The Sun.
London, England, 1828-06-21 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, JUNE 20.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat at
five minutes past five o'clock.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY moved the
second reading of the Benefice Regulation Bill; and
afterwards that it be committed to a Committee of

the whole House on Monday next.
Sir A. GRANT and others brought up the Irish
Stamps Promissory Note Bill, the Southwark Road
Bill, the Covent-garden Market Improvement Bill,
agreeing to the amendments and two private Bills.
Dr. PIILLIMORE and others brought up the

Cinque Ports' Improvement Bill.
Gem GASCOYNE and others brought up the Liver-
pool Harbowr Improvement Bill, agreeing to the

amendments.

Captain BASTARD and others, brought up the
Devon Road Bill.

Lord MELVILLE moved the second reading of
the Bill for regulating the administration of property
in the Supreme Courts of India, and that the House
would go into a Committee upon it on Monday
next.

The Duke of RUTLAND alp" presented a pe.
:ition from the Merchants and Traders of Scar•

borough, Yorkshite, praying for the repeal of the
Law limiting the circulation of Small Notes. Also
a petition from Grantham, Lincoln, to the same
effect. Also a petition from Cambridge against

Slavery.
Lord CARRINGTON presented a petition from
the Ship-owners of Hull, praying for protection.
The Duke of WELLINGTON put off the third
reading of the Corn Bill frem Monday till Thurs-
day next.
Lord CARNARVON .moved the Order of the
Day, for the second reading of the Bill to disfran-
chise the Borough of Penryn. In rising to move
the second reading of this Bill, it was not
the Noble Lord's intention to go into detail

through all the evidence, but he felt it his
duty to call the; attention of the' House to the
general nature of the case, and to lay before their
Lordships the general character of the Borough and
its representation, from the earliest time to which the
evidence of the witnesses went, down to the
last election. After this, it would be for their
Lordships to consider whether there had not
been a continued corrupt and vicious practice in this
borough ; that if they left the borough in its present
state, future elections must not be equally corrupt ;
and that if they did not correct the evil now,
the mischief would go on gradually to increase.
The evidence of the witnesses carried the first
scene of corruption back to 1802, and fortunate
it was for this borough that its case had
not been brought before Parliament twenty years
ago, for then undoubtedly this House would
have removed its franchise to a more deserving
place. It was in evidence uncontradicted, that
one witness had been in the regular habit of
paying a bribe to more than one half of the elec-
tors of this borough on all electioneering occasions.
There was not the slightest doubt that their Lord-
ships would have felt themselves called on to clic-
franchise the borough of Penryn upon the evidence
of the corruption which had taken place at the
election of 1802; and indeed the main ground of
defence urged by the Counsel against the Bill, was
the supposed improved character of the electors
since that period. A breakfast was given in 1802,
and one of the witnesses declared that the price
of a single vote was twelve pounds, and that twenty-
four pounds were regularly given for the double vote.
The same witness proved, that at the general elec-
tion of 1806 the breakfast was repeated : with
respect to the election of 1807, the evidence was
net quite so satisfactory, but it never could be
affirmed of a borough notoriously corrupt in
1806, that, in 1807, it was perfectly pure.—,
After the election of Sir T. Hawkins, who was
tried for corruption and acquitted, the Noble
Lord was satisfied that both that individual and the

borough should have the full benefit of the acquittal,
but against that acquittal was to be placed the
missal from the House of Commons. The Noble
Lord laid the evidence before the House as it.dpoied
to the several elections which had taken -place from
1807 up to the last election, and. 'Argued that
the evidence fully established ',tie charge of
bribery and corruption against the '..;tectors of Penryn,
or at all events against such a Portion of them as was
deemed necessary to secure r, majority. There might
have been intermissions ~;t* these corrupt practices,
during short intervals
after the prosecution' had
been instituted. A panic might have affected both,
electors and cand;,dates, and deterred them for a sh',_irt
time from exprAing themselves by bribery, tr, the
consequence,e. of a criminal prosecution, ?till he
thought t!.tat the same disposition which had formerly
existed among the electors, continued to exist. The
most, respectable individuals—men wkio had been
ftn.a number of years acquainted %viten the transac-
tions of the borough, and who were consequently in-
capable of being deceived—had 'given evidence of
its corruption. Captain Pellm, a gentleman of
most unimpeachable character, bad declared that
4-7ths of the voters were essentially corrupt, and
on his cross-examinatinn he swore, though with evi-
dent regret, that certainly the majority were not in-
dependent. He had no doubt that those details
might have been tiresome to their Lordships, nor
should h
have listened unto them, did he not con-
sider it 16s duty to shew why he called upon
to eere.eir with the House of Commons in 'taking
Atte step to put a stop to the gross exesse, which
had been committed ; and if their Lordships did not
consider that the evidence r.:as sufficient to entitle
them to carry the preselic measure through, as he
merely moved the second reading of the Bill, they
might in the tiext stage consider what particular
course tl:ey should adopt.
The LORD CHAN CE LLOR having been called
upon, in the discharge of his duty, to attend to the
entire evidence given at the bar of the House in
support of the present Bill, felt that their Lordships
would expect him to state the effect which it pro-
: ducef on his mind. He did not at present intend
to glie any opinion on the general question; but
the Bounds of his opinion on this particular question
were that sufficient proof had not been brought for-
warof the alleged corruption of that borough, and