Star.
London, England, 1813-04-02 00:00:00

ST. PANCRAS CHURCH.

Mr. MELLISH moved the second reading of the St. Pancras
Church Bill. In doing so, however, he merely acted in obe-
dience to instructions from his constituents, as a Member of the
County of Middlesex, and without supporting either side of the
question.
I.ord CLIVE opposed the Bill, and moved, by way of amend-
ment, that the Bill should be read that day six months.
Mr. STEPHEN supported the Bill, as tending to provide ac-
commodations for the Poor to attend rt ligious worship.
Mr. BYNG and Sir JAMES GRAHAM opposed It.
Mr. MELLISH was directed by his constituents, to take the
sense of the House.

Strat.gers were of course ordered to withdraw, when the
House divided—For the second reading now, 34—Against it, ss.
I he Bill of course was lost.

EAST INDIA COMPANY AFFAIRS.
On the Motion of Lord CASTLEREAGH, the House fortn-
ed into a Committee on 'he Eait India Affairs.

Mr. COOPER was examined, but his evidence was scarcely
audible. He confirmed Mr. Hastings's opinion, as to the dan-
ger of an influx of Europeans in India, and as to the improba-
h.lity of canverting the liseians to the Christian faith. He con-
sidered the Resolutions of several Meetings in this Metropolis
is likele to create mischief an India. He knew of many instances
n which whole investruents were sold under prime cost ; and
seas bri,fiCli that the consumption of European commodities was
telly supplied by the trzcle as it at present existed.
This witness having withdrawn,
Mr. A. Graham was called in and examined by Mr. R. Jack-
'son. He stated that he-had been in the service ot the East India
Company from the year 1769 to 1808. He principally resided
at Bengal, and was in the Civil Departnemt. lie believed, from
experience, that the habits and prejudices of the natives were
hxrd and unchangeable. They had a quick s.msibility of any affront
offered to their religious reeltne, and were particularly jealous of
a, y affront to their women: Icon the authority of the Cons
party, under the tr.:sent establishment, their servants were pre-
vented irons offense; any such affroets. If the trade of India was
opened to all the ports ot this kiugdorn, and a considerable influx
of Europeans was to take place in India, and that they should be
allowed promiscuously to have intercourse with the natives, he
toad no doubt but that mischievous consequences would eesue.—
Many adventurers who had already found their way to India, had
•ompletely faikd in their expectations. The Indian markets weer
already glutted with European articles, which were in many in
;maces sold under prime ceet, and in others could not be dii-
osed of, but through the medium of sales by auction, raffles, or
other unusual means. The further testimony of this witness went
to ecnfil m the evidence of those who had preceded him.
While under examination by the House, Lord A. HAMILTON
observed, that the time wt apart for the examination of wit-
nesses had elapsed; he, therefore, suggested the propriety of Mr.
Graham withdrawing.
'1 his proposition was acceded to by the Committee, and the
House resumed.—Mr. Lu SHINOTON reported progress, and asked
leave to sit again.

Mr. Graham will be again called to-morrow (this day )
A Message from the Lords announced their Lordships' assent
le the English and Scotch Local Militia Bills, and also to several
priv%te Bids.

WEYMOUTH ELECTION, AND INTERFERENCE OF

THE DUKE OF CUMBERLAND.

Lord A. HAMILTON rose to make his promised
motion for the production of the remainder of the
evidence given before the Weymouth and,Melcombe
Regis Election Committee, and he trusted before he
sat down, that he should be able to prove to the
House that it ought to take some further notice of
that evidence. The Committee had reported that
three Members bad siolated an Act of Parliament,
and that their return was void ; they also made a
special report on the manner of voting in that Bo-
rough, and the evidence on those points had been
laid before the House ; but there was also evidence
on a third point, and that was as to the interference
of Peers, and particularly of his Royal Highness the
Duke of Cumberland—and what he then called for
was the whole of the remaining evidence, which re-
lated to what he considered to be the improper and
unconstitutional interference of the Duke of Cumber-
land. He did not intend to arraign the conduct of
the Committee in not making a report on that evi-
dence, but had he been a Member of it he should
probably have acted differently from the majority of
that Committee. He did not wish to adopt any pro-
ceeding beyond moving for the evidence. The House
would see the extent of his present object, it was
merely to obtain the evidence he had described.—
Before he proceeded farther, he should request the
Clerk to read the Petition of the Burgesses of Wey-
mouth, setting forth the improper interference of the
Duke of Cumberland ' • . and also two Resolutions,,
the House annually agreed to, relative to the
illegality of any interference on the part of Peers of
Parliament in the election of Members of the House
of Commons.—(The Rgolationt and part of the Petition
were then read.)—The NOble Lord continued. He
hoped he had satisfied the House that the PetitiOn
complained of undue and improper influence and' in 7
terference on the part of the Duke of Cumberland,
and he trusrecl that he had also Fonvinced them that
such interference was illegal and unconstitutional. If
the Resolutions which had been read were not meant
to operate, if they Were never intended to be resorted
to, he could only say that they were a snare to him,
and those who thought like him, and that they were
a mockery and insult to the dignity of the House. He

