Star.
London, England, 1820-02-19 00:00:00

' picipesinelitat.....,"Vitailifiit only the mithr.i.rity 'of -the
Act of the 15th of George the Third to gia upon, but
he had alto the authority of the-Shalie4s4y--cate,
on which occasion the House allowed all :o he
brought in for a 'similar prlrprisb to that w Inch, with-
out farther preface, he should. move for leave to
bring in.
Lord CASTLEREAGH said, his views upon the
subject were not essentially•different• froth those of
the Noble Lord. He wished to keep the proceedings
as nearly as possible within.the shape just proposed ;
but the question was, not as to the right of Parlia-
ment to interfere, but as to what state those Boroughs
would exist in, while arrangements were making for
their more formal disfranchisement ? Grarnpound
had then two Members in the House, and Penrhyn
had one, and the matter for.consideration was, were
those places to be left mire. resenteJ, while no other
places had the-right of suffrage transferred to them?
With regard to. the Shaftesbury case, he viewed it
in pretty nearly the same light as the Noble Lord ;
but then he thought it had obtained the sanction of
the House of Lords upon grounds of a-grayer nature
than had yet been stated as to Gratnpound and. Pen-
rhvn. He did not state this as any.objettion to the
principle of the Bill proposed by Alre• Noble Lord,
but when he saw how particular the laws .were in
such cases, he felt but little chance of its practicality
passing during the remainder
.of the present Parlia-
ment. The state of those three Boroughs would come
before the other House in a much more complicated
shape than that of Shaftesbury; but whether the tslOble
Lord's Bill now passed or not, he considered the new
Parliament would have them exactly under the same
controul as they were held by that which now existed.
Mr. W. WINN said, they all knew that the House
of Lords was occupied in an inquiry relative to those
Boroughs at the period of the last Prorogation. AM
whether they might have grounds or not for a differ-
ence of opinion on the subject with the House ef.
Commons, it was too much thus early to tiesume
that such a difference did exist. The Not,le Lord
opposite (Lord Castlereagh) had said, that any refer-
ence to the subject in the manner proposed by the
Noble Lord who that evening brought forward the
motion of disfranchisement, would De, not oily an
interference with, but a denial of the authority of
Parliament. He would be as unwilling as any man
' to deny that power, -but he could not possibly agree
with the Noble Lord that such an inference•yas fair
or natural. The House agreed that corruption had
been practised .in these Boroughs ; and such corrup-
tion to continue during the next Parliament, would,
in his opinion, be at once to sanction and perpetuate
it. He deprecated as much as any one au interielence
with the ordinary course of law, and the only justifi-
cation was the extreme nece-sity of the case, which
obliged such an interference. The course proposed
'would not in any way prejudice farther investigation.
It would prove to the People. that the Parliament
were prepared, whenever a case of corruption was
fully established, to visit it with a severe penalty...,..
He felt, therefore, fully assured that the Bill would
prove of great advantage.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL explained ; he said that
he had no objection to comply with the wishes and
suggestions of the Hon. Member (Mr. Wynn). With
regard to what had fallen from the Noble Lord op.
' posite (Lord Castlereagh) upon the subject of evi-
dence to satisfy the Lords, he merely wished to ob-
serve that it would.be. only necessary for their Lord-
ships to know that the House had gone through that
evidence,;and were justified in their conclusion.
• . Lord CASTLEREAGH, in explanation, states,
that be had merely observed upon the Bill in elem.
plification of its difficulties, and Lot for the purpose
of offering any opposition to it.
The Question was then put from the Chair, and the
Bill passed. • -
ANSWER FROM THE ADDRESS TO THE THRONE.

