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

simlition of the office of Weigh-mas!er of this port. Mr. POLE informea. the Honourable Gentleman that she Ad of Parl,ament on the subject did not expire till the end of S-ptember, therefore ample time was afforded (or them to provide some remedy for removitty, the complaint, whiCh should be in goi red into. - The Petition s was then laid on the.tabie. LORD STEWARD OF THE HOUSEHOLD The Cii ANGEL LOll . of - . the - gxclignuEti, that -in consequente of the conversation which had secl between him and the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. 'Wynne). On the last evening, respeeling the Lord S!: ward of the Household, he -had inquired;, and 4t,tiod . that very considerable doubts were entertained tli.t the oaths taken by Members before the Deptity rod the other Officers would riot be valid, and con: 7) , sequently their Seats would be . void. That being case, he should propose to,'bring in. a Bill to indemnify the se persons Who had abed, not froth z.o; tvi&t to infringe the law, but through ignorance. "?'lie House; under these circumstances, he hiaped, would* have no objealion, When the Bd was, hto.Aght in, to. pass it through with as' much ra pidity as possible, in order that no incovenience 'in!glit arise. Mr.'C. WYNNE was convinced that.there was no negica to be imputed to the Members - for taking their seat's, none on' the part Of-the Commissioners for administering the oaths, but 'that the neglect had 'been on the part ;of those'who did . .itO 'recent - - mend the filling up of the office of Lord Steward • much earlier. Mr: WILSON postponed, till Monday, his notice of motion respeitinA the Min riage 2-la. !MR. WALSH. .Mr. 13 - ANKR4 moved the Older of the Day, for the at(epdaoce of Mr. Welsh in his place. .. The Order being lead, and Mr. Walsh not being in hi: *place, - ~ . . . . Toe SPEAKER' dire led the Messenger who serv :`.lt! sloth::: :or -iit:4etTerailcx, to 'be called to. the 13.ir Mr. JOHN SKELTON, the Messenger, then ap peared at• the . Bar. • The . SPEA ER. Did you serve the Order on Mr. Walsh.yesterday ? ' . Mr. SKELTON. Ye, Sir. , The SPEAKER. .At wh:q hour ? ' '_l‘ , lr SKELTON. At.' 4leven "o'clock, .yesterday morning. The SPEAKER. Did you see him ? MieSKELTON. yes, Sir, I saw him. : The Messenger was Ordered to withdraw. The SPEAKER then informed the House, that he had this day receised another Letter from Mr: Walsh, in which he states that his physical inability to attend in his place still 'continues ; -that he 'had a wish to face the HouSe upon the occasion, but hopes however that the House would do him the jugtice to allow his former Letters to be read, and that, " to use his own words," said the Right Hon. Gentleman, " he will not set about to justify his conduct, but to palliate it ; he hopes, therefore, whether the House do now proceed or not, to .de termini! on Iris case, they Will not refuse to hear what he has written." Mr. BANKES then rose and obsel wed, 'that in ieging forward, which he should do, a charge.of a most serious nature . against ' a Member of this House, followed as it would be by the severest pu nishment which the H-use could Italie!, he should think himself highly blamable if he proCeeded iu such a, manner as to set a precedent, which in fu ture times might place an innocent man in trouble, sod open the door to ground inquiries into indi vidual transaelionibetween man and man, by creat ing inquisitorial. powers In this House to examine into their private concerns ; but such 'was not his intention, for the Letter from Mr. Walsh, which he had moved for, and s hich had been printed, was not of the nature of a private document; it had been publicly read - in• Court, and. therefore he might be fairly. justified . in assuming that he d:d not tiench upon any private rights. 'He was disposed to agree kith those who thought that the judicial pow ers, sometimes: exercised by the House, were exert ised correctly, %o far as that exercise concerned ques!ions . relating to general proyerty. It was in the nature of this House to draw its estimation of the charatler of and provide regulations for the members o' its body from the very manner in which it was composed. If this souse felt raised high in its character from the talents and abilities of many of its members—if it experienced 'gratifications and pride from the Many proofs of exertions of prowess and valour exhibited on 'various occasions by others of its bogy—exertions which had been honoured and rewarded by the thanks and approbation of Par liament—if it felt conscious pi i4i troth integrity and virtue, would not the