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

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 and 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 cases was a charge of
impiety, namely, of denying the principles ot the

tin istian rveligion, brought againxt a Me....mher at the
beginning of last century, and that Member
expelled. He rnFntionlect.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,tfreuds, 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 House was
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,
etiggesiee-,to 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 the
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 yere
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 argtuteledebaseefoirnesilalbiestatl:creee,
stmustoo db,a theseu tint acquitted
'
Judges at- the Old Bailey, they
il:iiiirie;astoblejeafnodrei: n
common stacents,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..
beenaiidn d detainedte
amount
otla:lians
t d
now substantially in possession, for he "could not
consider the result as any thing else than an acquit.;
asta a i.
coAnivi itiiiekl felon,therefore,
e°Clle'lewas
in letter-of
ch atrhgeeC wiel proved,ief Baronboube
tsure, 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
Supposingwas
2itietendt rlyte pcoroucl
e
tghrr
fanad
sfworrPe as a
further in any of the Courts below; nor cuuid eny
criminalemnishmeot be inflicted upon hint. Sup-
posingtl,ien
tele! crime e to
itselfb iva rhea
teilitelecfritmruest:llranrwo.eddi,il
atbile
record .
connect
had the House, under-those circumstances,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 1733, 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 Courts (if equity,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
4Joas 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
ostfaande;roainvd M
proceediioua tthuepon Old Bailey,
iiley, :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 4iiiat 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 tied down 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 jesasee.. 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 wwlatsa ttriiiced,handaddosnaei
in
nThheis Jleut ttlegre,before
whom he was trjcd, had said in I-us letter, " The
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 put on their
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 legaleeolet 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

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
legal 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 indirie
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
forward, 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.—
Lbe crime which Mr. W. had committed he did not
think 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
than .had been the-condutt of Mr. Walsh. If then
they proceeded to punish a Member' for a' moral
t'ucreoce they ought to begin with that cOnded
which had been most mischievous. For these rea-
S°os, he should oppose the ;notion. '
sir F, IluaresTTailieugh he was not a warm ads
",°cate for the privileges cleimed 'by thateHouse,,yet
die conceived
,ttia:`if it had any power at all, it
Qughtto have the:power which every society pos-.
zessed, that of expelling• any members whose con-
fleet was notoriously disgraceful.. Of all the power's
they ,Possessed, the pewer of expulsion seemed to
be that 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
etin'ell "defiance of the House, they would
;(u'd themselaeseplaeed 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 • - .
ereew that the Gentlemen on the waaca Exchange
Zght be more nice about the conduct 'of their
ae
"d Inhers than the House of Commons, and yet he
tery that inithe year 1809, Mr. Walsh had been
'Pelled the Stock Exchange for his oefaribus con-
duct. Surely the 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
brought 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
this occasion Mr: Walsboughtt to be expelled. All
the, circumstances of Iris extraordinary trial, offence,
7( • e. were so incongruous and too irrational to his
ttelihd, and so dtffeient from What he' looked for
l'orn the national law, that. he,could not but' offer on
them / tew remarks.- IlreWalsh 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
• that it was not a felony, after be had been- found
Teis was very- eiportant. What couldthe
lodges try a man for.ae offence„and hot knoW'Whe-
. "thar or not he ought- to be tried_ for it, or could they
try him, and not knew for what ? Then the manner in
'which this veraial had been got rid of deserved some
‘llhtion. 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
`eecide whether or not such reasons ‘V ere good, and
.Pt to admit them 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 offence of Mrs Walsh, it • had in it every
- 'thing 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
L2spectable 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,
anti 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.igs 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 parte 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 opi7
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 that 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 lunctioan 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 excesses 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-le
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 wa4
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.