warmed, the duty he was sus an on. •
pleasant one ; and he very reluctantly entered upon
it ; but It was an imperative duty, and if the House
valued its character, it would interfere, in order to
clear that character from suspicipn.—(Hear, hear.)
So notorious was the interference which be com-
plained of, that he had seen it charged in a public
newspaper, ant by the same medium, a letter of the
Duke of Cumberland's writing had gone forth to the.
public. He thought, therefore, it was necessary to
them and to the cctintry, that the House did not
connive at such practices. The letter he alluded
to, he had taken the trouble to verify by the evi-
dence given before the Committee, of which it con-
stituted a part. The Noble Lord then read the
letter—it was dated the 2cl of October, 1815, and
went (as the Noble Lord thought), to prove in-
terference ; it expressed a hope, that the person to
whom it was addressed would support the persons
nominated by the Trustee of Sir James Pulteney,
and spoke of an endeavour made by the Royal Duke
to procure a place for the said person, stating, that
he had applied to Lord Liverpool respecting the
place, but that it was in the gift of Lord Mulgrave,
&c. The Noble Lord said that he would not occupy
the time of the House by producing any more evi-
dence of interference ; but if any further was thought
necessary by Members, he assured them he was pre.
pared to produce it. It would perhaps be said, that
the Duke had acted in his capacity of trustee ;—but
admitting that fact, he had violated his duty as a
Peer of Parliament, and the Noble Lord confessed he
should be much surprised to hear the argument used,
inasmuch as there were three other trustees, who
might have acted if any interference had been neces-
sary, without infringing the laws of Parliament ; but
those three persons had been put out of the wry, that
his Royal Highness might have the whole manage-
ment of the borough to himself.—(Hear, hear.) The
House hid always scouted the idea of Parliamentary
Reform—he spoke of the determination of majorities
and not of any speeches made in that House ; but if
they would give him the evidence he asked for, he
would shew them a strong reason for a reform in
Parliament, indeed he knew of no greater reason for
reform than that with which the evidence would fur-
nish them. The Noble Lord would not trespass
longer on the time of the House, because he saw no
reason for denying the evidence ; but, on considera-
tion, he would state one fact, which had nearly es-
caped him, and which he thought strongly proved
interference. His Royal Highness the Duke of Cum-
berland had thought proper to possess himself of the
Writ, for which he had paid a price, and by the pro-
duction of the evidence the House might verify that
fact. As he had thought it his duty to interfere in
other cases where the privileges of the House were at
stake, he could not refrain from acting in the present
instance, which he thought the most aggravated he
had ever witnessed, and particularly induced him to
come forward, as no other Member thought proper
to stir in the affair : he would not urge the House to
do any thing mere than to lay the documents on the
table. He would not make any further motion, nor
,would he pretend to say what the nature of such
motion should be ;—but he thought; if the evidence
were produced and proved, the facts which he had
stated woul.l prove some ulterior proceeding must be
had, in order to vindicate the character of the House,
and to shew to the people that the House was not
unmindful of their rights. He would conclude by
moving—
" That there be laid before the House such parts of the evi-
dence, given before the Committee of the Weymouth and Mel-
combe Regis Elect,on, as are not included in the Special Report
of the Committee to which the Report was referred."
Mr. C. LONG felt himself obliged to oppose the
motion of the Noble Lord, as he thought it would
be highly improper to take such matters out ot the
hands of those to whom they were entrusted. The
Noble Lord had urged as an argument fur the pro-
duction of the evidence, that the Petition complained
of improper interference on the part of the Duke of
Cumberland ; but that he considered as one reason
for not granting the evidence, as the complaint had
been referred to the Committee, which had not
thought it necessary to make any report thereon.—
For his own part, he had particular reasons to doubt
the truth of the allegation of interference, because a
similar charge had been made against him ; and as
he knew that charge to be false, he was inclined to
doubt the truth of all the others.—(Hear, hear, from
the Opposition.)—He had first learned that he was
accused of endeavouring to influence the Election for
Weymouth, from a Newspaper, which had (as he
thought, very improperly) published an ex /carte
statement of the speech of the Counsel for the Peti-
tioners. He would tell the Howe what was the mighty
offence of which he was accused. He had a relation
atWeymouth, and that relation had heretofore offered
to vote for any person whom he might recommend.
—He made a similar offer at the last Election, and
he had in consequence written to him to request that
he would vote for Mr. Wallace and others ; and that
was all the part he had taken in the affair. He con-
fessed lie was very much surprised when he learned
that an act so exceedingly innocent had been descri-
bed as the very acme of guilt. He had merely writ-
ten I,
a letter to his brother-in-law, for such was his
relation (hear, hear,) and because he had used the
plural number, and said, " we wish you to support
Mr. Wallace," &c. it was therefore inferred that Mi-
nisters had interfered, and had been guilty of the
most atrocious violation of the purity of Election.—
He confessed, he was at a loss to know in what the'
crime consisted ;—because even the tyranny of Ja-
cobinism had not decreed that such interference
ought not to exist. What the Learned Counsel had
said of him, he freely forgave, although he tia..h.r-
stood he had been used rather roughly ; but it the
Learned Gentleman thought he could thereby ad-
vance
the cause of his client, he was extremely Nvel -
come so to use him. For the reasons he had addu-
ced, he would move the Order of the day, ,6 that the
House do now resolve itself into a Committee on the
Weymouth Voters' Bill."
_ _

