The Sun. — London, England, 1812-03-06 00:00:00

motion, but under 01 the circumstances of the case, seeing no such danger, ..feeliog reseptene,ntagaiott the,crirrie, but none against the person, he' should in thepresent instance, vote for the Resorntion be fore the House, and if that were carried, for the ulterior Resolution which would go to. expel Mr. Walsh. Sir A. PIGOTT hoped no one who' knew - him could so far have misunderstood him, as to suppose that he meant to say there was nothing criminal in the condua of Mr. Walsh.. What he had said Wis., that the crime did not come within this juriadietiou ; That it .was not the crime it had been said to be in a l egal poini of view. • Mr. Hum F. thought that if they were thus to pro. teed to punish the misappropriation of Mertes' they Tirg,ht shortly have little e!ee to do. = Ay Mr. Walsh nad-been in 0 - Ted acquitted, he thought the House -ought not to concnr with the motion. If on such grounds, Mr. Walsh were expelled, it would form.a ctangerou's precedent, and, hereafter it any indiri e nest were ao apply 501. nay but t 01. of money with . Which he - had been entrusted, the circumstance 'Tight be maliciously brought forward' as'a ground the expulston of the party ; and, Perhaps, thew as - not a mat' in the the House who, might root, at, 1 ` art there were a great many who might, be brought f orward, charged with such offences. He believed was known, that many had not the means of. of. Paying 10001. but who . were constantly taking , " . ‘'rY means (bs ) , fraud he would say) to possess t hem !l;l` e of property which quadrupled that amount.— L be crime which Mr. W. had committed he did not t hink was so bad as it had been represented to be ,'"Y the Hon.-Gentleman. Froa: the letter which be had written, he thought it clear that deliberate guilts arising from a bad heart, was not to be charged to hen, and from that it was also evident, 4n(l he had no sooner committed the act, than, he Celt conscious of having aded wrong. They suf. iered men to Sit in that Heusewho had been guilty of condua more destrudive. of domestic happiness t han .had been the-condutt of Mr. Walsh. If then the y proceeded to punish a Member' for a' moral t ' ucre oce they ought to begin with that cOnded which had been most mischievous. For these rea- S°os , he should oppose the ;notion. ' sir F, IluaresTT a ilieugh he was not a warm ads ",°cate for th e p r i v ileg e s cleimed 'by thateHouse,,yet d ie conceived ,ttia:`if it had any power at all, it Qughtto have the:power which every society pos-. ze ssed, that of expelling• any members whose con fleet was notoriously disgraceful.. Of all the power's th ey ,Possessed, the pewer of expulsion seemed to be t hat which was least - , likely to be abused in its excercise. All - they did in . expelling .a Man was to send him back 'to his constituents, and, if they ap proved of his conduct,.t hey could return him again.. c 'w if the elections all over the country were fair,- little inconvenience could ever arisefrom the espul-, bI of a Member to . the Ilo'use, or to the country 'When, however, they had Members for rotten boroughs in the House, if one of these - acted Walsh had done, and chose to maintein e tin 'ell "defiance of the House, they would ; ( u'd the mse laes e plaeed in a vety unpieasanr si uation. He thought the Hbuse could not punish ,•", a moral o'ffeece, but that it had a right • - itiq to ski itself of a bad Member. He did hot e • - . ere ew that the Gentlemen on the waaca Exchange Zght be more nice about the conduct 'of their ae "d I nhers than the House of Commons, and yet he ter y that in i the year 1809, Mr. Walsh had been 'Pelled the Stock Exchange for his oefaribus con duct. Sur e ly th e House of Commons had es great a right to expel one of their Members for improper conduct, 'IS the Gentlemen of the Stock Exchange could have to expel one of theirs. It Mr: Walsh was sent back by his Constituents, he did not know • that the House could do an thing. This perhaps 11 ,e might do, as, he believed, Mr. Walsh purchased MiS seat. He had heard that the price of his seat, 50001, or whatever ii was that it had cost, had been reckoned in the assets of -Mr. Walsh, as capable of being appropitated to the benefit of 'his credi !ors. When a question was asked on this sub- Sect, he. understood time had been, detitanded and granted, ...and atter that time money had 'been b rought forward, and the .business vas not again brought into discussion. This he believed to be one of those boroughs that were,in the habit of sell ing themselves. He 'should cettainly vote that on t his occasion Mr: Walsbough t t to be expelled. All