Star.
London, England, 1821-04-13 00:00:00

~__

- .4;

;

. 1 ~'

produce particular iipstincts of,ciittption. The pre-
sent afforded an instance wllch, if it was not abso-
lute comptioa, halt at legt the same effect, namely,
that iprekred wirjl the Rectors in the choice which
they would otherwise mike of their Representatives.
He would move, as an Amendment, that the Peti-
tion be referred to a Committee of Privileges.
Sir J. GRAHAM said tliat this was not such a
Petition as could be referred to a .Committee of Pri-
vileges. What did the Petitioners complain of?—
that there was some error in their representation.
This was not the fact, because this House decided
before in whom the right of election in Lyme Regis
was vested, and there were few places in which there
had been so much litigation, from time to time, as
this same Borough. The elections for Lyme Regis
were conducted in an open way—it was by no means
a close Borough, and as to the Burgesses being de-
pendents on Government, that was not the fact, for
he (Sir J. Graham) could, from his own personal
knowledge, say that there were men amongst them
as respectable as any in the kingdom. A great deal
had been said about the patronage which a Peer of
the Realm exercised in the elections for the Borough,
but if that were imputed as a fault, he (Sir J. Gra-
ham) could lay his hand upon a great many Gentle-
men on the other side of the House who had been
fined in their seats by the exercise of this same in-
fluence—( Loud cheers from the Opposition).
Mr. HURST did not think this Petition came
within that class of complaints which inveighed ge-
nerally against the corrupt state of the representa-
tion of the country. On the contrary, it made a
distinct charge against a Peer of the Realm, im-
puting to him conduct which was directly in the face
of the Standing Order of that House, and he thought,
therefore, it would not be disposing of it properly by
simply laying such a complaint upon the table.
Lord LOWTHER observed that the question as to
where the right of election ought to vest in the Bo-
rough of Lyme Regis had been so often discussed,
and so often ascertained, that he was at a loss to see
what a Committee of Privileges could now have to
do with it.

Mr. LAMBTON said, that this was no Election
Petition. It did not complain of the return of one
Member or another, it complained that the elective
power was lodged in wrong hands. It was, there.
fore, a mistake to suppose that it was an Election
Petition, because whatever way it was disposed of,
it could not affect the return of a Member. But he
was greatly surprised to hear an Hon. Baronet (Sir
J. Graham) attempt to justify the influence of the
Peers, as exemplified in this Election, by shewing
that In very many other cases the same influence was
made use of. This was justifying one abuse, by
shewing that the abuse was universal—(Hear, hear).
He would therefore follow up his motion for laying
the Petition on the table, and then support the mo-
tion of his Hon. Friend for referring it to a Com-
mittee of Privileges.
The SPEAKER suggested, that both these mo-
tions could not be made in the same day.
Mr. LAM BTON said, he was willing to withdraw
his motion for laying the Petition on the table, so as
to leave it open to his Hon. Frieud to move that it
be referred to the Committee.
Mr. HOBHOUSE declared his determination of
persisting in his motion.
The SPEAKER said, that it should be as an
Amendment, for the Hon. Member for Durham was
not at liberty to withdraw his motion.
Mr. HUSKISSON said, that as there was no pre-
cise charge against any individual by name, he did
not see how a Committee of Privileges could deal
with this Petition. Any discussion on this Petition
ought to be reserved for the occasion when the Hon.
Member for Durham would bring the subject of Par-
liamentary Reform before the. House.
Lord ALTHORPE denied that the Petition com-
plained generally of the state of the Representation
of the country. It breathed not a general complaint,
but preferred a specific charge against a Peer of the
Realm—(Hear, hear).—The words of the Petition
he observed, were, " that the Peer nominates." If
this was the fact, he asked, was it not a glaring vio-
lation of the Standing Order which the House passed
at the beginning of every Session ? He thought if
the House had any respect for its character for purity,
it ought not to give a deaf ear to the prayers of
these Petitioners.

Mr. HUSKISSON said, that the Noble Lord as-
sumed by implication, that which was not stated in
the Petition.
Mr. LAMBTON.—The words are—" That he di.
rects the return."—(Hear, hear).
Mr. MONCK thought this a proper case for going
before a Committee. He was at a loss to conceive
a stronger case than an open charge against a Peer,
for having interfered at an Election.
Mr. HUTCHINSON said, it was allowed on all
hands that this was a case of great importance, and
the only difficulty was as to the manner in which it
ought to be treated—(Hear, hear).--He thought the
Petitioners had made out a strong claim to the at-
tention of the House. They had preferred a com-
plaint of interference against a Peer of the Realm,
and thus charged him with an offence which was a
breach of the privileges of this House—(Hear, hear).
He had heard it openly avowed by an Honourable
Baronet at the other side, that there were many Mem-
bers here, whose seats were obtained through the in-
terference of Peers. If this fact were true, would the
House of Commons longer say, that they were really
the Representatives of the People?—(Hear, hear).
_ _