The Sun.
London, England, 1837-12-02 00:00:00

eLit'entreated the attention of their Lordships, he solicited
11,s attention of the country to the subject; he anxiously
4: r the support of the country, and for the support,
'able all, of those who had been the steady, the indoe i-
lkd and all the zealous friends of education for all classes
lure of sects. That there should be any clause in a mea-
1/ilsober"is sort excluding religious instruction to no msn in
t-ere senses would ever fur a moment dream ot. That
acd should be a cleuse providing for religious instruction,
of th_laying it down as an absolute rule that the whole
places: branch of education should be given in such
there Would equally be a man out of his senses. That
that, should be no 'exclusion of religious instruction, but
tielt "(11 the contrary, there should be a direct recogni-
eettj)l, 1„1 it, he was decidedly of opinion.—(Hear.) He
shout my was one of those who thought that the Bill
ill all contain, in positive and express terms, a provision that
dtltheces:atzri eshpotoultsfounded, extended, or improved under the Bill,
should be read. He had accordingly intro-
the .1:1into the measure a provision making it imperative upon
ten,".ard to
give its sanction, whether for the foundation, ex-
as'.a.,,4n, Or improvement of schools, to none one of the rules
regulations of which was not that a part of the reading of
sv.tehlars should be from the Bible, and that the whole
cr!Ptur
Paine, es
cu.d be read. The clause was of course st,:com-
with this proviso that the children of any Jewish or
t orn‘s
ot all Catholic parents who might attend the schools should
link' required to be present when the Scriptures were read,
was ss the pa d
rents esired it. He ha no doubt that this
eqe4t andY
of o proper to be added to thd e Bill ; and he was
/lienpinion that it would still all differences of opi-
the subject of a national system of education. He
Weiei_ sanguine hopes of the success of the measure. lf it
ec,," Istll administered—if education continued popular in the
j nethinrs were done to raise the spirit either of
erootical faction, orb, above all, of religious discord, in the
psal,r„s,,e of the passing of the Bill—and if, after it had
tin,"" and come iato operation, those feelings should con-
aecle, took their rise out of a common and universal
st qui
a Y wise, as well as truly Christion regard for the right
1, Sefton„t, of the people—then he verily believed that the
de,„".,'etore which had passed the measure would be acknow-
blei°!"' in all time to come as having bestowed the greatest
thaCting that el er law- giver conferred upon a nation. He feit
80 10" e ought to apologise for having detained their Lordships
his Ing. but he conceived that he should net have discharged
c,,it.heirny if he kept back any one feeling that he entertained
upon or in connection with this important subject.
No
table and Learned Lord then laid the Bills upon the
-
The e,
elec, 'earl of WINCHEL SE A had no hesitation in de-
-1-9' 'te that there were many sentiments in the long and
Learned speech that ad been delivered by the Noble and
p:iniied Lord which lie heartily coecurred ; and more es-
be had'n great satisfaction in finding that from the
e, -`e Lord's proposedsystem religious instruction was not
exeeliuuddel• Na,so was
reading of the Scriptures
enjoined.
forLl:rd BROUGHAM.—The reading of the Scriptures is to
ThPart of the system of education.
se te Earl of WIN CHIL SE A—lt was to form part of the
st:,,-n, of education•• and, therefore, instead of religious in-
re,"e,t'on being exelnlled from the Noble Lord's plan, it was
tbe,,,d. This was in accordance with the sentiments on
snuieet contained in the petition presented by a Noble
Nl;cluis from Manchester, and ire the petition resented by a
Noblee and Learned Lord. Ile peated that that. part of the
fact,and Learned Lord's proposition gave him great satis-
sit.nn ; for he had always held it to be the first and most po-
(LI" duty of a Christian legislator in this country, however
(Zsid he reight be to extend the education of the people
ue was far from being indisposed to extend that educe-
" as widely as it could with
religious instruction should
.form_
ch`,' foundation. There was one point to which he certainly
tiPeted, and that was the establishment of Boards of Corn-
0/184ieners for life, armed with powers to counteract the wishes
ported majority of those by whom the schools were to be sup-
for, if he understood the Noble and Learned Lord
f:e .o-eeurtoflY, where the majority of a parish or district was in
the establishment of a school on such or such prin
:.1.131e5, the Commissioners might overrule their decision and
"Ivie effect to the opinion of the minority.