House sear in public, estirrra tion the vices. and • corruptions of any one of those who were seated "Muting. that body No assembly could preserve that di:e`nity so he-. cessary to 'its . existenct, • Unless at the same time it possessed and 'exercised the power . tb pu rify a n d purge it of the corruptions it retained. It -would Lao almost• unriecesSaty, tOr him to" refer the House to that part of the history of the world so Well knOwn ; for Gentlemen must run before him • to the aroieipation that the 'Senate ot Rome ;d -tni,ted the paters of the Censors. In Many in stances; those censors exercised their. powers of ex , ptilsiOn for trifling faults'; semetilnes for no fault at 'all, at least for faults of a trifling "nature. But they did so on the strong ground ot . oecessily—to Make ' head against, and to stem and repress the-rising lux ! toy of .he time's. The Sensate struggled with those Tower's for sonic time with little success ; but at . 40g - th corruption got the upper, hand, and it was too-strong fur the censorial -power. In this • House, however, it had been jadged proper notlo easiest such powers out of its own hands, nd those noWers had in Some instance's been carried to a great-ex tetii, as might be found from a reference to the Journals in t 607, and from a more recent case of expulsion=that of :Hunt: If arty of those cases we're locked to, they would be found to furnish pre • rodents for the present proceeding. • They, to be sere, laid down no general rule of acing, but they showed that in each case the Houseproceeded on that discretion with which it was constitutionally seated. Among the cases, il,Gemlemen had taken • tit- trouble to look, might be found these ,of libel both in and out of theklouse, of which cootniance had been taken : one of the c ases was a charge of impiety, namely, of denying the principles ot the tin istian r v eligion, brought againxt a Me....mher at the beginning of last century, and that Member expelled. He rnFntion l ect . this Wiih a view to she 'hat the house was master of its ei‘.vri and uevii %sia4 scrupolousin applying that po'zv'et.— In tie case of Colonel eaWthoine,.which a new case, and many new ones had occurred, be tbikbght the House had atied-w isely in expelling that perSori._ Thete was no case to-be. found of more. IFequent recurrence, and which bad been xisited uniformly with jnat . 'punishment . by expulsion, tha'n ihe Case far =tile purposes of undue emolument; as in'the case of Cotonel Ca w • thOine. It night be said, lhat'the case of rndi'vi dual fraud was rarely to be met with. To that he would answer; iflat•tire House 11A...4s attention di recled naturally to, cases of.,publis, t freuds, such, .as those connected with ,the public revenue - , aud ex penditure, but the case wontdrecw,alljr,apply to any ones of :tiaud or breach of trait, tall! e•notoriety and • pub:icityol - the apt would conneCt itsAt „with the offence. -Could any thing he •inore public than the trial of Mr. Walsh at the Old Bailey ?: that case resemble the case of an transaaion ? . Would the House profess .not to know what was known - to every perso.n. in. the country 1 Was the. offe.nce-'altcred.in its•natme. by the pardon which bal been granted..? As ear as he could form ,an op pion, the proccelings adopted in. respell to . Mr. W spbserinent to his convimion, appeared an unfit mode: -That he .shoel,l be convicted of an offence, -and then viiithouT at}itt;isn.tuon of the reason for • granting it, the .next notice is, that the person. Al ceived a pardon. The gene!al principle of British laws would Ent hear this sort of, roisconstruation, that the pardon " was not procured upon 'proper ex planation. To his comprehension, the pardon, though granted under. circumstanees not disclosed publicly, still did not take the case out of the con ' sideration of . the House. Toe pardon w,is procured upon the latter of the Judges, and that letter, as --might be seen upon reference toit, stated the fact, that Mr. Walsh was entrusted with certain monies for a ,specific parpose, and instea.d 'of applying it .to that purpoSe, he converted it to his own use. , That fact wasincontestioly proved, 'The pardon and the. letter certainly took away the legality of .the proceed ings against Mr. Wralsb; but 'they-did not-take away the delinqu,ency of his Conduct. It might be said ,that the conviction was _not legal. He :was not bound.by any legal or ,-technical term of law when the Constitution was in danger. The Hous e w as bound la adhere tp, and decide by the eternal prin ctples of justice, aril if it Was satisfied upon the im moral conduct of Mr. Walsh, enough was shewn to ju'stity proceeding in expulsion. ThePouse had nothing to do but to loOk at the fact, as in prOol, neither regarding nor admitting, the rejection of that proaf in, the Courts below,; for the law of Parlia ment was - essentially dilferente It was degrading to the character, and tended to subvert the Consti; lotion 'Of Parliament, to admit legal diStirictions.