the, circumst a nces of Iris extraordinary trial, offence, 7 ( • e. were so incongruous and too irrational to his t t e lihd, and s o dtffeient from What he' looked for l'orn the national law, that. he,could not but' offer on t hem / tew remarks. - Ilr e Walsh was indkted ter k felony. The Jory found him. guilty. :This was Wrong ; it was a false veidiel, and was left subse quent to the opinion of the Judges, who decided • t hat it was not a felony, after be had been - found Teis was very - eiportant. What couldthe l odges try a man for.ae offence„and hot knoW'Whe . "thar or not he ought- to be tried_ for it, or could they tr y him, and not knew for what ? Then the manner in 'which this veraial had been got rid of deserved some ‘ll htion. It had not beeh.gut rid of by a regular tree pardon, as a pardon must be given under the treat Seal. There were also laws - reseeding par- cl , ° °s, which required that the • reasons shoOld be • 'newp on which they were thereby empowered to ` e ecide whether or not such reasons ‘V ere good, and .Pt to a d m it th e m on improper ,gideuds, In Mr. Walsh', case .they had adopted a seta , easy mode. A note -had beers sent to the keeper of Newgate,,and " the receipt of this Mr. Walsh was set au Ober- V. All this to him appeared very incongruous. As ,t 0 the off en ce of Mr s Walsh, it • had in it every - 't hing that could excite disgust and abhorrence, and 'Pe ettould not justice to his feelings if he did .net state, that after the acknowledgment of guilt. - which they had under his own hand (how that was 'gained, he did not know), be was unfit to remain a • Member of that Society. With respell to prece dents, there was hardly any thing which might not beiustitied by precedent. How had the House • dealt wit b Mr. Steele. His offence was greater than that of Mi. Walsh, and immediately coene.Red with the House. At two several times he took money for liis . own use, to the amount of ig,oool. No • . notice was taken of this till some years after; a change of 'Administration ceased the affair to be brought 'Lrward, and it was then referred to a k'inance Committee. This was, got rid - of by the • - Dissolution of Parliament, and in the succeeding Par liament, exceptions were .taken to some of the-meet L 2 spectable person,s , proposed to be on the Finance Cottanaittee, and were in consequence left out. Mr. A Steele at last path back the surds of money which he- ha: taken, but uot- until after many_ years had elapsed, and the interest, - he -believed, had never been paid. This business, it wits the duty of the House to have notieed in the titst.instance,- instead of passing over it as it had done. This same 'Mr. Steele, he understood, was now in a place worth 16001. per annum. He then noticed the arse oi - Mr„ Him!, who -was concerned in similar trans lc tions, yet -who, in the years 1802 and 1804, was in-the receipt of pensions amounting to one thousand pounds a year. He thsri noticed the case, of M , Mills, to whom the privilege of Parliament had been granted, in order to e'nahle him to leave the country, and cheat his creditors of 30,0061-though his creditors, . aware of 'his intentions, petitioned against such - privilege beirg allowed to him at that time, when he was a prisoner in the King's Bench. He then adverted to the 40,0001. advanced by Mr. `Pitt. to Messrs. Boyd, Benfield, and Co. and the manner in wliico the transaction was treated by Par, liament. Than sucnh. conduit nwhing could ,be more destructive-to the interests of the.country. It was trafr, that a shameless pretence had been set up, that thesum so advanced was for the support of public credit,. He did not know how this -was affected, but he knew, the twat did not give the House much credit with the public. 'An Honour able Gentleman had been'afraid that if the Rouse were to punish in,such a case, as that before them it might alftct three-fourths of the country. He did not believe suchto• be the state of the C(untry, but if he did, he should be more anxious to keep that ge neral contamination from reaching - the House. The reflections introduced by .such reasoning reminded him of the conversation between Lady Macdutf and her Child. " Child.—What, will all the rogues be hanged when they are taken? • . • " Lady lA.tedufF, --Yes, every, one. . • •." Chinl.