Star.
London, England, 1821-04-12 00:00:00

GRAMPOUND DISFRANCLUSEMEST.

On the Order of the Day being moved for calling
in Counsel, in order that they might be heard against
the second reading of the Grampound Disfrarkhke-
ment
_ _ .

The Earl of CARNARVON stated the object of
the Bill, which was merely to transfer a franchise
from one place, where it had been corruptly exer-
cised, to another. This was still more necessary,
when it was considered that the Cornish Boroughs
were Much too numerous, in proportion to those in
other parts cf the kingdom, and that they were
scarcely ever represented by Cornish men, or even by
men who were residents of Col nwall.

Lord ASHBURNIIAM said he should object to
the Bill altogether. If Grampound was to he c Ale.' a
rotten Borough, it was impossible for their Lordships
to know where they were to stop in this plan of dis•
franchisement.
The LORD CIIANCELLOR said he should not
now enter into his objections to the principle of the
Bill ; but it was fit to state that, before their Lord-
ships came to a decision on the question, they ought
to be in possession of all the facts upon which they
should form their• judgment. It was necessary to
state that a copy of the minutes of the evidence on
which Sir M. Lopez had been convicted, was sent to
their Lordships; but that it was a document on which
the House could not act. He now chiefly rose ti-r
the purpose of objecting to the mode of proceeding
proposed by the Noble Lord; for, according to the
practice in all such cases, and in the administration
of justice, Counsel 'should be allowed to state their
objections in the course of the examination ef the
witnesses. lf Counsel were nor allowed to do so, he
should be obliged to take that task upon himself,
At all events _he would allow the whole case to be

The Earl of HARROWBY thought it would he
more advisatle to allot,/ Counsel to be heard.
The Earl'Ef ROSSLYN said, that would have the
elect of postponing the Bill until after the holidayC.
The LORD CHANCELLOR did not • think. they.
could be that day fully prepared to go on with the
case, if it was intended to enter into it according to
the principles of justlce.
Lord ERSKINE contended that this could not be
considered 'a Bill of Pains and Penalties ; for it did
no more than go to prevent those parties; from being
ever again subject to pains and 'penalties. After the
House of Commons bad done this act cf wise policy
and justice, Gen forbid that their Lordships should
not be equally ready to promote the same object..
The Earl cf CARNARVON did not conceive it at
all necessary to have Counsel at the Bar during-tlie
discussion of this measure. It might as well be said
that Counsel ourdit to be present at all the delibera-
tions of their Lordships. On questions of legisla-
don, Lawyers at the Bar were' the la,t persons whom
he would consult; and if the question came to be a
mire business of pleading, it would be very difficult
to get their Lordships to attend in that House.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, his reason for
wishing to have the attendance of Counsel was, that
the whole case should come fully before the House.
The of CA RN AR VON said a Nisi Prius pro-
cess at the Bar was wholly incompatible with a legis-
lative remedial proceeding like this.
The Marquis of LANSDOWN did not consider
this a Bill of Pains and Penalties, but a remedial pro-
ceeding; and, therefore, he maintained that it was
not fit to hear Counsel on such an occasion. The ob-
ject of the Bill was to take away a trust which had
been abused ; and as the partia, could complain of no
injury, therefore, the House alone was competent to
discuss a question of this kind.
The Earl of ROSSLYN considered this a case
which might hereafter operate as a precedent ; and
it was most material that a proper and correct cour*
should be now taken. This was a public remedial
Bill ; and it would be a most unwise proceeding to
hear Counsel arguing against it on behalf of private
persons, as if complaining of a private injury.
Earl GREY thought it would be absurd to call
Counsel for the Bill when there was no Petition in
favour of it.

After some further conversation, it was agreed that
Counsel should be heard on both sides to-marrow
and be allowed to examine witnesses.—Adjourned.