— He would produce the letter in evidence, because it was the_ confessiOn of the delinquent himself. It not only spewed the fact of the crime, but it went , to shew also the mind with which it was Coramit tea j and that . crime :would neither admit of pallia- • tion nor defence. It was not necessary, therefore, to call. for. notes of the whole trial, what he wished to establish being proved by the hand 'of the-delin quent himself, and by•the record of the Court— . was not bound to shew that this case was one coming Under any of the caseS, .to which he had re ferred in the Journals ; for, as he had befo're said, -_ the House had a discretionary power vested in itself. There was, however, a ,precedent of a transac tion in ,173 e, which bore him out in his present pro position ' • that case was . not certainly oriewhith was • connected with the public money, but it was cou pled with the disposition of money under the con trout of her Majesty, belonging tna ,fund entitled— " The Charitable Corporation." This case would' be found not to differ,. in any degree, from the case of individual delinquency.. In that case three. of the 15 Direbtots of the Corporation, Members - of this House, were expelled, on the charge of " promoting, abetting, and cal ryingon indirett and fraudulent prabtices.". They were not, as here, Charged with embezzling and fraudulently applying to their own uses those funds. The House, haw - s; ever, had gone further; for, in 1607 (as was men tioned the' other evening), upon a complaiiit of the, father of. Mr. Thomas, a Member of the . HOuSe, who "that his Son'had been guilty of di vers frauds, injuries, and abuses, and therefore prays that inquiry may be instituted," 'a ConiMittee - was appointed ! --the House did. not send the father to seek his remedy in the Courts of Law, but cOnceiv- : ing that the honour and dignity of their body, was implicated, directed an inquiry into the merits of the case. The report: of the Committee was favourable . to the eon, and consequently there were no farther `pioceeditigS bad upon the petition. - The complaint was not clealy Staled on the Journals, but from the nature and uonneCtion of the complainant, be rather snppos,:d it must be one of flagraii immorality He dieted the, case to shew, in' the first instance, That the House possessecllarge disCretionary . po,,vers ; and in the second instance, that he was not actuated. ih biingiug forward the present charge from any malignant motives. In other cases; the House had expelled Members, and directed them to be pro ceeded ag tinst afterwards in the Courts beloW. The Hon. Gentleman maintained, therefore, that the governing principle upon which the House was, call ed to ad, was . the notoriety of the lab, demons-. irable from papers on the table, which chewed than it was a gross breach of trust, beyond the power of cat it or depute, and as such entitled to the severestpunishment in the breast of the House to 'Aid.— With respect to the attendance of Mr. 'Walsh, he did not wean to press his absence against him as an aggravation. of his offence; had he ,attended, he snoilld have thought it indicative of a hardened mind after the pro:mi.:lion of the documents alluded to. He trusted, and hoped his subsequent conduct would free him from that suspicion. He then ad verted generally to the cases on the Journals, which he considered as hearing on the present, but should the House pot 4u consider thern, 'and be of Opinion the present was a new case, then he must contend that the House was bound to establish a new. pre cedent. It the House did not purist) they would . become partakers in the disgrace. He concluded with moving; "pat Benjamin Walsh, Esq. a Member of this House, having been tried at the Old Bailey Sessions in January last, and convicted on a charge of felony, and having since receiv ed a tree pardon, by reason of his oftznee not amounting to felony in the opinion of the judges, has been guilty of a gross fraud and notorious breach of trust, as was proved at the sad trial, * anctis therefore unworthy and unfit to continue a Mein. Am' Of rhis.- Pi ?use.' • The_ Si.S..exes,,previous to putting the prestion, etigges i e e-,t o t he Honourable Member that the documents. to which he had referred should be eniered*as read on this aay.