Lord BROUGHAM: All that the • Commissioners could
a?: under such circumstances, would be to decide that there
be
no school.
t • tie Earl of WINCHILSEA : Then the minority would
rph.
fiord BROUGHAM : There would be no school at all.
r, be Earl of WINCHIL SE A should be sorry to see a
tle-a'rd of Commissioners armed with such power as to ren-
t.:the decision of the rre.jority ineffective. He would not
ti3eto any consideration ot other opinions which in the course
/don's speech had been maintained by the Noble and Learned
odd; especially as they were not connected with the subject
t re their Lordships. If it should be proposed to tend the the suffisge under the Reform Bill, or to introduce et-
eta.ll by Ballot on those questions he should be prepared to
their his opinion whenever they might be brought before
Lordships; but he could not help expressing his great
'v
egret that the great question of Parliamentary Reform,
.4 agitation connected with which had begun to subside,
Was to be again thrown open ; and he could not avoid
anticipating the most prejudicial consequences from the pro-
teeding.
Lord BROUGHAM wished to explain with respect to the
revision of the Bill to which the Noble Earl had adverted.
tii.Was only to prevent a majority from levying a rate for a
slicrPese in which the minority was uninterested, and to which
ainYet;°„er,e opposed. The majority might still subscribe money
2501%7 ,14,ernselves for the purpose of having the description of
iority of ch they preferred. For instance, suppose the ma-
want the inhabitants of a parish were Dissenters, and they
the eCo t° have a description of school which. would include
ar,e-"dreti of the Church of England persuasion, and to levy
se;'l,-11,1eral rate for that purpose, " Oh, no," the Commissioners
oft BaY, "we will hold the balance between the members
Church of England and the Dissenters, and we will
o
lotti the Dissenters to levy a general rate for their par-
prar purpose."
The same would take ;place if a majority
Richpar-
of he inhabitants, b( ing members of the Church of England,
ed to include the children of Dissenters.
The Bill was then read a first time.
Adjourned at half-past eight.
_

1,, HOUSE OF COMMONS.—DEC. I.
Mr.
SPEAKER took the chair at the usual hour.
I,„_'"r• Campbell, from the East India House, appeared at the
t7i and presented resolutions relative to pensions granted by
" Company.
olalr• BANNERMAN presented a petition from the mer-
la.,:dlits and ship owners of Edinburgh in favour of Mr. Row-
• Hill's plan for equalising the rates of postage.
NEGRO EMANCIPATION.
th,,Mr; W. GLADSTONE moved for returns connected with
io- the Nest
of the 20,000,0001. granted to the Slave owners
West Indies.
'Afi!r• WAKLEY believed an Hon. and Learned Member
to O'Connell) had already placed a notice upon the paper
'-ue same effec`
Thec motion was then withdrawn.
bpa'"r. • WAKLEY then presented a petition from Finsbury,
for the establishment of a Court of Requests in that
rough.
BRIDGEWATER ELECTION.
r• W A RD presented a petition iromthe borough of Bridge-
tk_ler, signed by 156 out of 580 who were registered voters of
at borough. The petitioners were some of the most
nential and respectable inhabitants of the place, and
y analysis of the names showed that they comprised
te,.oj"len, 13 Gentlemen and Esquires, 6,Merchants, 2 Dis-
/ ir.)g Ministers, 3 Surgeons, 1 Solicitor, 1 Conveyancer, 7
rioke
epers, 1 Lieutenant, 1 Ship-broker, and 119 Shop-
th ePera• The petitioners regretted to be compelled to state
,„af gross, open, notorious, and profligate bribery and
irrution hvd for some time prevailed and was piactised
tor tshzvbeorough of Bridgewater, at the election of Members
in Parliament ; and that a considerable portion
c',,e the electors, amounting at least to one-half, had been
bribes to demand and receive, directly or indirectly,
Cue& for their votes at such elections ; and that it had
been usual to sell their votes to the highest bidder.—( Hear.)
buta certain number of voters did not receive bribes,
altt the number of persons who were in the habit of selling
leir votes was sufficient to turn the scale at any contested
election, and they had acquired the name of balance-men.for t the.
