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

.

sag that this case shootd stand on any ur
a Committee of that House. The prose' Pd 4
ready had, was sufficiently notorious ; and locust
the offentx did not in law amount to a felony,

•
Sir ARTHUR PIGOTT professed so pinch re-
spect for the Honourable Member who had brought
forward this Motion, and so much confidence in his
ity, that on all occasions he should readily se-

Integrity, "
it trat
tend whatever he might offer, .upless some strong net follow that it wits not a very gnat oi
and important principle imperiously called for a din- Was very well known that the person in question d,i
ferent proceeding. He thought it, however, his duty parry away, and appropriate to his own.use,
to oppose the motion, from the deep conviction that petty of Sir T. Plenier. Could the Hose clawrir
the House could not legally and sonstitutianally estate as to the opinion it must form of such am eetl
adopt this proceeding, nnwithstanding the odium, Would it be said there was no crime, betas)" theta
he was aware, would be attached, from the circum• i was no felony ? The Judges had ne.rely found,
,e.
' stances of the case, to all such as might entertain ant the offence did not amount to a felony. World
opinion similar to is own. The motion had no foun- •be said then, that Mr.. Walsh was an ineeee,,, ie..
1 dation in any rational or just parliamentary proceed.; because he had not committed felony ? Was ee-74
ings. The measure, if adopted, would be a prece. i convicted of moral turpitude? Were not Pe dam
dent dangerous to the public, and might interfere ; men• already alluded to, expelled for m;nad
with the privilege of Members, and the freedom of i rude alone ? They had not been convicted trr',..
election. He would state the grounds of his opinion ,',.legal offence; for the House, after the etpetelei:4/.
! without entering into the jurisdiction of the I louse ' dered a criminal prosecution to be isatituted. ine
1 over its own Members. There had been nothing seen House did not then wait for a legal ct nv ctisa, lea
that could call for their interference. The case of having ascertained the existence of moral tutp•j
libels had be referred to, but these must first be ' the Members deelared, that such delinqii,ots
i proved, and were a public offence, the violation of not fit to sit among them. With respect to the
some existing law. The House had also a right to . don, it was not granted as a matter of glue, Loll;
interfere in cases of breach of public trust. They ' consequence of an opinion expressed by the Jed"
had a right to see that the servants of the public did ' that his offence, with all its moral turpitude, &dose
their duty, and that the public should sustain no in.' amount to a felony. Under all cline cit
r jury from fraud or corruption. The House had a he felt :t his duty to give his support to the a:
right to see all public money properly applied. l'he ' Sir A. PIGOTT explaired, that what he what.
House were the guardians of the public purse, and was applied to the question solely in a lesal mese.
to the House all Members guilty of public fraud i Mr. HUME thought tLet if they aere thee to ,
were respoesible, whether that fraud might be real or' reed to punish the misappruptia4oe of
supposed. In times when the Constitution was not might shortly have little else to do. As Mr.
fully understood, there might be cases of inquisitorial bad been is effect acquitted, he Utensil' me Hew
power exercised by the House with respect to private ought not to concur with the motion. If ea leek
concerns ; that could not be now justified or followed. grounds Mr. Walsh were expelled, it would sem
The case of 1670 that had been referred to, with re. dangerous precedent, and hereafter, if any iodiedul
spect to a father and son, was not to be regarded as were to misapply £5O, nay, but Litt, of money ,
a precedent in this case, as no proceeding was held which he had been entrusted, the circomeere nen
on it that could justify this, and this was the only in- be maliciously brought forward as a rattad kg lit
stance of interference in private concernsthat had been expulsion of the party ; and, perhaps, there was wt
adduced. The other cases bore no analogy at all to a man in the House who might enc. at kat ties
the present question.—With respect to the case of were a great many who might, be brought firesa
charitable donations he should speak by and bye, but charged with such offences.—[A langh.l—lie te.