—Which was accord ingly done. The question was then put. Sir ARTIIUtt PIGOTT, conceiving that the motion lust . put would he succeeded, if carried, by one of expulsion, should proceed to eensider the question generally. He professed to haye the greatest 're sped for the abilities and integrity of the Honeur able Mover, and for his experience on Parliamentary subjects; that after the best attention that he had been able to- give the subject—alter the most ma— ture and deliberate refledion, he could nor rank t h e case - of Mr. Walsh under either of the two classes of cases which she Hon. Mover had brought to the noticeof the House, and therefore he should think it his duty„to oppose the motion.. It was not bot tomed upon any Parliamentary proceeding jinn or • rational. With respect to precedent, to proceed to expulsion upon the grounds stated, would be dan gerous in itsconsequences, and alarming to tire pub lic. He would state the grounds of his resistance, being little disposed toinquire into the jurisdiction Of the House over its Members.—The Honourable Mover had not Suiiported Or justified the proceeding he was about to propose, by any of the laws to which he had . referred. 'The case of libels must lbe laid entirely out of the question. He was not dis posed to exarnine thosecases respeeting breaches of public trust, bee arse, if ibere 'was any case .whiell called upon the House to interkie, it was that spe. cies of case—the House having a peblic duty ,to per form, f,i,d the right; therefore; to see that. its Merirber's did - their duty 'fairly. I lie House svere the guardians of the public -money, and i rany Mem ber put - his hands improperly into the public-purse, the . Howe were called upon to do:0,10X to tile pub-. lic, by expelling -such Member. In referring to the Journals, -he should not place much reliance on those times When-the Constitutioo could- be hardly considered as settled--7when the House had no fixed rules to proceed upon. But in modern times, cases were more applicable. The single instance of 1607, uniuturrned'as the Rouse was of the complaint, was not to be taken into Consideration ; besides, it was not - attended with any consequences whatever. When the other eases were examined into, there was not the least similarity. With resped to the complaint against 'Mr. Wal,b, vt hat did she House know of the complaint ?• The record certainly stated, that *he was indided for certain 'felonies, con tained in seven counts, followed by a general yer e did of guilty. -The record then (and lie wished the attention of the Members of the legal profession to what he was about to say) did not contain the judg-; dent of the Court upon the convidion, that Judg, ment being postponed to another day. So that there was a verdict without judgment ; and yet the HO pourable Mover made use of this record as evidence. He was astonished the Honourable Mover had so - done. What' was to be collected from this record? No Court could use it for any,other purpose, or upon it ; nOn,constat,what the_ judgmett might • have been ; a 'veldt& of acquittal might have been the result. Supposing the fury had found him guilty; would a forfeiture Of goods and ci,attels, as in ca. es of felony, have taken place upon the record, no judgment being on the face of it.? The case was reserved for more mature deliberation. All the Judges were of opinion, that the fads did not amount to felony ; there was, in truth, no ground for . Par liamentary proceeding against Mr. Walsh, nOt had he (Sir A.) any distind notice of what the charge was. What the facts were he knew not, and no Metriberehe_ believed,aa ually did,exceptfrom the letter oftheChief Barer), which stated that the chargee in the estima tion of the Judges, did not amount to felony. If the Charges could have been arg t u t e le d e b as e e fo i r n e si l a l b ie sta tl: c re e e , st must oo d b , a these u tint acquitted ' Judges at- the Old Bailey , they i l: i iii r i e ; as t o b l eje a f n o d re i: n common s ta c e n t s , c, , terials„ as if he had been acquitted. The -Honour able Gentleman declared t hat' lie did not know Mr. Walsh ; had never seen him, nor had the slightest intercotnese with him ; he - viewed him in the light of the-King's subjeds, entitled to she benefit of the law, otwhich, in his opinion, he, Mr. Walsh,. was h unjustly ad detained.. been aiidn d detainedte amount otla:lians t d now substantially in possession, for h e " cou ld n o t consider the result as any thing else than an acquit.; as ta a i. co A n i v i i ti i i ekl felon,therefore, e°Clle' lewas in letter-of ch a t r h g e e C w i e l proved, ief Baronboube t sure, said inot e that it to - felony. The pardon consequent upon that letter might'be considered as'a tree pardon, for it autho rised the Sheriff so discharge him out of prison.