The Petitioners further stated that at the election
`),,tall of Bridgewater, Richard Brinsley Sheridan and
noeto- Broadvvood, Esqrs., were candidates, and that gross,
that a
ells', and general bribery was practised on that occasion ;
hrib House was opened for the purpose of distributing
the es t° the voters, pat which a person, well acquainted with
fif, e electors, tendered' them, and furnished to each voter a
the et, on `in was inscrib hi
ed s name ; that the voter was
a sent to a room a little darkened, in v‘hich he found
anaPereou who was a total stranger to the borough
Th from him they received a paper parcel containing 10/.
tri6.l T petitioners alleged that 153 voters at the late election
ad been so bribed, besides others who had received bribes
HHoother way. The petitioners thought they had made
oua case for enquiry at all events, and they prayed that the
Zthinkldnegereasnstar)sh an enquiry as in their wisdom they
Mr
Rive; MILES begged to ask whether the Hon. Member had
I lion: notice of his intention to present such a petition to the
Member whose conduct had been impugned ?
them 1.• WARD had not done so because he had only received
tliiePetition that afternoon, and also because according to the
Memberof the House, it was impossible for the Honourable
for to make any remarks in reply. He intended to af-
41:iv:nether opportunity for such a purpose, as he meant to
Petit. fcr a Committee to inquire into the allegs of the
kti,!eners, immediately after the recess. lie had another
A'Alon to the same effect front Sir Thomas Lethbridge.
avo-iu Mr. GLAD sT ON E hoped that the Honourable Member
the `l, ace the unfairness of making such exparte statements in
Mrßence of parties whose conduct was called in question.
WA RD had not us,-.,d one word cf statement; he had
he hil,!ti himself to the words used by the petitioners, which
tilate'Tved was the usual custom in presenting petitions to
"°use• It was necessary for the House to know what
emllrir,e.quAL
iiriedEosf them by the petitioners.
m
hoped that the good feeling of the Hon.
so dee" would induce him to abstain from making statements
Ivare'PlY implicating the character of individuals until they
mrPresent.
HUME—The Hon. Member was perfectly in order.
4:,9.n1y doing his duty. in reading the prayer of the pett-
Nl4, which it was necessary to do, in order to inform the
what ,Aas wanted of them. As the other party had
on
to reply, it wo.s evidently unnecessary that the
Nir • ember should have given notice of his intention.
take ARD—The Hon Members opposite had a little mis-
t, hi_
ma tor nothing was more foreign from his character

and conduct than to make any charge against any gentleman
in that House, without giving him the fullest opportunity of
answering all the allegations made against him. He had not
made a single observation of his own—he had confined himself
entirely to the allegation of the petitioners, in which he be-
lieved he was following the rules of the House. He had
another petition to present from Sir Thomas Lethbridge, and
it contained allegations of a similar nature.
Mr. MILES hoped that the petition would be presented
without any observation until the Hon. Member whose conduct
was called in question was in his place.
Mr. WA RD—lf the House were against him,he would pre-
sent the petition without any statement at all.—( Hear.) The
petition of Sir Thomas Lethbridge goes on to allege that
similar facts had taken place in the Borough of Bridgewater,
and prayed that the truth' or falsehood of the statements in the
petition might be proved by an inquiry being instituted on the
subject. For the purpose of affording that opportunity, he
should at a subsequent period move for the appointment of a
Select Committee upon the subject. The third petition he
had to present was one from Sir Thomas Lethbridge against
the return for the Borough of Bridgewater.
The SPEAKER doubted very much the propriety of pre-
senting a petition to the House in which a party was peti-
tioner, who complained against the return for the place from
which the petition came; he must put it to the House whether
the adoption of such a course was not against the spirit of the
resolutions that had been adopted by the House.
Mr. WARD said the first was not signed by any individual
who had an interest in the election petition ; the second peti-
tion undoubtedly had ; but if it were against the feeling of the
House that the petition should be,presented, he would with-

craw re
The SPEAKER did not wish to take upon himself the de-
cision of such a question, but it was one, in his mind, of great
doubt. It occurred, however, to him that the presenting of
the petition was against the spirit of the resolution of the
House. It was a very different case to where there was no
election petition, or where the time for petitioning against the
return had expired.
Mr. HUME thought that all the petitions might be re-
ceived consistently with the resolutions adopted by the House.
The SPEAKER said that the objection was to the presen-
tation of the petition complaining of the general facts, from
persons who also signed the petition against the return of the
sitting Member. But there could be no objection to the pe-
tition which complained of the same facts, but did not come
from those who petitioned against the return.
Mr. WARD then withdrew the petition from Sir Thomas
Lethbridge alone, and laid on the table the petition from the
inhabitants of Bridgewater, complaining of the corrupt prac-
tices that prevailed at the late election for that borough ; and
also the petition from Sir Thomas Lethbridge, and three other
electors, against the return of the sitting Member.
