I Walsh would be no more. He ( Mr. Walsh) ought not' constituents. If all elections of Members in to have been indicted.; or, if indicted, he ought to have House were fair and free, be could perceive ao been acquitted. The case cf the Charitable Corps. venience likely to result from the power of ration was not in point. Applications were made to but, as the system was at present, with Queen Anne, upon groundi utterly false, to enable 1 boroughs to be bought, and boroughs at the the company to extend their snbscriptions, which in- ' mand of individuals, it was very different. Is crease) to the amount 0f.5e600,000. The debts of . cases, the retpedy would become, by the retire d the company amounting to many hundred thousand expelled Member, the disgrace of the House. Ye pounds, a petition had been presented to that House . that House had been spoken of as a Court. 4 . I s .. from the proprietors, complaining of the directors, a Court guided by no rules, but left in its the fuuids in whose hands did not exceed £4OOO . to the mere individual consciences of the enters That was the case with the South Sea scheme.— most extraordinary Court of Justice 1 HIM The House appointed a Committee by ballot, and were its • powers to be applied in the way of during the remainder of that Session and the next, ment for a moral dffence ? He should always were employed in discovering abuses, and no less %hat he had said before, that that Wise was eat than seven Acts of Parliament had been passed upon proper Court ; for it had no mode oftrial; Y. the subject. Three Members, Sir Archibald Grant, every other body, he conceived it ha.eilt Sir Thomas Sutton, and Mr. Robinson, were ex- tiJ of whatever was a disgrace to it. (HAM polled the House ; and, in 1733, the House voted an With respect to the individual in question. hi, Address to the Crown for the punishment of the de- told just as he was comiug into the Hone, 1112 1 , 1 linquents, many others being concerned. Sir Phil i p 1805, that person was by a resolution of 6:4 York and Mr.. Talbot were then the Attorney and Exchange—by a set of pee*, nowt nicer Solicitor General, and with a view to indemnify, in ' than Gentlemen returned to that House ,-, some measure, the sufferers, Acts were passed to pre. the character and conduct of those who f i., vent the delinquents from withdrawing from the : way into their society—declared unit for country, and from transferring their property. This ' patty. That, to be sure, Was a the mott t t e sfr • lIP I he thought afforded no precedent in the pre s ent case . him ; and it could hardly be Cone There was no party feeling in his mind. (Ifear,lwar.) House had not an equal right to exclude mart/ The title to a seat did not rest with the ouse ; and soe from their association. (Hear, L*4 41 U 1 ; was it of sufficient consequence, for the satisfaction of was proposed seemed to him to be, to dedrsti, expelling a Member, to lay down such a precedent is circumstances relative to the condeat tithtlL'w WAS now proposed ? In the present case, there was no dual were such, as to render it itspossibirlif f breach of a public trust, but only a trans a ction be- House not to disapprove of, and to . C r ; twixt two individuals. Many cases as fl a g r ant as company of such a Menthes. The this occurred in Courts of Equity, where no proceed- • conduct they were discussing, might. or coif hrg like the present had been proposed. Were not have interest still with his constituents, and ' actions for adultery notorious, but never le_tard..d as returned again; for he (Sir Francis Br a ground fur such proceedings as the present ? But, it informed, that he came there by buyie seemed, the new system of purging and purifying the ' He was al,o told, that on theta? House was a sufficient ground for taking cognizance affairs before the Commissioners. a-- of this transaction. But here there was nothing die.' produced, there was the item of his seat . tinct. In the Court of Chancery, confessions of per- meat, which had cost him 13090 I sons might be found, who had defrauded their wards enquired into, and time was gie-, and orphans, to whom this new doctrine would apply. thereupon ; but afterwards, as be Its the present case there was only a breach of trust ; found to be forthcoming to* sa which was not cognizable by the House of Cosismons. that point, and the matter was well He could not,therefore, concur in the present motion . There were, as it was pretty wen Mr. BATHURST conceived, that it ware clues. , sons who sold boroughs; but debt tion which , not to be decided ui 'by Ile legal - ---- a- of those who iff ~~~ ought ._ ipon by knowledge of the Learned Gentleman. Thf was not to tie down its hands by the forms of legal prec?eding ; and it had a right to proceed °nits own feeling of propriety. Here was a breach of trust; and it peculiarly affected men who sat there to exer cise a public trust.—(thar a hear).—lt was not axes• derstood, was one Wbether thistorough Would stirs again or not, it was impouibliriiir Sas,V from the nature of the circunistaaaes• Pi for Mr. Walsh's expulsion. As to Oa WAS a singular one, and inzousistent of the administratioa at • • JP... . - I I 1 I .I A ~! I II ii t t sr w B 1 Of WI , the CIN tiro (ii die Ilee the dl■ 16 teri Cu: the , .tau ing tic 1 IN% 4 6 11131 Talks/