- Ind!ependent of that there be prosecuted Supposing was 2i ti e te n d t r l y te p co ro u c l e t g h rr fa n a d sfworrPe as a further in any of the Courts below; nor cuuid eny criminalemnishmeot be inflicted upon hint. Sup posingtl,ien t e le ! crime e to itselfb iv a r h ea t e i l i t e le c f ri t m ru e st : l l r a n r w o.e d d i , il a tb il e record . connect had the House, under-thos e ci rcum stances, 6 to do. ? It was not because tire' facts were notorious in a . iNewspeper, that therefore the H OUR, 7 roust pro- Ceed. All Mr. Walsh had suffered was • • wrongtully endured ; they did not impute blame to the prose cutor, bat they had mistaken the nature of the charge. It behoved the 1-louse, therefore, to con sider the principle they were called upon, to reccg nise and support, and not to make a precedent, which, thirty years hence, when Mr. Walsh and his history were forgotten, might be complained of. The case of notoriety had flowing to do with the question. It had no remblance to the Charitable Corporation case—that .was a fund established in the reign of Queen Anne, amounting to 30,0001. The Dilators of it afterwards repeatedly applied to the Crown, with false allegations, for' the Queen's license to-extend the funds of the Charity, and the consequence was, they obtained, by these -undue meanS, leave to extend the subscription's to 600,0001. At last, in the year 1732, when immense debts were due from the Corporation, a Petition was'presented from the Proprietors to this House, staling gross abuses pradised by three Members of this House, piredors of the Fund, to buy stock when low, and sell when high ; the whole amount of their pledge's for 400,0001; (the debts of the Corporation) were about 30,0001. The House, upon • the reptesenta licit) and complaint, look she matter up as a case of high state delinquency, and appointed aComMiteee, who, .after two SOSSiOn3 of minute and laborious • inquiry, fo4,end Sir Robert Sutton, Aiert. SirsArChl. • bald Grant, and George Robinson, Esq. the three • Members, guilty of thecharges, and they were atter- • wards etpellecl the House... That case, so far from originating in a private matter was notoriously a puolic one, for after their expiilsion, the House came to'a resolution, in 1 733, to address the King, to direct his Majesty's Law Officers (Sir Philip Yorke .am! Mr. Talbot,„, the •Attorkey -and Solicitor Gene- - ral), to prosecute them. There were no less than seven Ads of Patliament passed in 'that reign - upon the 50;01 of this inquiry.—The "House • would consider this qii'estien without making any . reference to • the present stale of Parl:atnent,. and ' they should endeavour to remove nothing' further front them than party feelins;s• on such a'subject. Though he believedna eerSen now in existence, who . was in that House, was-any cubic capable of malting an iMproper ,use of the precedent that would be - established, if Mr. Walsh Were expelled, than him. self, yet when they were all no. More, posterity . would have, a right to ask of -the House on what principle the precedent was estabNlied, (if it' Were established), which was tiros niade in 18 I V, - a pre cedent. which might afterv.eirds in the hands of bad men be produdive of the mast mischievous conse quences. The case of Mr. -Walsh • was a case be ty.,een individuals. Maeyebreaches of trust equally gross had come before the Co urts (i f equ i ty ,with-e out its ever, being thought of to follOw thine up its the manner now proposed. The notoriety of the offence had been.insisted on as a ground why thek should come to the .vote proposed ; bate that sort of notoriety which had .been described 4 Joas not what *Parliament :could p.roceed upon:: 'No, : Divorce Bills could ever pass without this fat of adultery being proved at their bar, and' yet . the offence on which, the application to Parlia‘ - liameet in such a case vvas 'grounded was as notori.• ous as the trausa6tion in Winch Mr. •W.