Mr. Alderman ATKINS explained the reasons
whiCh induced the Committee to confine their Spe-
cial Deport to the case of splitting votes, and vindi-
cated the conduct of the Committee in the line of
conduct they had pursued. The subject or: which
the Noble Lord asked for evidence, the Coinmittee
had not thought worthy of a Report. It was true,
tie Petition charged delinquency on Ministers and
Peers of Parliament ; but the charges were not pro-
ved. The charge against Lord Rivers was quite
laughable, and the kiouse would have thought lightly

of the Committee, if if had reported ott such mat.
ters. The Wdrtby Alderman doubted whether the
House could interfere on this point. With respect
to what had been said of the Writ, he would ask,
Whether many Members of that House had nit
possessed theMselves of Writs, for the convenience
of their friends ? and he could state to the House,
that no improper use had been made of the Writ, as
I had been forwarded to its place of destitution as
soon as possible.
Mr. W. WYNNE replied to the observations o.
Mr. Alderman Atkins, and said that the Worthy Ai.
derman appealed to labour under a total mi,take a,
to the duties of an Election Committee. He NA,
one who originally thought tbe whole evidence
ought to be produced, and he still thouv,ht so. Th.,
speeches of the Gentlemen opposite were
.not re'w•
rant to the matter. The Right Hon. Gentlemr,-;
(Mr. Long) had argued, that the evidence given 0.•
oath before the Committee was exaggri-ate,d,becpul,
an extravagant statement had pared in a News-
paper—(Hear, hear !)—and the tby Alderman
had inferred, that as the charge ag.tinst Lord Rivers
was unfounded, there could be no truth in the accu-
sation against the Duke of Cumberland (Ilea:, hear.)
—With respect to the obtension of the writ by his
Royat Highness, the statement of the lionourable
Member did not apply ; as the case of a Peer ob-
taining a Writ for the convenience of a friend, was
not very different from that of a Commoner obtain.
ing it for similar purposes—(Hear, hear.) For many
reasons, he felt bound to support the Motion of the
Noble Lord.