The SPEAKER asked the Hon. Member what day did
he fix for taking the election petition into consideration ?
Mr. WA RD then gave notice that he would move that the
petition be taken into consideration on the 19th of December.
Mr. HUME said that as the reading of the first petition
had been interrupted by the Gentlemen opposite, who had in-
correctly called the Hon. Member for Sheffield to order, he
should move that it be now read by the Clerk at the table.—
( A laugh.)
The petition was accordingly read by the Clerk ; and the
reading occasioned a good deal of quiet laughter, which seemed
to be e,peeiolly enjoyed by Mr. Hume.
Mr. CO URTENA Y said he understood the petition to be
in the nature of an election petition. Now, there was already
a petition against the return of his Colleague and himself. He
did not know if this petition alleged bribery against them ; for
the sake of the argument, he would assume that it did ; arid
he would affirm, that if such were the case, this petition was
one of the most scandalous and dishonest ever presented. On
a controverted election petition should any man bring to bear
the conduct of former elections ? If the state of the repre-
sentation of Bridgewater were such, and such abuses had
been continued for centuries--at least beyond living me-
mory—there might be ground for the House to interfere for
the protection of purity of election.—( Hear, hear.) But it
wasemost unjust that this petition should be brought forward
at this time for no other purpose than to prejudice the minds
of the Committee and the public against the parties concerned
in this particular controverted election petition. Those who
complained of the insufficiency of the constituency of Bridgwater
should have had the common honesty, the common decency,
to have waited for the result of the last petition. If it should
turn out that in this libelled and calumniated borough, though
formerly abuses had prevailed, no proof could be brought of
any bribery or corruption at the last election, was it jus-
tice to punish the existing constituency for crimes committed
long since, and which had not been continued at the last
election? This petition had for its object to produce the
effects which notoriety and report bad, it was well knonn,
upon the minds of juries, and Election Committees werejuries.
—(Hear, hear, hear.) And he (Mr. C.) could not help
suspecting that it was also intended to supply the de-
ficiency of proof against the return at the last election, by
going back to certain proceedings to which he was no party,
not having himself put up before for the borough. But he
should not be doing his duty to his colleague ( Mr. Broad-
wood) if lie did riot say that the charges against him respect-
ing a former election had not been pro% ed. It was said,
indeed, that the petition was not prosecuted on account of
certain cases not affecting the persons petitioning, which, as
we understood, was not the case. It was mist dishonest to-
wards his Hon. Colleague, for the purpose of prejudicing
the question to be tried to have this ancillary petition pre-
sented, apparently on public grounds ; but, in fact, in order
to destroy the chance of having justice done him en the pre..
sent occasion. With these remarks he would sit down, trusting
to the justice of the House. He had thought it his
duty to his Honourable Colleague and himself to
meet the statements that had been made, and to point
out to the House the impropriety of receiving this peti-
tition. He would throw himself on the sense of the House
and the Hon. Member—he did not know whether he ought to
do so or not—but he would ask the Hon. Member, as a mid of
conscience, and as a man of honour, which he preseumed the
Hon. Gentleman to be, to delay the printing of the petition,
until the merits of the petition could properly be gone into.
Mr. WARD had only discharged a public duty in pre-
senting the two petitions, which had been sent up to him by
post from Bridgewater. He was not responsible for the accu-
racy of the statements contained in the petition, and conceiving
there was not time to make an application to any Member, he
presented the petition. If the , Hon. Member opposite pre-
ferred it, he would most willingly defer the motion for print-
ing the petition until the time should arrive when the election
petition could be investigated.
Mr. COU RTE NAY was perfectly satisfied with the state-
ment of the Honourable Gentleman, and trusted that he had
said nothing that could be offensive to him, as he only intended
to express the indignation which he felt at the contents of the
petition.
Sir W. FOLLETT was not present during the first part
of this discussion, but he would appeal to the Speaker, and
to lion. Members whether the House ought to receive the
petition. Since he had been in the House he collected from
the lion. Member that he had had three petitions, one a
common election petition against the sitting Members, upon
the ground of bribery and corruption; be also undei stood that
the Hon. Gentleman bad a petition from a gentleman who
was a candidate at the late election, not only complaining
of the state of the borough at former elections, but also
referring to the late eleetion ; and the Honourable Member
for Sheffield thought it right to withdraw that petition.