—Then the rogues are all fools. _ " Lady Macdult: —NV hy ? • " Childi—Because if they.wcre not fools, they would now hang all the honest nierL" The Hpn. Baronet con.clucled,:repeating that the House had the-right of ,eApelling a bad Member, an t i he would thetefore vote for the motion, though he wished•to pay no great compliment to the power or the privileges of that House. e Dq.L.ONT spoke, but was not distinEtly heard iii the gallery. "He was ainderstood to vute for the motion: Mr. HERBERT opposed the motion. Mr. ABERCROKBY thought every one must feel a strong 'desire that Mr. .Walsh should sit in 'that House-no longer, bat contended, on the same grotinds as the second .bpc,aker in the debate went On, that he could not be expelled with justice, as, in the eye of the law, he stood acquitted of that with -which he had been charged. Having co?umitted no such offlltice in the eye of the law, he ought not to be expelled; because some Gentlemen had a problema tical idea that he had been guilty of armoral offence. Mr. W. WYNNE contended, that the Charitable Corporation money was private money, aid that the expulsions relating to'that subject were not on the ground that the' ',I-stoney taken was public money, but 'on the ground that they had been guilty of a breach ,of trust. With respect to what had b•en said of the record of the conviction of Mr. Walsh being incomplete, he would observe, that'in the case of -Mr. Wall,- for perjury, the production of a similar record was , held to be sufficient, and the fact was considered as established by the conviction of a Jury., The clia. i gs againSt Mr. ,Atkinson was, established in the c 'sarne way ; up judgment was produced, and in both cases tire H- leoked nett to the ptinishment, but to-the offeneie.—They had likewise his letter, which he was surprised to hear one Gentleman speak of as affording an extenuation of his condua. - . 11 was true, that Mr.Valsh had there expressed hie sorrow at-not ha , ing - kept Mr.Old ham's money. He did not wish to be severe upon the individual whose condtilit was now under consider ation; but as the letter had been mentioned, he must say, that it. appeared to him in no other light than as an attempt to set up the cant of sentiment, in the place of sound morality, the most danger ous-fault of the present day. As to the idea of the principle extending to ca.es .of adultery, he, for his own part e saw no reason for •apprehending it, for adultery, :with 'all, its moral turpitude,- did not justify' the inference, AlLat a man was unworthy of trust, which was the infeience on, which the expulsion, in the present case, Was justified. The 'case of Mr: Steele ,did not apply,..and that of Mr. Mills was a mere allOwance .of the priVileges of parliament in a case in which it would have been dangerous to withhold it ; for had the Committee decided in any other way, any individual on his oath,' true, or false, a day before, the . election, might prevent the return of - any par ticular eandidate.—The letter' was in itself a 'suffi cient ground for the proceeding, patticularly, as he had declined to attend in his 'place, and by that means waved the 'opnottunity iifforded him for de fence. It was also evident,. from his -letter to the Speaker, - that he did not mean to justify, he only sought to palliate his conduct. It he (Mr. 'Wynne) entertained a different opinion heslionld have objected in an earlier stage of the'business. It was not a suf ficient ground to say they would tint expel hint be- cause there were no precedents precisely applicable to his case; it called upon their' to set a prtcedeut now, if none existed before: • As to the cases that were mentioned of the Court of Chancery, it was possible they might haVe been overlooked ; the proceedings of the Court, being fot souse reason or other less public than the rest, but thole was a wide difference between therrii . aiid one which was actually brought under their consideration. 'When Mr.. Wall -was convicted of • perjury, it might- hate been contended that no man was expelled for :per jury before, yet the House decidtdmpon his expul sign izendize `contradicente. He would allow there mighthe cases of conviction, upon which he would not vote for expulsion, 'as verdicts might be. olen even 'against innocent persons. The object of the proceeding, as he looked upon it, - was not to punish Mr. Walsh, but to take an important trust Out of hands in which it was likely to be abused._ Mr. C. Ahates•supporttd the upon the ground tba: it was a case of great atrocity, the per son against iwhom the fraud was committed being the friend and patron of the person who committed it. He hoped the House would not degrade them selves by having ,amongst tht.Tri -so•degraded a de linquent. There was no society, 'however instni ficaht, who did not exercise the power of expulsion in atrocious. cases, and though he did not pretend to - - nicer feelings than others, he should feel most awk u4rd on coming iticontatt-with vidi a