Mr. BATHURST opposed the Motion, on the
ground that it would place the House in a very awk-
ward situation, by introducing the practice of recon-
sidering matters which had been previously referred
to a Committee.

Sir JOHN NEWPORT said the arguments which
had been adduced ag:iinst the Motion appeared to
him to be inconsistent with each other. The Right
Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, asserted,
that the act of the Committee was decisive ; but he
would not go the length of saying whist was maintain-
ed by an Hon. Gentleman (Alderman Atkins), that
it was final. The course taken appeared to him to be
adopted for the purpose of blending a question of
right with a question of decorum. It was said, that
if it was improper for the House to interfere in mat-
ters touching the merits of disputed elections, in the
first instance, it would be still more injudiCious to do
it in the second, after a Committee had decided.-.
But the cases were completely distinct ; because, if
they took cognizance of the case in the beginning,
their proceedings might probably affect the right of
the parties sitting, or of those who petitioned against.
them, which was the specific polio that must ulti-
ntaxly come before a Committee ; but where the
Committee bad decided as to the right of sitting in
Parliament, the House were not precluded from exer-
eising a discretion with respect to other circumstances.
If it were a question relating to the seat, the House
could not emertrin it ; on that subject, they must
agree with the Committee : but it.wasJor the House
to judge whether other circumstances did not mist,
though unnoticed by that Committee, which requi-
red investigation—(hear, hear.) He was surpriaeel
at the hesitation of the 1-1, n. Gentleman (Aide:man.
Atkins) to give an opinion on the question, whether
a Peer of Pailiament, procuring a W,eit of Election,
was an interference with the Orders of that House
The Order expressly said, " no Pier of Parliament
shall interfere in any manner with the election of
Members to that House." Was it then no interfe-
rence to get possession of the writ of election ? The
Order, in fact, was stronger than he had stated it ;
for it said, that a Peer should no: even o concern
himself" in such elections—(Hear, /par.) But the
Hon. Gentleman denied that any inteiterence had
taken place ; because the writ was sent to Weymouth
as soon as possible. That very expedition might be
necessary to the object which a Peer had in view—
(hear, hear,) it might best answer his purpose to get
it there as soon as possible—( Hear, hear.) This was
a case which peculiarly called for tl:e intervent'on of
the House, on account of the rank of the in.%eidual
engaged in it. - The higher the person, the more it
behoved the House to be guarded in their proceed-
ings ; for in proportion to the elevation and rani: ci
the party concerned, with the more suspicion and jea-
lousy would the public view the conduct pursued by
them. When such a case was presented to them as
that made out by hie Noble Friend, he could not be-
lieve, until he saw a majority opposed to the Mo.
tion, that they could so far forget their own dignity
and character, as to refuse documents tending to
prove whether there had or had not been a lareAch of
the privileges of that House.
Mr. ROSE observed, that by the Grenville Act,
the whole of the charges against the election of the
Sitting Members, of which the interference now com-
plained of formed a part, was submitted to the Wey-
mouth Committee. They accordingly had made
their report, and be recollected no instance in which,
after such a report was given in, the House had de-
termined to make farther enquiries. The inconve-
niences of such a practice were evident ; it would
authorise any Member of the House to look into the
minutes of the Committee, and if dissatisfied, not
only bring forward the whole question to be tried
again, but also to criminate the conduct of its Mem-
bers. In short, it would defeat the salutary provi-
sions of the Grenville Act. _

Mr. WHITBREAD tose amidst cries of question!
guethon !—observing that he should be glad if some
of those Gentlemen who had made up their minds,
and were so clamorous for the question, would favour
him with some of their arguments against the Mr
tion; for hitherto he had remained quite unconvince,t
by all that he had heard (It the opposite side. The
whole gist of one Right Hon. Gentleman's reasoning
was, that by acceding to the motion, the Committee
would be placed in an aukward and embarrassing
situation. But whose fault wasaliat ? Had they not
done so themselves, by overlooking this flagrant in.
vasion of the freedom of t lection ?—(1-itar, hrar).—
His Noble Friend had stated in tlat most evri ss
terms, that a Royal Duke had interfered wi!lt the
rights of popular election, and in contravention (1
the resolutions of Parliament, in two several ways :
one was, that he got the Wt it lan- Weymouth into his
Possession, thus obtaitnng the contiol over it. To
this it was replied, that no undue delay ensued : but
it might as readily have been the Royal Duke's into.
rest to send it expeditiously as to &lay it ; and the
fj,inpls itcc of getting posscsbiou of the writ was as

e,
as
as

~-
;n
~;1

n-
ly
Ite

~e
10
r.

