Star.
London, England, 1807-01-06 00:00:00

P4RLIIMENIFART PROCSEDINGS.

• •
ROUSE OF 'LOADS, MONDAY, j•
The farther bearing of the appeal Ow,/ • 1,4111 Dun-
fany." which flood for this day, was d l'huriAar.
The Controverted Ek-Itioss TrW was read a third dot
and paffed.--Adjourned till salaam* (This day.)

-

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

eOlOOOl. eV THETWofte. ' •
Mr. WHITBREAD- moved for difchargiaß Ike
Order fur taking the Petition into confideratida on
the syth, for the novae of moving its cortfideratiofi
on a future day. The grounds that he Rated foi thit
motion were, that there was a number of perform Who
Voted that were fuppored to have no legal right to
vote% and that therefore it was advifeabie to try the
legality of their votes In the dual manner, by mov-
ing a two . Warrinto in the Court of King's Bench.—
There had not hitherto been fofficient time for try-
ills the validity of. thofe votes In that manner, Millie.
•Elation was on the 4th of November, and .tbe kit
Term was •eitcled-en the Ifith. The objeft of his
Motion was, therefore, filch a delay as would allow
time for the Tsai°a to he determinediegat eburt of
Law. He•fhould therefore afterwards tare, That
ere ionfideratithr of the Pendant* poltponed
the tub of Fetsroary.
Mr. MINGAY declared, that he rote tinder sow
fiderable trepidation and alarm. If he were to fay
that it was diffidence, at prefenting himfelf to a public
!trembly, fueh a declaration from a man of his years,
Ind of his former profeffional habits, would draw
down ridicule ; but he felt ferinufly dittreffed, when
he confulered that he was foperfonally and pointed-
ly attacked. Until yetleiday he had not the Oightett
idea that any Member of that Houfe would bring
forward fuels a petition. Although it was true, that
the elation of Thetford was on the 4th of Novethber,
yet the fad was, that the point now at Woe had been
fettled five years ago, and bad been ever fince cc-
quiefeed in. It was not one Term alone that the Pe-
titioners had had to try the law of the quettion, but
every Term fince the year ttiot they might have
brought it forward, if they bad thought proper.—
The quellionorent to nothing lets than tearing to
pieces the corporate rights of that Borough, and dit
folving the Corporation. This was a Petition that
the Houfe would not thew peculiar favour to; and
he hoped that they would not let it hang for ever
over his head, as he believed the real objea of the
Petitioners was to keep him as long in hot water as
poffible. It was the death of an old Alderman (his
Brother, whom he had the misfortune to ft/twice),
that occaficated this Petition. There were complaints
now of what a man, who was Alderman, and after
wards Mayor of the town, bad done in titot, 11303,
and 1803. A great pare of the voters that hadheen
made dining that time were now fought to be dif-
franchifed. There was, however, no °Nation made
to the vote of that Aldermaerin 18ot, and yet, atter
Cu many years, the Petitioners, withed to disfranchife,
on a fuppofed irregularity, fueli a number of voters,
as would in fait change the Corporation itfelf. After
dißinguifigwg this cafe from the cafes of Harwich
and Ea& Retfottlo be hoped the Houfe would not
now eftablifk filch a precedent for attacking corpo-
rate bodies.
Mr. WHITBREAD was not confcions of hav-
ing Paid any thing which the Honourable Gentleman
was jußified in confidering as a perfonal attack on
himielf. The queftion was merely a legal queftion,
whether a certain defcription of perlons had or had
not the right of voting? If they bad, the Honoura-
ble Gentleman was fecure of his feat ; if they had
not, he would t,f cotufe be removed from his feat.
He could not fuppole the objea of the Petition was
by any means to hatafs him, or to keep him (as he
bad expreffed it) in hot water. Although it was
poffible that for the lilt five years, illegar votes may
have been received, yet, if the flaw was not dila,-
covered until the laR &Moo, the Petitioners were
in fufficient time.
Mr. MINGAY again Rated, that it was not one
term only that they had lain by4but it was five years
and one term. He was, therefore, againft the Mo-
tion of Mr. Whitbread for difcharging the order.
[There was then a great cry of 44 Q2ellios," and
the Houle appeared likely to divide.]
Mr. BRAGGE BATHURST confidered that the
Houfe had hardly fufficient materials to decide on,
having only two contradiaory Ratements. He
thought, however, that as to this flaw, which had
been only difeocered the other day, the Courts of
Law would be sallow to lend themfelves to the over-
turning Corporate Rights as the Committees cf the
Houk of Commons.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL had no objee.
don to the delay of a fortnight, which was all that
was afked forin the.firlt inflance, buthe could not fee
why the Petitioners (offered .all the left Term to
pats over without moving for a Writ of tto
Hrarrat-
to. This was all they could do in the courfe of the
next Term, and that would be very far from decid-
ing the queßiert.
Mr. WHTBREAD obferved that the delay 6f a
fortnight was all he aced in the fiat initance, and
if at the end of that period he could not lay fufficient
ffroonds for poßpning it further, the Houfe of
courfe would not confent to put it off longer.
Mr. ROSE confidered that it was likely, that poll-
porting it upon the grounds that were Rated, woold
make st neeerary that tt fhould be gpßponed fo long,
that k could not he determined in The courfe of the
prefent Seffion.
Lord HOWICK obferved, that it would be incon-
venient that the Houfe should that night divide upon
the queflion : he therefore propofed the debate thould
be adjourned until tomorrow.
This propofition was univerfally agreed to, but
Mr. MINGAY oblerved, that until's the law had
been altered. Race he left the Courts, the Petitioners
would not find that after five years acquiefceitce, the
Courts would be much difpofed to relieve them.
The debate was then adjourned until to-morrow..