PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO THE EXPULSION OF MR. BENJAMIN WALSH. (Hansard, 27 February 1812)

Mr. Abercromby
wished to ask the hon. gentleman whether it was his intention to proceed on the subject that evening? If so, he begged to submit to his consideration that the papers which constituted the greater part of the case, were but that moment delivering to the members, and that there was still another piece of evidence to be produced, namely, the Letter from 983 Mr. Walsh to his brother, charging himself with the guilt of the recent transaction. There was another circumstance which he hoped would induce the hon. gentleman not to press the consideration of the subject at that moment, and that was, that there were several hon. members who to his knowledge were desirous of expressing their sentiments upon it, but who were absent from the House under the idea that as on Thursdays motions preceded orders, the motion of an hon. baronet would in the first instance have been gone into.

Mr. Bankes
replied, that he came fully prepared to bring under the consideration of the House the question of Mr. Walsh's conduct; and that unless very grave and substantial reasons indeed were adduced, he was persuaded that this was one of the matters which the House could feel no disposition to postpone. Although the printed copies of the papers had, as the hon. gentleman had said, been delivered but that day, that appeared to him of little consequence. There was only one line in those papers on which he should rest the motion, that he felt it his duty to submit to the House, and that was, that Mr. Walsh had been found guilty of the felony laid in his indictment. With respect to Mr. Walsh's letter to his brother, it would be produced at the bar of the House by Mr. Jenkyns the solicitor, and would be read distinctly and audibly by the clerk at the table. This in his opinion, would afford the House an ample opportunity of judging of its tendency. The thing would speak for itself in the most unequivocal terms; and the latter would exhibit a complete avowal of a guilty mind and a guilty act. If, after having heard this letter, the House should think further delay necessary, however unwillingly, he must bow to their opinion. There was one argument of the hon. gentleman's, which he could by no means allow. He could not admit that under such circumstances the absence of any hon. members afforded a just ground for postponing the consideration of the subject. The hour was by no means unusually early, and it ought to be known to every member of parliament, that matters of privilege took precedence of all other questions. He put it to the House whether or not they wished that the business should proceed? (A general cry of, Go on, go on!)

§ Mr. Lamb
thought that there could not be a more grave and solemn reason as- 984 signed for delay, than that hon. members were not in full possession of the evidence on the subject. The question was one of a novel nature, and would therefore establish a precedent. It was not therefore consistent with a due regard to the privileges of the House to proceed so suddenly and hastily in the determination of it.

Mr. C. W. Wynn
said, there could be but one opinion as to the gravity, weight, and solemnity of this question, on which it was not possible for him to anticipate what would be the judgment of the House. He had looked a good deal into the case, and possessed himself as much as he could of its nature and bearings, and he must say, that when gentlemen who had not yet entered upon its consideration, came to bestow upon it their attention, they would find that it was one of great magnitude and difficulty. He could not, therefore, help thinking, that it would be advantageous to allow further time for the obtainment of full and complete information. It was a very short time since the papers before the House were produced, and as had been justly remarked, the most important document relating to the case had not yet beet brought up. On these grounds he wished to submit to the hon. gentleman and to the House, the propriety of hearing the Letter from Mr. Walsh to his brother read, and then, after they had had an opportunity of considering all the documents together, as well as the precedents on their Journals, which bore upon the present case, they might come to a more fit and legitimate decision than if they proceeded to judgment on the crude materials of which they were now in possession. For these reasons he was anxious that the desire expressed by his hon. friends for delay, should be acceded to.

§ Mr. Bathurst
said, he had already be-come sufficiently acquainted with the case, to be enabled to decide on what he thought the just and proper course for the House to pursue. The documents produced afforded a good ground on which they might proceed to judgment. But as there might be gentlemen who had not turned their attention to the subject with so much diligence as the hon. gentleman who preceded him, and as the papers had been so lately put into their hands, he could see no reason for pressing on the discussion, if any member thought a small delay would enable him to come to a more mature determination. They had, in his 985 opinion, enough before them to act upon; but he would not therefore desire that those who might consider themselves as unprepared to decide, should be prematurely hurried to their vote. But conceding this much, he must, at the same time, observe, that he perfectly coincided with his hon. friend (Mr. Bankes) that on so grave and serious a question, deeply and materially affecting the character and privileges of the House, it would be highly censurable to allow any unnecessary time to be lost before they came to a decision.

Mr. Bankes
observing that he was the last man who would wish to be too hasty in pressing such a question, expressed his intention of postponing the decision of it until Monday.

§ The Speaker
apprehended, that as the business was not then to be concluded, it would be necessary to make a fresh order for the attendance of Mr. Walsh in his place on Monday. In the first place, however, it would be expedient to ascertain whether Mr. Walsh had been served with the order of the House, requiring his attendance in his place on this day.

§ The Speaker.
Mr. Skelton, have you served Mr. Benjamin Walsh, a member of this House, with the order of the House, requiring his attendance in his place on this day.

Messenger.
Yes, Sir, I have. I saw Mr. Walsh yesterday morning at ten o'clock, and he told me he had received from his brother the order which I left at his house on Tuesday night.

§ The Speaker.
Mr. Jenkyns, you were the solicitor to the prosecution against Mr. Benjamin Walsh, a member of this House?

Mr. Jenkyns.
Yes, Sir.