now he should ask, What they really knew of the lieved it was known, that many who had motel
charge or complaint made against Mr. Walsh ? means of paving £lOOO, but who were constately
i They had before them the record of the trial at the taking every means (by fraud he woad say) to pet,
Old Bailey. There were several counts in the indict. seas themselves of property which quadrupled ae
ment, and there was a general verdict finding him amount. The crime which Mr. Wald' had comae
guilty of felony. This verdict, however, was follow- ted he did not think was so bad as it 11. d been teen,
ed up by no judgment. He was surprised that any rented to be by the Honourable Gen:knish. Prea
person should use this record as a foundation for any • the letter which he had written, he thou iris,
proceeding whatever, as there was a stay of judg- that deliberate guilt, arising from a bad Ins
ment consequent upon it. No Court of Justice would not to be charged to him, and from that it easels
act upon this record, because non tomcat what judg. evident, that he had no sooner committed the act,
ment it led to. Would such a record lead to the fur- than he felt conscious of having acted wrong._ A.
feiture of lands, goods, or chattels? The judgment laugh.J—They suffered men to it in that Homo
was reserved for the other, Judges, ' and their opinion who had been guilty of conduct more destructive,'
was, that the offence charged did not amount to le- domestic happiness than had been the conduct ufMr.
luny. I have no knowledge at all of the charge. I Walsh. If then they proceeded to punish a Matt
only see that he was charged with felony, and' the • for a moral offence, they aught to begin with dolt
Judges say it is not felony ; that the facts charged did conduct which had been mast mischievous. Feed"
not amount to felony ; but I do not know these facts reasons he should oppose the notion.
from any thing before me. There being no felony, Sir FRANCIS BURDETT said, that he wastes.
and the verdict being felony, there must necessarily : tainly no stickler for what was valued piiielegest yia
be an acquittal. Does not the question then stand 'he thought, that if any power could be considered*
precisely in the same situation as if Mr. Walsh had cessary to that House, or to any other body, it sae
been acquitted ?- He was entitled at the time of his from the nature of things, a power to expel a pence
trial to an acquittal, and so far as the verdict was , who had been guilty of a notorious offence, 'which
otherwise, he had suffered injustice. Had he then was considered a disgrace in society at bulge. 'i Mil
been acquitted by the Jury, what could the House ' grounds of expulsion, as it appeared to him, text
have done in the case ? and the result was the same oil principles which were among these least laxly 0
as if acquitted at the time. The pardon was nut create inconvenience. or cause abuse, if properly can
strictly a pardon ; that was not necessary. It was not sidered. When they declared that an Wielded
under the Great Seal ;it was only an authority to the ought to be expelled from their body, thuilli
Sheriff to discharge the prisoner, and all the confine- might happen from party zeal or perseeal mice
I ment he had experienced was only to be considered tion, all they shoo d do was to send his luck to his
as a misfortune and hard:lip to him, without having constituents. if there was a dispute between slim.
been guilty in the eye of law of any crime. The , tier and his constituents, as to his unfitness to
House should be cautious insestablishing a precedent,: sent them, the House could not settle it ; if bemire
the consequences of which might be felt when Mr.! him and the House, he must be sent Lack to I
Walsh would be no more. He ( Mr. Walsh) ought not' constituents. If all elections of Members in
to have been indicted.; or, if indicted, he ought to have House were fair and free, be could perceive ao
been acquitted. The case cf the Charitable Corps. venience likely to result from the power of
ration was not in point. Applications were made to but, as the system was at present, with
Queen Anne, upon groundi utterly false, to enable 1 boroughs to be bought, and boroughs at the
the company to extend their snbscriptions, which in- ' mand of individuals, it was very different. Is
crease) to the amount 0f.5e600,000. The debts of . cases, the retpedy would become, by the retire d
the company amounting to many hundred thousand expelled Member, the disgrace of the House. Ye
pounds, a petition had been presented to that House . that House had been spoken of as a Court. 4 .Is..