Now the petition before the House was from certain electors
of the borough, not those who signed the election petition, but
others; and they had gone not only into matters connected
with former elections, but the very last election. They have
stated that bribery and corruption prevailed at
former elections, and they asked the House to inquire
into the state of the borough as regarded these and the very last
election which affected the seats of the sitting Members. He
would submit to the House, that when an election petition was
presented against the sitting Members it was not fair or right
that that House should receive another petition from the same bo-
rough making charges of the same sort, and asking a Commit-
tee of Inquiry of a different nature. It was not fair to the sitting
Members to have such statements made and printed, and cir-
culated among those Members who were to form the tribunal
before whom the case would ultimately come. At least in
decency and propriety, in fairness and candour, the peti-
tioners ought to wait until the election petition had been dis-
posed of. After that, it might be quite competent and right
of them to present it. Such was the course observed upon all
occasions—the election petition was first heard, and after its
merits had been investigated, then the present might be enter-
tained. 116 would suggest to the Hon. Member, in fairness,
to withdraw the petition—if not, he hoped the House would
reject it.—( Opposition cheers.)
Mr. HUME said the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had
confounded two things which were quite distinct. The alle-
gations in the petition now before them referred to many
years past, while the election petition referred to a particular
case and particular facts. The Hon. and Learned Member
must be further aware that the Members of an Election
Committee were sworn to decide upon the evidence before
them, and it was evident that the allegation of general cor-
ruption could not affect the sitting Members, because it could
not come judicially before them.
Mr. WARD had no wish to press hard upon any one, but
he considered that when a -petition was presented, signed by
so large a proportion of any constituency, the House was i
bound to receive the petition, and allow t to lay on the table
,or t'ne information of Members. He felt bound, therefore,
to move that the petition do lay on the table. As to that one
from Sir Thomas Lethbridge, after what had fallen from the
Speaker, he would take upon himself to withdraw it.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL enquired whether that motion
was objected to.
Sir W. FOLLETT'S.—e
Lord J. RUSSELL said, such being the case he would
state, that in general, when
butn
there wa
fosarntheeleHeotniogne
tpoetinitsitei.
n
before the House, it would be improper
, oghbet
tnu,atse
not
ty
di
bteofogroe
stohaftarpaetsitoonsa wy-a,
disposedthat the o
lHouse
not to receive the petition, and let it lie on the
Mr. COURTEN A Y agreed with the Noble Lord, _
that in a
case where only vague and general complaints were made such as
he proposed would be proper, but if he referred to the pet-
tion he would find that it made specific charges,
continued up even to the last election. which, we ie
Mr. LE AD ER had no intention, he could assure the
House, to defend the electors of Bridgewater—they. could
do that themselves.—( Laughter.) The presentation of
that petition, however, showed that there was some
honesty existing in the borough. He had risen, however, to
state that Bridgewater did not stand alone in its infamy ; it
was notorious that there were fifty other boroughs where
practices were as open as those complained of in the
I.7:;..sent petition. If the C,f.nic,:tee core appoilil.,:ti to
enquire into these practices, he should move that the
inquiry be extended into other boroughs ; for he thought it
unfair that Bridgewater should he held up to infamy, while it

was notorious that such places as Harwich, St. Albans, Sud-
bury, Norwich, and many other places were equally bad.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that after reading the pe-
tition, he felt bound to say that it alluded to circumstances
regarding the late election, which, subject to the opinion of
the Chair, in his opinion gave it very much the character of
an election petition.---( Cheers from the Tories.)
Sir W. FOLLETT could assure the Noble Lord and the
House, that it was only on the ground of the petition referring
directly to the last election, that he had thought it right to
detain the House upon it.
Mr. HUME rose amid loud cries of " Spoke." He sub-
mitted to the Chair whether where parties made statements
upon a petition who had not entered into recognizances, any
statement could be considered in the nature of an election

petition.
The SPEAKER said, if the question were distinctly put to
him, be should be bound -to say that it was not an election
petition, as it had nothing really to do with the seat. In his
opinion, the question was one for the House to decide.
Mr. PEASE, as one of the Members who were present
when the petition was brought forward, would put it to the
House to say whether the Hon. Member, in bringing it forward,
did not state that it had no relation to the election.—
( Cheers.) He bad been deceived by that statement,
and the House must have been so likewise, such being the
case he conceived that the petition ought to be withdrawn, if
the election petition were presented.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the House
ought to be careful in guarding against the adoption of a
course which would lead to prejudice.—( Hear, bear.) In
his opinion the election petition ought not to be received.
