The Sun.
London, England, 1839-06-07 00:00:00

MALTA.

The Marquis of NORMAN BY said, that seeing the
Noble Earl opposite who had given notice of a motion for
to-night he would take the opportunity of stating that he
had not the slightest objection to the production of the
papers, but that a dispatch had been just received to
which sufficient attention had not yet been paid to en-
able him to say whether it could be laid before the
House or not. Moreover he wished to add other papers
to those which were intended to be moved for, which he
hoped the Noble Earl would not object to, amongst which
were communications which had passed between himself,
Si John Stoddart, and the Commissioners. In conse-
q ce of this, and in consequence of the unavoidable
absence of the Noble Lord who had preceded him in
his present office, perhaps the Noble Earl would not
object to postponing his motion tall another night.

The Earl Of RIPON said that he did not conceive
that the proposition to produce additional papers
formed a ground of necessity for his putting off his
motion for a third time, because he really did not think
those papers were of any consequence. He had re-
ceived, last night, a communication from the late Noble
Secretary (Lord Glenelg) saying he was labouring under
severe indisposition, and that he should not be able to
attend to-day ; but adding that he did not wish the mo-
tion to be postponed on account of his absence. But
as his (Earl Ripon's) observations would certainly apply
to some parts of that Noble Lord's conduct, and also to
some portion of the conduct of the Commissioners, which
that Noble Lord could only be expected to be com-
petent to reply to ; he did not feel that he
could proceed with his motion to-night, without
subjecting himself to some suspicion of unfairness.
It was, however, extremely inconvenient and extremely
disagreeable to him to have thus to put the motion off
from time to time, because it was a matter not only
affecting the public but affecting individuals, and if he
put it off now, as he felt he must do, he ventured to
say the odds were, that he should never be able to bring
it on at all.

The Marquis of NORMANBY said, that he was
perfectly ready, as far as he was concerned; his only de-
sire was, that the House should be in possession
of fuller information than it could be consi-
dered to be at present, but if the Noble Earl chose
to proceed now, he (the Noble Marquis) should be
quite ready to give all the information in his power.
The Earl of RIPON could not think of proceeding
under such disadvantages.
Lord PORTMAN said the Attorney-General of
Malta considered himself somewhat aggrieved, and was
anxious the matter should be investigated as soon as
possible.

_
The Marquis of NORMANBY said they ought not
to allude to the merits of the case, unless they were
prepared to go into the whole of it. He did not think
there was any intention to cast any imputation on that
individual.

The Earl of RIPON said he should certainly take
the earliest opportunity of bringing the question forward.
The Marquis of NORM ANBY then moved for
copies of the correspondence that had taken place be-
tween himself and Sir John Stoddart on the subject of
the Malta Ordinances.

The Bishop of CHESTER presented a petition
signed by 24 Clergymen, and a number of the residents
of Liverpool, praying that the Post-office might be closed,
and the mails prohibited from running on Sundays.
The Bishop of LONDON presented two petitions
to the same effect ; also a petition from Belfast against
idolatrous worship in India.
The Bishop of BANGOR presented a petiton from
Bangor against the mails running on Sundays.
The Earl of STANHOPE presented two petitions
in favour of a uniform rate of penny postage.
POOR LAWS.

Tl.e NOBLE EARL then presented a petition from
Ilverton, in Somerset, against the Poor-law Amend-
ment Bill, and a petition from an individual, complain-
ing of harsh treatment on the part of the Earl of Hard-
wick and the Guardians of the poor of the Caxton and
Baddington Union. The petitioner complained that she
had been turned out of her house—that her husband
had been imprisoned, and that she was only allowed
Os. a week for herself and five children, being at the
rate of Id. per day for each, and that she was obliged
to walk 52 miles to obtain that sum.

The Earl of HARDWICK said their Lordships had
always been remarkable for the attentions they paid
to petitions from the poorer elasses.—(Hear, hear.)
The petitioner's husband had, he believed, been impri-
soned for some offence with which the guardians of the
poor had nothing whatever to do. They had been
ejected from their house, and it was very fortunate for
them that the Poor-law Amendment Bill was in ope-
ration or they would have had no home to go to.
The allegations as to the Board of Guardians would, if
examined into, be found groundless. He (the Earl of
Hardwick) was sure that if any complaint were made
to the Board of the conduct of their officers, they would
examine into it. He himself was in favour of an in-
quiry. He thought that perhaps it might be well to
appoint the Committee of last. year, which had done
much to quiet the public mind.