Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1808-09-23
TIE 1-2 Gents Singled

J =" That Robert Walpole, esq. "a member of
this house) in receiving he sum of 500 guneas.
. and IN taking note for 500i. more, on account
OF two contracts, for forage for his maiestv's
troops quartered in North Britain, made by
MN when secretary at war, pursuant to a DOW
er granted to him by the late Lord Treasurer.
IS g nifty OF high breach of rust and notorious
mot convicted, but notorious corruption"
p That the sad Robert Wapole, ESQ be
Tor the SAID offence committed prisoner To the
| Tower of London, ducing The pleasure or this
House and that Mr.. Speaker do issue his ware
rant accordingly.
J Then motion being made and the ouesti-
! on put that the house should adjourn it passed
IN the negative and after a small debate it was
resolved (though by small majority of ahour
81 voices,) thi1 the said Robert Wslpole, ESQ.,
be Tor the said offence also expelled the houses
The only cases of expulsion which recollect
to have occurred during the present reign are
those OF Mr.. Wilkes which occasioned so great
q fermentation in that country, from suisse
qnent question raised by the House Of COM
mons n their decision. that by mere ia { of e,
p'liSlon he was incap acitated from being elect
ed again. shall not EFF r tn this case at all ~
precedent, but will barely read To YOU "A ftw
| rem trks made on it b. MIR. Belsham an histo-
r'an who has been censured as leaning to an ex-
cess IN f vor oi republican principles
he says. g II could not be denied shat thc
House OF Comm rs had ever exercised u iu-
dici'l authority, sckicH could ia no other Aads bs
soProperlY placed, H. determining u on the vail
! dty ct returns, and the qualifications Of their
own members. This authority might urdo,,b!
| ediy be abused, or indiscree,lv exercised. mt
all power is IN 10 own n.ture liable TO abSse /,
and it so vague an objection be admitted. t5e
powers vested in all political bodies, however
constituted, must be annihilated, and the b ,nds
OF cirl soci y are ut once dissolved. The DOW
| ct OF expulsion tor such ofsnc, :, as a5oe1r IL
the house, to render any Of its members iInyyor-
| thV of the tratSt - al
! erclsed IN numerous instances, from time inn
| memorial and Afterwards cit mist never
theIess be acknowledged, hat 4 aliscrefiongrv
power OF expulsion is liable to be pc .verted to
very bad purposes ) and therefore Il was iu o.
ed proper by an act passed in The course OF he
! ensuing session 70 saccify the offences which
snail N future render Interpretation the neces-
! sary resAlt of expulsion"
! lhsre Was one other observation &C the
| same gentleman (Mr. Kew cont.s,,or
p9Ni ~" the report OF the committee,
| i,c1 l hink it necessary 10 notice, he.
cause IL is The renewal Of an obi q on al.
ready reio'ed upon his h>or. In referring
o me proceeding on the expulsion of Mr.
Biount the report sai 'fIn mat case the
member implicated was called upon in The
ms insiarce, TO answer whe her he was
the au,hor of let.er, the copy of which
O'''y II bQuC-d IL anu ne WIRING Dt
Which was the cause of his EXCURSION.
he was afterwards requested to declare
whether he was The author of the ie.,er
itself, aud declining in both cases to an
swef, the fact OF his having written it was
established by comparison of his hand
wiring, and by me belief of persons who
had seen him wriIs, upon inspection of
the letter. In all these points the com.
fnittee perceive the admission Of a spe.
cles or evidence which in Courts of crj.
nInal jurisdiction would &c excluded"
very soon after the repot was made, Mr..
smith, in letter, think, adde's to
| you Mr. PresIden, asserted that his was
mistake on point Of law--thst GONNA.
rlson OF hands and Inspection by persons
who had seen the party wriie was eyi-
dence admitted 10 every days practice on
criminal prosecutions al Law. Part of his
ldoctrine was afterwards disclaimed in de.
GATE on the f1oor-It was acknoVledeed
that comparison of hands il never admit
ted as evidence on criminal trial. knnw
very well that inspection Of the nand wri.
ling by persons who have seen The party
write, is evidence at law; bat Il must M,
upon oath. In Mr.. BiUunt's case, II was
received by the committee, without oath.
and II was IN sllssion to this, tina, Inc re-
port included it as part of the testimony
admitted there, though 1t would have been
excluded from a court of law. ! know
also that the same testim my was in hat
case afterwards given in Senate, upon
oath--Ihe report never mcaut to saw that
formal evidence was exclu&ed lit only no.
uced the informal evidence which was adj.
nNted.
I have now finished my remarks up,n
mat part OF Mr.. SMITHS defence, which
resis upon the Supposed irreguialliy Of The
proceedings which have hitherto been
sanctioned by the Sens on THIS jnve,ti.
CATION, and upon objections against the
principles, maintained IN the repo,t Of The
committee. The qles ION on the facts
remains still to be discussed
! What thenis the evIdenc # Mr.. Smiths
participation in the consPJacy of ASS.
| BuFri
Since The resolution now under sonside.
ration was 6rst offered to the Senate, The
"aie OF the evidence has very considerably
changedi IN some respects hyr4a5ly fsr