to report to the house thereon." This motion
was opposed by Messrs. C. Wynn and Peel, as a manifest attempt to evade
the provisions of the Grenville Act, which might forthwith be repealed
if motions of this nature were sanctioned. The petitioners, it was said,
had taken legal advice on the subject, and finding that they had no
case, they allowed the time limited by that act to elapse, and now
demanded the special interference of the house. They found this mode of
procedure more convenient than the former, under which they would have
had to find security for costs in the event of the petition turning out
to be frivolous, and would have been obliged at least to maintain
their own witnesses. It was inconvenient, unjust, and degrading to the
character of the house, it was asserted, to descend into the politics of
borough elections, and that applications like this ought to be resisted.
On the other hand, Sir Francis Burdett argued that if the petition were
rejected, it would be viewed as indicating a want of that constitutional
jealousy which should induce them to open their doors widely, instead of
shutting them abruptly to complaints of this nature. The house, he said,
was imperatively called on to investigate the circumstances connected
with the offence. On a division, however, the motion was lost by a
majority of ninety-two to sixty-eight.

A severer fate menaced some of the Cornish boroughs. Two of them
appeared so pre-eminent in dishonesty, that the most determined
advocates of the old system could not ward off retributive justice. A
petition against the return for Penryn had been presented, and although
corrupt practices could not be traced to the sitting members, yet
the committee reported that the most gross and shameful bribery had
prevailed. Mr. Legh Keck, chairman of the committee, was compelled by
a sense of duty to move the following resolutions:--"That it appears to
this house that the most notorious bribery and corruption were practised
at the last election of members to serve in parliament for the borough
of Penryn, and that such practices were not new or casual in the
borough, the attention of the house having been called to similar
practices in the years 1807 and 1819. That the said bribery and
corruption deserved the most serious consideration of parliament. That
leave be given to bring in a bill for the more effectual preventing of
bribery and corruption in that borough." These resolutions were agreed
to