§ The Speaker.
Have you brought with you the letter mentioned in the order of this House, purporting to be a letter from Mr. Benjamin Walsh to his brother?

Mr. Jenkyns.
I have.

§ The Speaker.
Are you acquainted with the hand-writing of Mr. Walsh?

Mr. Jenkyns.
No; I am not.

§ The Speaker.
Is there any body with you who is acquainted with it?

Mr. Jenkyns.
Yes; Mr. Atride.

§ The Speaker.
Mr. Atride, are you ac- 986 quainted with the hand-writing of Mr. Benjamin Walsh?

Mr. Atride.
Yes.

§ The Speaker.
Have you ever seen hint write?

Mr. Atride.
I have.

§ The Speaker.
Look at that letter, and inform the House, whether it is the hand-writing of Mr. Benjamin Walsh?

Mr. Atride.
I believe it is.

§ The Speaker.
Do you entertain any doubt on the subject? Look at the whole of the letter.

Mr. Atride.
I have no doubt that this is Mr. Walsh's hand-writing.

§ The Speaker.
Have you ever seen that letter before?

Mr. Atride.
Never.

§ The Speaker.
Mr. Jenkyns, were you at the trial of Mr. Walsh?

Mr. Jenkyns.
Yes.

§ The Speaker.
By whom was that letter delivered into the court?

Mr. Jenkyns.
By the Solicitor General;

§ The Speaker.
In whose custody has it been ever since?

Mr. Jenkyns.
In mine, Sir.

§ The Speaker.
Is that the identical letter delivered into court by the Solicitor General on the trial of Mr. Walsh, and kept by you ever since?

Mr. Jenkyns.
It is.

Mr. Lockhart
wished to know whether to agree to the printing of this paper would be to entertain the charge brought forward against Mr. Walsh? If so, it would be a grave subject for the consideration of the House, and he requested, therefore, to be favoured with the opinion of the Chair.

§ The Speaker
apprehended that the letter was part of the proof against the hon. member. What decision the House would come to on the charge, it would be for them to determine, when they came to consider the evidence of which this letter was a part.

Mr. Lockhart
, understanding that the letter was to be received as evidence of the charge, objected most strongly to its reception, because it was only evidence of a most dishonourable and infamous transaction between one individual and another. He hoped the hon. gentleman did not mean to adduce it in support of the record of Mr. Walsh's conviction. That could not be done, for the contents of the record 987 must be its only support. If it were intended to rely on the letter in the event of the record not being considered sufficient to warrant the House in acquiescing in the ultimate proposition of the hon. gentleman, then he trusted the House would appoint a committee to search for precedents, in order to discover whether any such charge as that which could be founded on the letter had ever been entertained by parliament; and whether parliament had ever proceeded to expel a member on the knowledge of a transaction, however infamous, between one individual and another. He had made diligent inquiry on the subject, and he could find only one case in the year 1670, in which Sir Edward Thomas having complained of frauds and abuses on the part of his son towards himself, the House did entertain the charge: but they afterwards threw it out as not being on sufficient grounds, and decided that only those charges could be entertained which were founded on transactions infamous in a public point of view. All such transactions resolved themselves into four classes. The first, cases of persons who were found infamous by the records of their convictions in criminal courts of law; secondly, cases of persons who had been in open rebellion; thirdly, cases of persons guilty of corrupt and improper practices, as members of that House; and, fourthly, cases of persons guilty of offences against the public. Never, however, was a charge entertained founded on a dishonest transaction between man and man. To entertain such charges would be to make the House of Commons a great court of judicature, authorised to examine every private transaction that was alleged to be improper: and the ultimate purposes to which such a power might be applied no one could foresee; that it would be productive of enormous inconvenience was evident, and he therefore pressed for the appointment of a committee, before a precedent was established calculated to be so injurious in its consequences.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer
confessed himself unable to distinguish the letter from the other documents on the subject, or to understand why the ordering of the letter to be printed was more completely to entertain the charge than the ordering of the printing of the other documents. The hon. gentleman seemed to have misconceived what fell from the chair. The charge was not at present before the House in a shape to be entertained, nor would it 988 be so until there was a motion on the subject. He apprehended that the hon. mover of the proposition had moved for the record of conviction, the judge's letter, &c. and had moved that those documents be printed—that he had examined the witnesses at the bar—that he had obtained from one of them, Mr. Walsh's letter to his brother, and that he now moved that that letter be printed—all for the purpose of taking those preliminary steps which would enable the House to judge whether or not the charge ought to be entertained. The printing of the letter could by no means prejudge the question of entertaining the charge. He had no difficulty in admitting that the question was one of very grave consideration, and that the House must well weigh how far they could with safety and propriety adopt the charge without establishing a precedent which might be found productive of serious inconvenience.

Mr. Wynn
observed, that by what had been already done, the letter must appear on the Journals, and must be transmitted to posterity, as having been received and read in the House, just as completely as if it were ordered to be printed. The objection might with more propriety have been made to the motion on Tuesday for its production.

§ The Speaker
said, that this was the proper time to acquaint the House, that he had received two letters from Mr. Walsh, intimating his intention of not appearing in his place, but not ascribing that intention to any bodily incapacity. As he could not find in the Journals any precedent of a written defence having been received from members, who, having been ordered to attend, failed to do so, without attributing his non-attendance to bodily incapacity, he would not read those letters, unless it were the pleasure of the House that he should do so.