Lori JOCELYN brought down Answers to the
two Addresses voted on • the night preceding. The
first stated, that his Majesty felt the truest s.,.;sfac-
tion in receiving the affectionate, loyal, and
.dotiful
Address of Condolence and Congratulation from the
House of Commons, and that his Majesty assured the
House that he should ever feel anxious to preserve and
promote their liberties. The second was as follcws
" GEORGE It.
" I have received with satisfaction the loyal and dutiful Ad-
dress of Condolence which the House of Commons has pre-
seined to me, on the late melancholy death of my beloved Bro-
ther, the Duke of Rent, as a gratifying proof of that constant
attachment to my person, family, and Government."
MISC ELL A NIES.

The Bill for the Prevention of Bribery in the Boroughs 4
Penryn and Barnstaple was then read a first time, and Ordered
to be read a second time on Monday.
Lord PALMERSTON gave notice, for Monday, to move
the continuing of the Mutiny Act.
On the motion of the CHANCELLOS of the EICIIIQUIIy the
House adjourned until Monday next.

Among the Nobility and Gentry present, officia.illT
Y
or otherwise, at his late MAJEsi s Funeral; Were
observed the following—
Their Royal Highnesses the Dukes of York, Clarence, Stmez,
Prince Leopold, and the•Dake of Gloucester.
The Dukes of Dorset, Wellington, Buccleugh,
•Beaufort,
Athol, Richmond, Montrose, San Carlos, Bedford, Newcastle,
Northumberland.

The Marquises of Cholnumdeley, Hertford, Winchestet,
Buckingham. Safford, Headfort, Camden.
The Earls of Westmoreland, Winchelsea, Lonsaale, Liver-
pool, Harrowby, Bathurst, Breadsbane, Chathant, Grayt:L.lu-
derdalr, Cathcart, Fife, Roder Chichester, yerularu, ,c_
clesfield, Mayo, St. Germain'', bi
Caledon, Courtown.
Viscounts Sidmouth, Melville Castlereagh, Bulkeley, Lake,
M.:lbourne, Petersham, Chetwynd, &c. • -.
• Lords Eldon, Grepville Hill, Grantham, Ilowden, Sidney,
I Henley, St. Helens, Alva;ley, Arden, Graves, Boston, Howind
of kffingham, Henry Howard,
.J. Murray, G. Beresford, C.
Bentinct, C. Spencer, Amherst, &c:
4rcltbishops Canterbury, York, dee.
Bishops of Lgndun, Bath, Oxford, &c.
Sirs—Arthur Paget, T. Tyrwhitt, J. Nichol!, W. Scott, Ni.
Grant, C. Abbott, G. Blame, H. Halforct; J. Lea* It. Dan*,
D. Dundas, G. Townsend Walker, S. Holroyd, R. liichpg6.,
J. A. Park, W. Garrow, R. Gardner, —..-; Best, E. HOW
R. (Afar& J. S. 'Copley, J; Winton; T. Plume, ...—ltieheict
son, J. Burrough, W. Knighton, M. J. Verney, L. Pcry,
F. Milmoti, 1. Heaid, G: Naylor, &c.
Right lion. N. Vansittari. 'O. ming, C. Long, C. Arbush--
not W..S. Bourne, W. Dundas, T. Wapace, .W. Wellef,lgy
Pole, .. Bedket, C. M. Sutton, H. Ryder, &.6. . .
lionouroblee-4 1/Lneh,- C. Bradshaw, 110.
Admirals—Warren, Poie,.Nagle, acc. . . . .
Eleixerrata-,- Herbert, Taylor,llolomond, flog, Hulse, Wmaila,
*Wens' Keppeil, Turner, krapt, Congstoe,' Denby,e
Bolton, &c. . . . - • --
Citenels---Cithcart; Stepbtanion, Men", Dalton, 1:34:41..
,
Sttithiute. Addenbroulte,lllisinsgs, Mos; Viliately, f..ynt
captai,,,,aprimm. Codd. itc. , • .. , J.,.. A
,tii
. loilears: CiAti -Smith, Crokes,
Macdonald, Magratk, Clarke, Balm/ , fiiiti-
• 00,2140' -I***** 444-11314.404 Pr . )tersi.l4 is:.