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

•

:

-.. .. .
-.V..; t.. ~
.- .". .00 .--,-- •
~.. ,
.g.....e..‘ . /t::: I:_.. A.::: ~ 1 i (-I •
. - 011°-.........:71
. •
6%,11",e,
4/ diIiCALLI.

PitlrE SE\ RN-PENCE.

EAST-INDIA HOUSE.

A Ballot was held at the East-India House on
Wednesday, for the election of Six Directors. At
six o'clock the glasses were closed and delivered to the
Scrutineers, who, at four o'clock yesterday morning,
reported that the election had fallen on the first six of
the followinGentlemen
John Inglis, 1701
James Patin,, Esq. 1667
Hon. W. Elphinstone 1646
James Daniell, Esq. 1655
John )3ebb, Esq. 1484
Yesterday, a Court of Directors was held at the
East-India House, when the new Directors, viz. Jon!'
BEND, JAMES DANIELL, Esqrs. Hon. WM. FULLAIIT
TON ELPHINSTONE, JOHN INGLIS, JAMES PATTISON,
and Jolts LOCH, Esqrs. took the oaths and their
seats.--Tuomas REID and JAMES PATTISON, Esqrs.
were chosen Chairman and Deputy Chairman for the
year ensuing.

John Loch, FAnf. 31r4
Charles Nlills. jun. Esq. 618
William Curtis, Esq. 887
Abraham Welland, Esq. 388

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS.

—...-- -
HOUSE OF LORDS, APRIL 12.
The Duke of WELLINGTON presented a• Petition from
the Corporation of Dublin, against the Catholic BIIL
The ills/lop of ELY presented a similar Petition from the
Clergy of the Archdeaconry of Ely.
Lord DE DUNSTA N VILLE presented one from the Royal
Burgh of Dunfermline ; and
The Earl of LIVERPOOL one from Dover, in Kent, to
the same effect.
Some Private Bills were brought up from the House of Com-
mons by,hlr. L►stasue, Mr. H. Soutisa, &c.
The Marquis of LA NS DO W N presented a Petition from the
Borough of Caine, praying for a revision in the Criminal Laws.
GRAMPOUND DISFRANCHISEMENT.
The Earl of LI VERPOOL moved the Order of the Day
for calling in Counsel on the second reading of the Grampound
Disfranchisement Bill.
Mr. A:Jimmie and Mr. ADAM were accordingly called in;
the former to support, and the other to oppose the BilL
These Gentlemen having taken their station at the Bar, the
LOAD CMANCIILLOII told them they were each on the wrong sides
They accordingly changed their sides ; and an Elector of Gram-
pound, named Win. Hoare, being called in, was examine 0 by
ALoeasOn respecting the sums of money given to different
Elector, by Sir Manasseh Lopez, in the year 1816.
George Hunt, who bad been agent for Sir M. Lopez, was
next examined: after him Thomas Cook. John Teed, who
had been one of the Candidates at the Election, was afterwards
examined ; be said that none of the voters took the Bribery Oath,
' and that they would not allow it to be put. The next witness
was John Edwards, an Attorney, at Truro. Alter he had con-
cluded his evidence, Walter Pomeroy was examined.
Mr. ALDERM:IN then said, he wished to lay before the House
the records of the convictions of those who had bribed, and were
bribed ; but that it would be very expensive to get office copies
of the same.
The Earl of CA 11 NARVON said, they would cost E2OO,
and would delay the proceedings; and he wished to know if the
extracts already before the Houstwould not be sufficient for the
information of their Lordships?
The LORD CHANCELLOR said they would not; but he
would suggest to the Learned Counsel that as the Minutes of
the Trial of Sir M. Lopez had already been laid before the
House, it would be sufficient for his purpose if the evidence of
the conviction of two others were produced; that he conceived
might be done without much loss of time, and at a less expense.
The: further proceedings in this business were then adjourned
until to-morrow.—At Half-past Eight the House adjourned.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
INTERFERENCE OF PEERS AT ELECTIONS.
Mr. LAMBTON held in his hand a Petition signed
by a majority of the resident Freeholders of the
Borough of Lyme Regis, in Dorsetshire, in which
they complained that the right of election, which by
law ought to rest in them, was, by a Resolution of
the House of Commons in the year 1780, given to
the Mayor and Corporation ; and that the effect of
this Resolution was to throw the patronage of the
Borough into the hands of a Peer of the Realm,who,
by the influence arising from his property, had his
own relations constantiy returned to Parliament for
this borough. The Petitioners stated, that from the
time of Edward the First to 1780, they had enjoyed
elective right. The number of resident Freeholders
was 100, whilst the Burgesses, in whom the power
of returning a Representative to Parliament was ac-
tually lodged, did not exceed 30 in number. The
Petition went on to say, that of these 30 so entitled
to vote, there were not two-thirds of them resident,
and that the greater part of them were placemen
and pensioners under Government. Very many t•f
them now resident Burgesses had no property at all
in the borough. The Petitioners prayed the House
to restore them to the right of election, which
originally belonged to them. The lion. Member
concluded by moving, that the Petition be laid upon
the table.
Mr. HOBHOUSE thought his Honoorable Friend
had not taken the proper course with this Petition by
moving that it be laid upon the table. Here was
a distinct complaint of interference in an election
against a Peer of the Realm, and Le asked was such
a complaint to be disposed of by simply laying the
Petition on the table? He (Mr. flobhouse) thought
the proper course would be to refer the Petition to a
Committee of Privileges, for if the allegations in it
were ascertained to be true, the Peer in question was
guilty of a breach of the privileges of the House of
Commons. Could the House, consistent with its own
character or dignity, overlook so flagrant an infrac-
tion of its privileges? Whatever opinion there might
be on the question of Parliamentary Reform gene-
rally, it certainly behoved the House of Commons
to take notice of particular instances of interference
by Peers, or anything else which trenched at all on
the freedom of election. At the commencement of
every Session, the House passed a Resolution declar-
ing it a breach of their privileges that Peers should
interfere at the election of Members of that House.
Here was a charge of that sort made against a Peer,
and was the House to pass by the infraction of their
own Standing Order in silence? If the House were
indifferent to this Petition, then, indeed, would there
be reason to think that the reproach made upon them
of their not being the Representatives of the People
had some foundation—(Hear). It was time for that
House to take at !east some steps towards a Reform
in Parliament. He (Mr. Hobbouse) and the Re-
formers were often told that it WAS absurd to be
making sweeping propositions about reforming the
I House of Commons, and they sere challenged to