-was con. caned. If a breach of tries( were confessed in the . Court of Chancery by a Member, thotteji there the • questions put, and 'the answers given, could be, brought much more ciistindlv before Parliament,. still no man could whet the ,faits of -the'citse were; at least no -than could, in a Parliamentary e sense, be said to know- what they, were. Would the House enter into an'inqui-ty into such a subjed; ,or would they bring forward the incorriplete'record o st f a a nde; ro a i n v d M proceediioua tthuepon Old Bailey, i iley, :which could not •-• Was the House to - be made subservient to such . transactions ? He opi • prehended rot. It- had• never seen so used before. However, Mr. Walsh had, in the present instance, disgraced himself in the eyes of society, tie thougia. the House could not tak'e' , cogniz,ance of the action.. , His opinions were of so little weight, that he was aware they would influence nobody else s. but hce wished to guard agaihst%establishing se. dangerous a bush; ad precedent us wing 4i i iat which the "motion - went to •esql- ' up to what `he conCeived to be his - • duty, he -certainly should not concur with- the leo position before ih Honse. Mr. BATHURST contended, that tire bends Of the- House ought . not to be ti e d d own bv ill.: stria fosnis of legal presseedings.. When a case ate!se like the present for their • consideratinri, they were to as as they .had aCted in similar cases, or., as they thought, WilS• most consistent with jesas ee .. sins Iszr..l no feelings, -no prejudices, that could lead .trial to support the present tnntion ; .if, in) looking into the proceedings of the House, it had nut appeared, to him that it steed on ,clear principles, and wus not, .• likely to form a dangerous pfecedent, or .to -be made the vehicle of a Minister or of a party, 'or, above all, the means of venting party spleen and malice s • if hoe did net think as he did,' that the motion was perfeetly free from all such objections, he could ne- • vet give it his siipport. It was not necessary .that their decision on Mr. Walsh's case should be ground ed on their own. proceedings ; 'it was enough for them to go upOn what had taken place in a public Court of Justice, uninfluenced by any party me lives which . might be suppOsed to give an impro per bias in that House. His Honourable and Learn- • ed Friend had worked himself up, so far, that lie seemed disposed to say that the offence of Mr. Walsh, as it was not a`feleny, nor alarceny, was no crime at all. If Mr. Walsh had • not co:n ['titled felony, it ..• was to be rernembered'thet he had been:tried for • . stealing twenty-two Bank -notes, &c. the property of Sit . T., Berner; end' of stealing these, he had been found guilty by a Jury. There Was, therefore, nd occasion to appoint a Committee, or institute an in tluiry into le w w l a t s a ttriiiced,handaddosnaei in n Th h e is J le u t t t l e g r e , before whom he was tr j cd, had said in I-us letter, " T he facts of his-having formed the design of appropria ting the money with which he was entrusted, to his own use, and of his actually having so applied a largo part of it, were . prOved. without contradiction." But then the Honourable Gentleman said, tire-Judges had decided that it WAti not felony, and thence he seemed to argue, that as it was not 'felony, ergo it was no 'crime. It acquitted of felony, Mr. Walsh was atilt conviaed•bf the moral turpitude which attach ed itself' to such a' transaction, and this was hilly , sufficient to justify -the proposed vote. On a former occasion, the. House had voted ter the, ' expulsion of • persons on account of their tile . tai turpitude, -and voted for their being pu t on th e ir trig atterwards. Vtly, Ihenefrom this,: it was oh- View, that . the House iegulatk itsproceedings by • the moral turpitude of the patties, and-not by, the nature of the ofl'ence committed, as it might stand in a legal e eolet of view. That moral turpitude, in the opinion of the House, made it incompatible • with its credit tor, the offending parties to sit in it any Longer. The baseness of Mr. Waish's mind was .sutficieetly apparent from. his conduct. .To ward off distress from his own family, he had thought he might impose what distress he pleased on the family of anollier.. If he sVas not guilty of felony in the 'eye . Of Ow law, or if he was quite innocent in tie eyeof the law, still he could not - appear innocent in theeye of the moral man.' With the exception of the circurnsta.necs of the money taken froth the Chariteble Corporation, being the property of several persons, instead of belonging to one I, Man, he 'thought that Case did not differ ma terially from that now under consideration.-- He thought that ar least it might bedelt 10 be very' indecorous to have such a person sitting in that House. ,Nts clanger was, in his opinion, to be ap prehended from the-precedent which the expulsion of Mr.' Walsh might go to establish, and therefore it behoVed the Reuse -to mark the condutt of the otfending individual in the.manner proposed. If ho ' thought danger was to be apprehended from the , • precedent, tie would be the last man to support