Mr. WAKLEY was surprised at the statements of the
Hon. and Learned Member below him. If the course he had re-
commended was to be pursued, nothing but corruption would
take place, and petitions would find no remedy in that House.
It was very possible that if such a rule were to be acted upon,
petitioners would come before the House by way of stratagem
_collusion would take place. Election petitions would be pre-
sented for the purpose of concealing the corruption and exclud-
ing the proofs of bribery; whilst those who took no part in
the illegal practices would be shut out from the attention of
the House. He thought that the course which ought to
be pursued was easily practised. Tho Hon. Member for
Bridgewater (Mr. Courtenay) had assured the House that the
statements of the petition so far as he was concerned, were to-
tally false. Why then should there not be a Select Committee
to enquire into those allegations, and to show the innocence of
the Hon. Member and his colleague? He (Mr. W.) wished
that the petition would be received. Looking to what had
been done with respect to the election petitions from the
sister country he was rather surprised at the exceeding
delicacy which was exhibited by Honourable Members on
the other side of the House.—(Hear, and cheers.)
Mr. GORING thought that the delicacy of which the
Hen. Msmber for Finsbury had spoken was by no means out
of place, and he thought that the gentlemen who supported the
proposition of the Hon. Member for Sheffield, did not act con-
sistently when they pressed upon the House such
a petition as this, affecting a gentleman whose return was pe-.
titioned agsinst at the same time. —( Hear, from the Opposition. )
Mr. WARD then consented to withdraw a petition, which
complained generally of illegal and corrupt practices in the
borough of Bridgewater at the last election ; and the petition
against the return was laid on the table, and (as we under-
stood), was ordered to be taken into consideration on the 12th
of December. The Honourable Member said that he
felt himself bound, for the satisfaction of those who
had entrusted him with the petition, to give the House
notice that he would take another opportunity of presenting
the petition from Bridgewater, when the same objection would
not apply to its reception, and. that he would found thereupon
a motion for a Committee of Inquiry.
. ELECTION PETITIONS.
The SPEAKER informed the House that he had received
through the Hanaper-office a petition against the return for
the Borough of Newry.
Mr. HARVEY presented a petition from the Borough of
Berwick-upon-Tweed, also against the late return.
LIMITATION OF THE FRANCHISE.
Mr. WA RD presented a petition signed by 628 Inhabi-
tants of Sheffield, for whose respectability and intelligence
he could vouch, complaining that under certain clauses of the
Reform Bill, they were deprived of their suffrage in
right of particular kinds of landed and household property,
such as Mills, Mill Yards, Engine Houses, &c. The peti-
tioners prayed for an alteration of the Bill in this respect.
MR. BLAKE.
Mr. WAKLEY gave notice, that after the recess he
would move an humble • address to her Majesty, that she would
be graciously pleased to reinstate Richard Blake,
Esq., in the office of Stipendiary Magistrate for
some past of Ireland ; or that if not to that, her Majesty would
he pleased to appoint him to some office of equal value.
ELECTION PETITIONz.2.
The SPEAKER announced that petitions had been re-
ceived against the returns for the boroughs of Bridgewater,
Poole, Tamworth—(greatlaughter)—Berwlek- on- Tweed, and
Kinsale. They were all fixed for the 12th of December.
LOWER CANADA.
Mr. LEADER wished to put a question to the Noble Lord
near him (Lord John Russell). He wished to know if within
the last six months any increase of troops had taken
place in Lawer Canada. He wished also to know
if Lord Gosford had made any application for addi
tional troops, and, if so, what the cause of that appli-
cation was. He wished to know if there had been any in-
crease in the amount of desertions amongst the British troops
in Lower Canada within that period, and lastly, when the
Noble Lord intended to bring forward his conciliatory mea-
sures for Lower Canada.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL was afraid his answers would
hardly prove satisfactory to the Hon. Member. With respect
to the first question, namely, whether troops had, within the
last six months, been sent into Lower Canada, he could
answer that a regiment had been sent from New Brunswick
to Lower Canada, which Lord Gosford had been authorised
to borrow. With respect to the question of whether there
was any application for an increased force to be sent to Lower
Canada, he must at present decline answering that question.