iiirracdoit of one of the annual ItesolUtiont of the
1. House. The second charge made by his Noble
Friend was, that the Royal Duke had written a let-
ter to a Mr. Stewart, begging him to support what
was called the Johnstone interest at Weymouth, and
promising that. he would use his interest with Lord
Liverpool to procure him a place. It appeared, also,
that the Duke of Cumberland had got connected with
1 tie borough by being Trustee under a will, in which
le had three Commoners partners with him—but
t:iat he took upon himself the sole management.-
1-Jere, then, was influence and interference of the most
palpable description ; and it was really astonishing,
that the same men should attempt to get rid of it,
~,ho in a former Parliament, in the case of the Hamp-
L,liire election, lied raised such an outcry, because a
secretary of the Treasury, himself a freeholder, had
written a letter to a friend, requesting him to vote
for a particular Candidate. It might be in the recol-
).-ction of many Gentlemen, that a hideous clamour
was then raised against this exercise of an undoubted
tight and privilege, by some who now deprecated
any investigation of the grossest and manifest abuse.
What, he would ask, was the Order of the Day ?—,
It was a Bill, the preamble of which set forth that
gross abuses had taken place at the last Weymouth
election; and now, when it was offered to be proved-
that other gross abuses took place on the same occa-
sion—when Indeed no doubt could eiist on the sub-
ject—it was said, no, we will overlook these, and
legislate for the other.—(Hear, hear.)—Inconsistency
like this would undoubtedly place the House where
it was said the Committee ought not to be placed
—in an sultward and embarrassing situation in the
eyes of the people,' who would say, with much ap-
pearance of truth, that they strained at a gnat while
they swallowed a camel. Instead of correcting
abuses, and strengthening the freedom of election,
lie verily believed that the real effect of the Bill
would be to give this borough, fast bound, into the
hands of the Royal Personage whose abuse of in-
fluence was offered to be proved.—(No, no.) This
would be the effect of •tne Bill.—(No, no.) —He
would repeat it, this would be its effect, if carried
as originally framed. Gentlemen on the other side
must surely be aware, what a handle their conduct
would give to the friends of Parliamentary Reform,
whom they professed to regard as such dangerous in-
novators, but whose arguments, already convincing to
his mind, mist be rendered irresistible, by refusing to
take cognizance of such notorious abuses.
Lord CASTLEREAGH contended, that the tes-
timony proposed to be adduced had no connection
whatever with the splitting of votes, which Was the
abuse proposed to be corrected by the Bill. The
question now before the House appeared to him to
stand upon very short and narrow ground. It was,
how are these election questions to be best decided ?
Was the decision of the Committee to be left as final
nod conclusive, or were their proceedings to be Bahl.,
to be overhauled by every Member who might choose
to look into the minutes of evidence ? The Committee
in this case were bound on their oaths to enquire into
and decide upon all the allegations contained in the
petition against the return fur Weymouth ; and of
these allegations this charge of undue interference
formed a part. They did enquire under all the obli-
gations of an oath ; they had come to a decision ; and
he would put it to the House whether, if this motion
were carried it would not lead to all the inconve-
-1
Mendes attending conflicting jurisdictions ?
Mr. BRAND would ask, were any Gentleman to
tise in his place, and state, that to his knowledge, a
Peer of Parliament had committed an infraction of
their privileges by influencing an election, would they
riot permit him to establish his amnions by evidence ?
Would the House then be justified in excluding such
proof, on the mere ground that it was taken from
evidence given before a Committee of their own ?
)4r. A BE RCROMBY shortly supported the motion.
Mr. MACDONALD was of opinion, that it was
a very bad thing that such charges were preferred ;
but he thought it a much worse thing that such
charges were irresistibly proved against his Royal
Highness the Duke of Cumberland. The Right
lion. Gentleman (Mr. Long) who appeared rather
sore on the question, from a charge, although with-
out foundation, having been made against him, had
said, that he was incredulous as to the charges made
against his Royal Highness, on account of the want
cf any foundation for the charges against him : but
before the charge against his Royal Highness could
be discredited, the Right Hon. Gentleman must get
rid of the letter of his Royal Highness, which had
ken allow ..d to be authentic by every person. He
had no hesitation in saying, that if the transaction
alinded.to had been comple:ed, and it was completed
as far as depended on his Royal Highness, it would
have amounted to direct bribery. He did believe,
that•there was no doubt in the mind of any Member
of the Committe.c, but that the conduct of his Royal
riiphness was indecent and improper. The question
before the House was extremely narrow. When a
Member of Parliament stated, that he was able to
prove a gross violation of the privileges of the House
and of the freedom of election, could the ears of the
House be deaf to such .a charge ?
Lord BROOKE thought that the letter might re.
cave a different interpmtation from that given to it
by the Honourable Gentleman on the opposite side.
He hoped the House would give due credit to their
Committee, v.tho were oh their oaths.

