Star.
London, England, 1813-03-05 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
The Gallery was not opened till after five o'Cledt, In nob*.
einem* of the balloting fbr Committees oh the Peitbroke, And
Carmarthen Election Petitions.
Mr. WAITE appeared at the Ber with the retina:id list Of
Members balloted to serve as a Committee for trying the Merits
of the Petition complaining of an undue Election for the Town
of Pembroke. The names were then read as follow :-
T. F. Heathcote, Esq. Lord Rancliffe.
J. A. S. Wortley, Esq. E. Hornby, Esq.
J. I. Blackburne, Esq. Sir C. M. Pole, Bart.
Sir T. Sutton, Bart. Anthony Browne, Etc!.
Lord Apsley. Hon. J. Vaughan.
Alexander Allan, Esq. Hon. Thomas Brand.
George Osbaldestou, Esq. Hun. E. Phipps.
'W. M. Pitt, Esq.
Mr. SHAW brought in a Bill
Court of Conscience in the Cii
first time.
The reduced list of the names of the Members balloted to
serve on the Committee for trying the merits of the Petition,
complaining of an undue Election for Carmarthen, was brought
t.p and read, as follow.:
H. M. Ogle, Esq.
Benjamin Hobhouse, Esq.
T. R. Beaumont, Esq.
George Benne, Esq.
John Martin, Esq.
Hon. Charles Hope.
Arthur Atherley, Esq.
T. F. Lewis, Esq.
Lord COCHRANE gave notice, that he would move, to-
morrow, for different returns of Seamen in his Majesty's service,
distinguishing them into particular classes.
A Message from the Lords informed the House, that their
Lordships had agreed to several Public and Private Bills.
EAST INDIA COMPANY. • ,
Sir W. CURTIS said, lee held in his hand a Petition from the
Merchants, Bankers, and Traders, of the City of LOndon, pray-
ing for the renewal of the Fast India Company's Charter, which
had been so great a source of public and private advantage as to
make them must anxious tat its continuance should receive the
sanction of Parliament. Ihe Petition, the worthy Alderman
observed, expressed the unai.imous sense of front six to seven
thousand honourable and honest Gentlemen.—(,l latigh.).-I'he
Petition was-then brought up, and ordered to be laid on the table.
THE PRINCESS OF WALES.
On the SPEAKER calling on Mr. COCHRANE
3oHNSTONE,
Mr. LYGON said, he felt it to be a duty impera-
tive on hint to move the Standing Order, that stran-
gers should withdraw.
This notice called forth expressions of disapproba-
tion from many Members ; but the SPEAKER, of
course, felt it his duty to enforce the Standing Order
of the House, and the Gallery was cleared.
After the Gallery was cleared,
Mr. BENNETT rose, and moved that the House
should adjourn.
Mr. BENNETT's motion was supported briefly by
General MATHEW. and Mr. P. METHUENJ and op-
posed by Lord CASTLEREAGH. Alderman C. SMITH,
General MAITLAND, and Mr. PONSONBY. A division
ensued, when the numbers were-s
Again.a the Adjournment
I'LL- the Adjournment
Majority against the Adjournment
The House being resumed,
Mr. COCHRANE JOHNSTONE said, that as
an Honourable Member opposite had thought pro-
per to clear the Gallery, he should not bring forward
his motion that night, but would reserve his right of
renewing it at any suture period.
Mr. .LYGON said, that whenever the Honourable
Member renewed his motion, he shouhralso renew his
motion for the exclusion of all strangers.
Mr. W. WYNNE suggested the propriety of his
Majesty's Ministers bringing forward some motion
upon this suubject.
Lord CASTLEREAGH said, that the Princess
of Wales having thrown herself upon the wisdom and
justice of Parliament, he did not feel it to be his duty
to originate any motion whatever on the subject. It
was, however, perfectly open to any Member of that
House, who thought that the Princess of Wales had
received any injustioe of which her Royal Highness
had a right to complain, to make such motion as he
thopght proper.
Mr. WHITBREAD said, he felt himself called
upon to rise and say a tew words, after what had
fallen from the Noble Lord, at whose silence on a
former night, on this subject, he had already expressed
his surprise. When he (Mr. Whitbread) spoke on
that occasion, he was ignorant who were the Mem-
bers of the Privy Council who had framed the Report
in question. Since he entered the House, he Mad
seen in an Evening newspaper, that purported to be
a copy of this same Report, signed by twenty-one of
his Majesty's Privy Council. He must presume that
the, Letter of her Royal Highness the Princess of
Wales related to that Report. The Noble Lord i
(Castlereagh) had already told the House, that when'
the motion of the Hon. Member (Mr. Cochrane 1
Johnstone) came on, he should be ready to give cer-
tain details and explanations ; but those details and
explanations he (Mr. W.) conceived would not con.
vey all the information on this matter to which that
House was entitled. in fact, the Report itself ought
to be laid on the table. He considered it to he the
duty of some of the Members of the Privy Council
who had signed it, and more particularly of the No-
ble Lord, who had also signed a Report made in
1807, respecting the conduct of the Princess of Wales,
and which was understood to relate to matters of the
utmost importance, to take some step on the trlijr•ct.
Some passages in this last Report appeared to him
so ambiguously worded, that they might be supposed
to convey imputations of the highest criminality ;
they were capable of being otherwise construed.—
'Whenever the proposed debate came on, he should
feel it his duty to express his sentiments freely ; hut,
in the mean dine, he must observe, that having been
neither an acquitter nor an accuser, aid certainly not
both together, of her Royal Highness, lie was not yet
in a situation in which he could, with propriety, enter
into a discussion of the subject. He felt it highly
important that such documents should be laid before
Parliament, to conie to such resolutions on this case
as it might seem to require.
Lord CASTLEREAGH said he was not shaken
by what had laden from the Hon. Gentleman. If
there was any individual Member who felt what was
kilready known to be of sufficient importance to make
it the foundation of a motion, he was quite at liberty
to make it. For his own part, he must observe, that
he should not make any. He conceived that his duty
and obligations as a l'rivy tiounciilor forbade such a
-proceeding from him. He should discharge his duty
steadily. He had given no advice in this business
which he .should not be ready to justify whenever he
might be called upon to do so by Parliamentary au-
-1
t;ici ity. The present Report was not a revival of a
loaner investigation. The question was not one of
:large or no charge ; but whether the Intel-coarse be-

to extend the juriedietion of the
ity of Dublin, which was read a

Timothy Shelley, Esq.
John Wharton, Esq.
Hon. W. Elliot.
Robert Shaw, Esq.
Richard Preston, Esq.
§tr C. Saxton, But.
James Macdonald, Esq.

. 248
• . 189
-109