With respect to the desertion of soldiers belonging to her Ma-
jesty's troops in that country, he was not aware of any having
taken place, although he believed the utmost pains had been
taken by seditious persons in that Colony to induce them to
do so.—( Opposition cheers.) With respect to the last question
as to the time when any measures would be brought forward
by the Government, his only answer was, that upon that
subject he could not state any positive determination. He
could state what the present opinion of Government was, but
it was liable to be varied by the information which was to be
received from Canada. Whatever they might feel bound in
justice to do, her Majesty's Government were deeply per-
suaded that it was their duty to support in Canada the cause
of those who were well affected to the Crown of this country.
—( Renewed Opposition cheers.)
MALTA.
Mr. HUME said the House was aware that a Commission
had been sent out to Malta, and that reports had been sent
home--(Hear)—he begged to ask the Noble Lord whether he
had any objection to lay -on the table of the House any reports
which bad been sent from that Commission, and whether
any measures were likely to be adopted in consequence of
these reports?
Sir GEO. GREY said that the subject of these reports
would very shortly be laid before the House, as well as cer-
tain despatches which would show the steps that had been
taken by the Government.
Mr. HUME wished to know if these reports referred to
the liberty of the press.
Sir GEORGE GREY replied in the affirmative.
BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.
Mr. WALLACE said he wished to draw the attention of
the House for a few moments to a matter of considerable im-
portance. Last night, in one or more of the public papers,
appeared allegations derogatory to his character as a gentle-
man, and also as a Member of that House. By the interven-
tion of a friend lie had discovered that the allegations were not
intended to apply to his personal character, but to some
statements made by him publicly in that House. Therefore
he begged permission briefly to state the circumstances to the
House. It was endeavoured to be insinuated that he had,
about two years ago, received a petition accompanied with a
letter which he had refused to acknowledge the receipt of.
The facts were these. Information was sent to him that a
pi tition had been sent to him from a village in Scotland. which
he had never received. A second letter from the Postmaster-
General informed him that the petition and letter had been re.
gularly posted, and expressed sm prise that neither one cr other
had reached him. To that letter he (Mr. Wallace) had paid
no attention, being convinced that he had not received either ;
but removing his residence shortly afterwards he dicovercd a
leter among his papers, and acting entirely on his own feelings
asi a gentleman, he communicated to the Postmaster-General
the tact of that discovery. The petition he had not seen
since—he meant he had not seen it at all, The second point
regarded his having alleged a customary violation of seals at
the Post-office. He had often sent letters late at night (per-
haps Members are not aware that the General Post-office
seven and twelve o'clock at night, when the other receiving
was open, for the reception of letters, between the hours of
houses were closed), and on one of these occasions' e had sent
four letters-to the General Post-office. Next day he received a
letter from Colonel Maberly, which he held in his hand, stat-
ing that of the seals to the four letters one was broken, and
the other three were in a very insecure state. Now he ( Mr. W.)
always wrote on the outside of the letters which lie sent after 7
in the evening to the receiver,—please examine the seal of
this letter, and return the cover if it should appear to have
been violated;" and he held in his hand the franks of letters
which he had requested to be returned to him, ranging over a
period of three weeks ; and he affirmed that they were as well
sealed as gentlemen were in the habit of scaling their letters.
f, therefore, it was ieteeded to be insinuated that he (Mr•
W.) could be guilty of putting letters into the Post-office
carelessly p pp
sealed, for the urpose of supporting such .an allega-
tion as he alluded to, he threw back the charge with the ut-
most disdain. He distinctly d"clarcd that he had nev, r stated
any thing with regard to the Post-office which was not sub-
stantially true. Ile would, at a more fitting opportunity, show
to the House the manner in which the correspondence of the
country was treateO, according to Return No. 495, which he
had moved for last Session.
Mr. BA RING said as to the latter part of the Hon. Mem-
ber's statement, he did not think that the House had anything
to do with it; but with respect to the former part he (Mr.
B.) did not wish to make any allusions or observations which
might tend to create more feeling upon the subject than that
which already existed. But he might be allowed to remark,
that as his Hon. Friend, ii 'making charges against the Post-
office, did not use very guarded expressions or soft words, he
must allow parties, in repelling those charges,
to use ex prcs-
siees whVt nu. 7,1 create in his feeling Gi inorf,:,-
tar} unpleasantness. But he (Mr. B.) was quite sure that
the words used, and of which his Han. Friend complained,
were used in discharging the duty of defending that Depart.