Sir T. PLLIMER opposed the motion, on the
ground that it would afford a precedent of the House
entertaining. by WAV of appeal, matters which by an
Act cf Pathan:ea were referred to a Committee.
(He then read several claw.;:s of the Act, to prove
that the Committee had the pt•wer to resolve and re-
port on an collateral flatters if they pleased.) He
allowed, that the House might agree or disagree with
Such resolutions ; and if the Committee had come to

a Resolution on this subject, then the House would
have been competent to decide. The Act, he con-
tended, proved, that it was the intention of the Legis-
lature to refer all matters concerning the election to
the Committee.
Mr. PONSONBY said, it was wonderful how dif-
ferent the same thing appeared to different minds :
he should have cited- the clauses read by the Hon.
Member, to prove that the House ought to interfere.
The Act only imperatively directs, that the Com-
mittee stall decide on the merits of the respective
candidates ; on all other points the Committee is at
lih.2rty to act as it pleases. The Hon. Member had
stated it to be a great evil to give this House an ap-
'pellant jurisdiction, but it was expressly reserved by

the Act, Wept as to who &tad be the sitting Mem- 1
bers ; and on this point, and on this point only, was
the decision of the Committee to be conclusive.—
This was a question of propriety; for the Hon. Mem-
ber did not say that the House was incompetent, and
he by that admitted, that the Only thing did not exist
which could justify the House in not interfering. If
it were the interference of the lowest Peer, it would
have been a gross breach of privilege; but it being
the interference of one of the Royal Family, made it
much more important. The Noble Lord (Lord
Brooke) extenuated the letter, and said, if any thing
extremely flagrant bad appeared in the conduct of
his Royal Highness, the Committee would have made
a report. Was there, then, a privilege for one of the
Royal Family to do any thing, except what was ex-
tremely flagrant ? After the admissions that had been
made, the country would think, if the House rejected
the motion, that had it been any other than one of
the Royal Dukes, the state of things would have been
different.

Mr. A. WRIGHT, and another Member of the
Committee, said that it would not have made any dif-
ference to them who the person was.
Lord A. HAMILTON replied, and the House di-
vided—For the motion 57—Against it 105—Majo-
rity 48. •

On the Gallery being opened, the Order of the Day
for going into the Comn ittee on the Wemo4 Votcrs'
Bill was read.

Mr. BATHURST proposed two amendments, the
nature of which was to make the Bill general.
Mr. ABERCROMBY objected to a general Bill
being passed under a particular head ; and thought
that the present was the proper stage for the peti-
tioners being heard by Counsel.
Sir R. HERON pointed out various parts of the
proposed measure which seemed highly objectionable.
Sir 'l'. PLUMER admitted the force of his ob-
servations, but thought the Committee the best
place for considering them.
After some words from Sir JOHN NEWPORT, the
House went into the Committee on the Bill, on the
motion of Mr. Alderman ATKINS. In the Committee
some Amendments were made, and the Report was
brought up, and ordered to be taken into consideration
on Wednesday next.—Two Petitions were presented
on the subject of the Bill from Weymouth.
The third reading of the Sinecure Bill was post-
poned to Thursday next ; and the other Orders of the
Day were gone through.—Adjourned.