person.. Mr. LAMB thOuglit'the'subjea of inost grave.and serious importance ; but argiime - nr being alreakly `exli3usteil, he could not .hope to adci to i44e mation of ti,e House,. He was surprised to hear the notoriety and publicit‘ of the Att,.brought for ward as an argument for ex pol,ion ; for, certainly, nnlesS the circumstances ,theruseNes.jnstified the House is going . thal :length, the.'notoriety' should - Iraye no effe6t. Another argument to...wifich he objeCted,.was that which was urged by the Honour able Gentleman who spoke last; an argument Whici would induce,the House to eXpel, their Member, lest a handle might be given • for public charges against their proceedings. He' hoped they would trA be influenced by' any such consideration. *He-110 , A , 'they were there to declare. the Law. of Parlinment._ By doing which they, would have no reasonable ground .for charging that Honourable Houi,e. corrupt motive's._ It had been said, that in the case of Mr. Wall,' the House I,Va - S.satisfied with a tecord of convi&ion without judgrheut ; , but here we had not only a record without judgmnt, but with a rea- , son why there was no judgment.. He disapproved genetatly of the praMice of reserving pdiikS , for the opinion of the Judges, instead of taktng' special ver dias, and supposed the reason why tLeliriSoner's Counsel had consented and thought proper to reserve a point, in the prt:senecie, Was their coAidence-that _the Law was in his favour. It had been said, that thiS was a case of pecuniary trust, and therefore pe culiarly unfitted the - person for holding a seat in that House; but he did riot conceive that . the funaions of that House were so exclusively of a •pectuthry na-* ' ture as to render offe,nces of that, clasi, the only con •sideration-. The lion. Gent._ who spoke last had stated many circumstances which aggratated the - moral guilt, but that very fat of the agg.rovatiOu of the moral guilt was a reason .for the exercke or greater caution, as it was in.the heat and indignation produced by such transactions, that dingerOus,prece dents were most likely to be esrabliched: Mr.' WHITBREAD begged leave* to 'offer a few„ words before the question passed to a vote.. This was one of -tlie instances which proved' how neces- nary it was for men to guard against first impressions; for there was no man who in the. first instance did not think that Mr. 'Walsh's condutt to Sir - Thomas. Monier ought to , be' visited with expulsion. But the more he thought on thesubjea, the more he was. inclined to conclude that it ought not. in his opi 7 nion, he ?tight not to be expelled as a punishment, hut continued in this place, and obliged to attend every day. Me happir'st'tiring for him, under the circumstances, was to'be expelled. Gentlemen had cautioned the Hciuse•against giving a handle to those who were inclined to vilify - it, by permitting him to retain his seat ; - but •the -very groot. , d upon which . - those, persons vilified the . House, as it was called, was on: the existence of such means :as' those by which Mr. Walsh obtained his scat. He would al- low, that. if theseswere grounds to justify hisexpol sion, the , want of 'precedent stiould,not prevent it ; but there were no grounds. \Va-i iNdrr. Walsh, in the eye of the'Llw,•guilty or innocent ? was innocent of the felonious 'offence, was he guilty of any other legal rme They would find, on appeal : to the .Lt.i4es' letter, that though the taa.of hi; havingli , :med a design to convert the money to his own use was pro,ed;the fact did not amount to legal guilt ''S6 that, not only vas he not • guilty . of .w was caarged - against biO); but what was ,provtd against' turn - -was• on legal .crime: - Supposing t hat Sir Thomas Piomer had not presecuted, but that this letter had come into possession of the House, was there a man in it who would have ventured to make . the motion, now before them_? He thought not ; ,ind it he was right in thinking, so, it was wrong_ to call upon them to ad in the present case. As to the fact of every society having a power to expel its Mem-hers, he knew of nothing that could be less ap plicable to the House in which they sat, for thoSe societies being. self-elected, acting mostly from ca - - pric, and having no • other, laws than those whict ney made for themselves, bore - no analogy to the principles. which ought to govern . them.