The Statesman.
London, England, 1810-06-01 00:00:00

peered in evidence on the Records of their, own
parish church. 'There was evidence in their own
parish register of a marriage between Earl Berke-
' ley and Mary Coles, in the year 1785. The case
had been discussed in the House of Lords; had.
been the common topic of conversation in the
county of Gloucester ; and now the petitioneil
bad thought proper to emu to that House wimp f.
garbled statement. Opposite the very entry too
which they had chosen to give as to the baptism'
of Lord Dursley, there was another entry; stat.
jug him to be the lawful son of the partiel,•
who fur reasons best known to themselves,
.had
kept their marriage secret. Gentlemen had sup.
posed that the Petitioners might have been low.
rant of what they now alleged, at the time of the
election. But it was impossible they could have
been so, because these very certificetes, which
they now produced, had been publicly advertised,
Being aware of the fact then, why did they not
call upon him for his qualification at the time ?
These smatters, he again stated, had been already.
litigated before the Mouse of Lords, and the cer.
tineate of the second marriage was had recourse
to, only from a belief that the certificate of the
lest marriage was irretrievably lost. These facts
had come to his knowledge, and ,he thought it
proper to state them. He should find the kis.re.
luctanee to send the petition buk, as it would
be still open to petition under the GrenvilM Act,
the fourteen days nut expiring till Monday. Then',
there would be an opportunity of having the mat-1
ter adjudicated by the proper tribunal. There
the petitioners might be proceeded against for the
penalties. Here their petition might be allowed
to remain a dead letter, after their scandal SO
been propagated all over the kingdom.
thought the present quite a new question. He
therefore wished it postponed till another day.
If the House should then think the application
malicious and groundless, they would be able to
say what mode they should adopt for yinilicat:
ing the character of the injured individual, and
punishing the calumniators. He concluded, by
snoring, that the debate be adjourned till Tuesday
next. •
The SPEAKER also desired that the Noble
Lord should be apprised that a question was then.
to come before the House in which he was in.
terested.
Mr.WYNNE thought, if theapplication should'
be found to be calumnious, it would be the duty
of the House to search for precedents for punish.
leg the petitioners. • -
Sir 3. ANSTRUTHER could not agree with
.his Learned Friend (the Solicitor General) that
Secant was.altogether new. It was fully discuss.
ad in the case of the Westminster Election, argued
, by his Learned Friend near him (Mr. Adam) and
Oa Master of the Rolls.
. The question of adjourning the debate till Tues.

day' was then put and carried.
AFFAIRS.
Mr..94.,..Pyr4LlAb_moved, that the Hottse' go
lute i Coremittesson East India Affairs. •
Mr:CILEEVEY. opposed this, on the ground
diet a very important paper, fur which he bid
moved some time ego, had not been printed. He
lOt,ered into 1 statement of whit had been done
for the Company during the last thirty years, with
',kw to shew that they had been constantly do.
clinieg,, and that the,pablic could bare no reasOn-
ahleespectatien that they would be able to repay.
the money which they had been b mowing. The
leport of the East India Committee, an extraorL
dinary one, afteC,three years labours, stated the
balance of four millions in favour of the Company.
,-7The mei which lie bad murod for, signed by
thfir own Secretary, made it three millions against ,
thei. ,' It was therefore of the last importance that
this paper should be in the hands of Members, be.
fore the House went into Committee, where it
was proposed to grant a million and a half to the
East India Company. He should take the sense
of the House on the question.
Mr. DUNDAS observed, that the Hottoirable
Gentleman ought to have deferred his objection
till the House went into a Committee, when he
would have heard the grounds on which he (Mr.
'Aunties) proposed se move the sum mentioned for
the relief 004:Company. The accounts, which
,hewed the state of the Company's affairs, were in
• the hands of all the Members.

Mr. TIERNEY said, the paper would have
been necessary, if the object had been to enter into
• an examination of the whole of the accounts of the
East India Company, bwt not in the preseurt in-