from the proprietors, complaining of the directors, a Court guided by no rules, but left in its
the fuuids in whose hands did not exceed £4OOO. to the mere individual consciences of the enters
That was the case with the South Sea scheme.— most extraordinary Court of Justice 1 HIM
The House appointed a Committee by ballot, and were its • powers to be applied in the way of
during the remainder of that Session and the next, ment for a moral dffence ? He should always
were employed in discovering abuses, and no less %hat he had said before, that that Wise was eat
than seven Acts of Parliament had been passed upon proper Court ; for it had no mode oftrial; Y.
the subject. Three Members, Sir Archibald Grant, every other body, he conceived it ha.eilt
Sir Thomas Sutton, and Mr. Robinson, were ex- tiJ of whatever was a disgrace to it. (HAM
polled the House ; and, in 1733, the House voted an With respect to the individual in question. hi,
Address to the Crown for the punishment of the de- told just as he was comiug into the Hone, 11121,1
linquents, many others being concerned. Sir Philip 1805, that person was by a resolution of 6:4
York and Mr.. Talbot were then the Attorney and Exchange—by a set of pee*, nowt nicer
Solicitor General, and with a view to indemnify, in ' than Gentlemen returned to that House ,-,
some measure, the sufferers, Acts were passed to pre. the character and conduct of those who f i.,
vent the delinquents from withdrawing from the : way into their society—declared unit for
country, and from transferring their property. This ' patty. That, to be sure, Was a
the mottttesfr• lIP I
he thought afforded no precedent in the present case. him ; and it could hardly be Cone
There was no party feeling in his mind. (Ifear,lwar.) House had not an equal right to exclude mart/
The title to a seat did not rest with the ouse ; and soe from their association. (Hear, L*4 41U1 ;
was it of sufficient consequence, for the satisfaction of was proposed seemed to him to be, to dedrsti,
expelling a Member, to lay down such a precedent is circumstances relative to the condeat tithtlL'w
WAS now proposed? In the present case, there was no dual were such, as to render it itspossibirliff
breach of a public trust, but only a transaction be- House not to disapprove of, and to
. Cr;
twixt two individuals. Many cases as flagrant as company of such a Menthes. The
this occurred in Courts of Equity, where no proceed- • conduct they were discussing, might. or coif
hrg like the present had been proposed. Were not have interest still with his constituents, and '
actions for adultery notorious, but never le_tard..d as returned again; for he (Sir Francis Br
a ground fur such proceedings as the present ? But, it informed, that he came there by buyie
seemed, the new system of purging and purifying the ' He was al,o told, that on theta?
House was a sufficient ground for taking cognizance affairs before the Commissioners. a--
of this transaction. But here there was nothing die.' produced, there was the item of his seat.
tinct. In the Court of Chancery, confessions of per- meat, which had cost him 13090 I
sons might be found, who had defrauded their wards enquired into, and time was gie-,
and orphans, to whom this new doctrine would apply. thereupon ; but afterwards, as be
Its the present case there was only a breach of trust ; found to be forthcoming to* sa
which was not cognizable by the House of Cosismons. that point, and the matter was
well
He could not,therefore, concur in the present motion. There were, as it was pretty wen
Mr. BATHURST conceived, that it ware clues. , sons who sold boroughs; but debt
tion which , not to be decided ui 'by Ile legal - ---- a- of those who iff

~~~

ought ._ ipon by
knowledge of the Learned Gentleman. Thf
was not to tie down its hands by the forms of legal
prec?eding ; and it had a right to proceed °nits own
feeling of propriety. Here was a breach of trust;
and it peculiarly affected men who sat there to exer-
cise a public trust.—(thara hear).—lt was not axes•

derstood, was one
Wbether thistorough Would stirs
again or not, it was impouibliriiir Sas,V
from the nature of the circunistaaaes• Pi
for Mr. Walsh's expulsion. As to Oa
WAS a singular one, and inzousistent
of the administratioa at

•
• JP...


. -