- Was it because the Stock Exchange had expelled Mr.Walsh, - Ow they should proceed to do so ? Were that the 'case, they should have dune so long before. _ If the King .in Council had thought proper to erase the name of a Privy Councillor, %you'd that be any ground for the House to proceed upon ? It certain ly would not ;, and yet if the act of any body could be supposed to bind them, that would be the aa. As to the case of the Charitable Corporation's, it did not apply. The Commons always proceeded by. an inquiry of their own, to ascertain the guilt of their Members, and he begged Gentlemen to re- colle6l what had beef, said' on a former occasion, that the honour of the House was As much con cerned in its proceeding against a rogue,,as in -stun% with a rogue. • ' • - - A The TTORNEY:GENERAL wished . to reply to some observations that had been n)asle, and to . state the grounds on which his opinion was. founded.--- It had btiyn said that the guilt was not proved, as it was not followed no by legal judgmtmt. He would agree, that cow ir:tion having been taken subject to' the opinion of . the Judges, wild thst opinion having been against the felony, Mr ; Walsh , shoold be considered as having .been . tietiuiMd. He ,argued also, that the notoriety . of-the- transaction should make no impression, the question being not %diet her the transaction was notorious, but whether it eon stuuted.that hind of offence for which the indivi dual Ought to be removed from that House. As to the manner in which the question had been brought before the Judge, it was ,strielly acccording to the practice of the last sixty years, - mid was preferable to the course of special verdict, as being less -expen sive and more expeditious ; it was ako in the pre sent case the wish of the prisoner. He was sore the Learned Persons engaged in such investigations, would deprecate any interpretation of their opinions • as given- on the cage, in any other light than that of an acquittal. So far he had no difficulty, but upon • 'what remained he telt, considerable difficulty indeed. There was no course of proceeding to which' he could compare , it but that of Corporations. Ii was' well knOwn that no perso.; was -permitted to remain in those bodies, who was guilty of any flagrant of fences; there were' different offences for which Corporai4iins were liable to be disfranchised, and here -he should just observe in passing, -.that-Mr. Walsh's crime did clot amount' to a misdemeanour, as he was not brought in guilty . of a felony. It a Corporator was guilty of any (.41 - iNice which : might be tried in the Cow ts, they d:d- not protecil to aCt until he wat legally ronVieed : but if he was guilty of any offence, fur which no legal trial could be in stituted; such as offences against the body itself, they might expel him. He did not find. that the same course was pursued in . this House. Ttie.re Were instances in which the Hou..c first e.xpeli , (l, and then diteaed pi osecution against its 111erobe . ts, which vv.is surely enough to.shew that they did not :proceed i the' same inatiner , ;s Corporations. He could not cfrndetve that'she ground upon ~ t filch proceeded in expulsion was that of the offence being triable, tot it thaf - Was the case, theyiwOuld order the trial first. What the of fences for whip., the house ? several cacti !;ad been (lowed by his Honourable Friend, and -principally that :.OI the monq:. for chari' ible pur poses. It wale not precisely in.point with the pie • sent' case, not did it come up to a Mi3arplicit:iii of .the public, muney. It was no more it •snisapplica- _ lion of. the public money than tha t What dim -was the ground upon which the House would pro cred to expulsion in a case- ot that description.? The only,case that.bore any resemblanCe to it, was that he had.already- mentioned ;, .and if .t-he House had .proceeded On that, not es - a misapplication of public motley; but' as an aa of gross dishonesty, it was at least equalled by the act-that had been committed by Mr. Walsh. Indeed. he could not conceive airy case more repugnant to all moral rules -than Mr..- Walsh's.. The Jormer resembled the dishonesty of a trustee, but the lathier was not'merely a :misap plication of money which had conic into his hands, ..but.a deliberate aa of fraud : a.cold lookiog round - to see whom he cOuld . ulunder ; fixing first upon one, from whom he withdrew, only , because' tee - found it impossible to accomplish his purpcsse, ail then turning -to his benefactor for no other reason, than because he wanted money himself, and thought , Sir ,TilOiniiS Plomer could very Well without a casb.of cooler -and - more deliberate •villainy hhtt never. come under :his inspe&ion. If they were to act from any paltry fear of public clamoor,:instea ‘ d, of proceeding with confidence tu-do their duty,-they would act it: a inanner;mbecoming- their shoat ion ; and,' basely as he thought of Mr. Walsh, he would , not,vote against him it be entertained any doubt at .the, justice of the precedent: which that vote. would estabikli. He respe9ed the opinions and doubts entertained by , Gentletnetuon this motion, and had stated the manner in which it had • struck - - without confidence, He was pot able to distin guish 'at-;present bettveen it ,and the case .ot the Charitable' Fund, and thought that if the I-loose was justified in preceeding.to expulsion in' that instance, it would be justified in the present. It was with great 'difficulty came .to this conclusion, and he was• very ready to hear any ,arguments, the/ might be urged against. it, and to adopt theta if . -they were just. Mr., Et:L.l(r expressed his . fear that the House might be too anxious to telieye themselves from'the embarras'stnenr of an.asSociationp:with such an indi- Nidtial. There was no lunctio a n in the exercise of which-they ought to be more careful than that t , f expulsion;.as it might be abused by the Minhter of the day, or by the excesse s of popular tuiy - . With these sentiments he was not .prepdred to I lunch into an 'ocean of which he did. not see the limits, and .theieiore he should vote against _the Mr: H. BROVVNE supported to motion'. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, he should not reel himself justified in giving a silent vote, though lie had little expectation of throwing a new light on the ~übjeta. ' The temperate manner in which it had been discussed, and the total exclu sion of all party-feeling, , left no doubt that what.; ever -determination' the house might come to, it would -refiea no discredit on them. The public would not aseribeehe rejection of the motion upori such principles as ltadbeeu stated, to any corrupt motives; nor would' they ;deem h:s expulsion, if that was resolved on, to party violence and injus tice. As to the case of the Charitable Corporation, there was tio legal. conviaion. Yet the'House did uot 'rest with expulsion, but directed legal' proSecti Lion. He very much doubted whether in that ca e a legal pros. cation followed but whether or not, the House did not wait for it. They had expelled in that case, which was not a case of public Money.-:- • He agreed that they must not take- the- ofOien of the Judges, : with respea . to Mr. Walsh, .as a record .of acquittal, but ,as an acquittal on a special verdiet, anti incorporated with the letter of the Judge, and the letter of Mr. Walsh himself.- They had then a • special -verdiel of the . fans, by 'which it appeared, ou . the 001014 of a Jury, that be had preme ditatedly obtained - Monty into his heeds . , in a case of trust, fdr the purpose of abusing it. The House would therefore have. to decide, whether that WAS such-a case as ought to disqualify him from sitting in that -House. It 'was a . verditt of acquittal', but_it waseiot a verdict which Left things in the dark. 1-l e aereed with his Right Hon. Friendm doubting tiler, if it ens not a caSeef felony, it wdula amount to a rnisdertieanoue' •He erather thought would not; but lit could that because an Aet of Parliavnent did not make• a• mural crime a legal one, the Houle of' Commons should :be "'prevented from t; king coen:izanee of it, There Were mate c ises rte bteiich of trust, as stilted by his' Hgn. and Learned Friend, (Sir'A. Pigott); out if There w a 4 a plaiceone brought forward, upon the mere eerie went. of whichem two men could differ in opintoq, though it was no legal crime, he saw no dang , ; :x from the precedent of expulsion. It had-been it.tcl that it might be abused ny the Minister or by p6pu tar ,ieeling; but they -would not be more expOsee tn. such abuse ith the precedent than without it, l'Aor it the precedent was followed, it must be in a c-,se of great 'moral guilt, and it they did not follow'the precedent, the precedent could not have produced mischief. Could any one doubt, that if in ti'e times when the other ca-es were adjudged, this had h.:.ee -brought before Parliament, -Parhatuele would not have proceeded upon it ? He believed there WaS no case,ol expulsion -for larceny. Yet could any one advance that as a reason for not expelling; if a catee of larceny should occur ? He knew there 'Was great delicacy exercising this lunation, bet he thought it might be adopted with as much safety in this case, as in cases of perjury and forgery. If they; were not obliged to wait for conviction, he saw noTeason why they should riot proceed in the instance -under -consideration. With respect to the case of:Hunt, though a' pension appeared in the public estimates last year, it was applied to public purposes. Fur those reasons he should vote for the motion.