The Sun.
London, England, 1834-08-01 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, AUGUST 1, 1834

individuals of high rank, with having forged documents for -the
purpose of dismissing the petitioner from the -service. His late
Royal Highness the Duke of York had paid particular attention to
this case, and had given it as his decided opinion that the petitioner
should be dismissed the service. The Right Hon. and Learned
Member then entered into a detail of the circumstances connected
with the commercial speculations of Colonel Horne, and contended
that from a dispassionate view of the case, the decision of the Court
of Inquiry was perfectly justifiable. In conclusion, he thought the
phraseology of the petition was such as to render its presentation
to that House rather questionable.
The SPEAKER did not think that the Hon. and Learned
Member had put a fair construction upon the wordinc, of the peti-
tion, and he (the Speaker) did not conceive that the passage to
which the Hon. and Learned Member had alluded, rendered the
rejection of the petition necessary.
Colonel WILLIAMS conceived that the gallant petitioner had
been treated with great harshness and unfairness. Ile hoped the
matter would undergo further investigation.
Sir GEO. MURRAY thought the prerogative of the Crown
should be exercised with due caution and discretion. In the pre-
sent case it appeared that such had been the line of proceeding, and
the Court of Inquiry had been conducted and presided over by offi-
cers of the highest rank and character, and no imputation., could
be cast upon them.
After a few words from Major BEAUCLERK and another
Hon. Member in support of the petition,
Sir FRANCIS VINCENT replied, and 'the petition was laid
on the table.
The How. MEmnza then presented a petition from St. Alban's
against drunkenness.
Mr. PHILLPOT TS presented a petition from a parish in the
diocese of Winchester, in support of the Church.

Sir E. CODRINGTON presented a petition from George W.
Manby, praying that the House would appoint a Committee to
consider the expediency of appointing a fire police.
Mr. C. GRANT presented a petition from Inverness in favour
of the Scotch Bankruptcy Bill; and from the same place, upon the
subject of Church patronage ; and from the schoolmasters of the
same place, praying:for an increase of salary.
AFFAIRS OF CANADA.

Mr. WALLACE said he had a petition to present of a very ex-
traordinary nature, such as he had never expected the honour of
presenting. It was from a gentleman of Nova Scotia, and com-
plained of the most extraordinary grievance that he (Mr. W.) had
ever heard of. He would remark here that it was now more re-
quisite to look to the interests of our colonies ; since the alteration
of the representation by the Reform Bill rendered it impossible for
the Colonies to obtain a representative by sending a certain sum of
money, and thus purchasing a seat in that House, they Were now
compelled to get such Members as himself to state their case to the
best of their abilities. The petitioner was a gentleman of the name
of Maurice Christie, residing at Gaspe, in Lower Canada, who
stated that he had been five times unanimously elected as represen-
tative of that district, and as often expelled by the Assembly of
Quebec. The reasons for his exclusion were simply these. Pre-
vious to his election this gentleman had, as Chairman of the Quarter
Sessions, been called upon as a matter of duty to send a list of
those gentlemen whom he thought fit and proper persons to
fill the office of Justice of the Peace, thereby giving him a power,
which he was found to exercise to the best of his knowledge and
belief, of sending only the names of those whom he thought well
worthy to fill the situation. This Gentleman in the due exercise
of his duty omitted the names of four gentlemen who had formerly
stood upon the list. He (Mr. W.) submitted to the House that
he was well entitled so to exercise his discretion, and he
would ask if the Lords Lieutenants of Counties in this
country were not bound to exercise a similar discretion For this
act, however, this gentleman was tried before a secret conclave ;
he was not admitted to hear the evidence against him, he was not
allowed counsel, and he (Mr. W.) would ask what would be the
situation of the Hon. Member for Colchester if he had not had the
opportunity of an open and fair investigation? But he would also
ask if this conduct were not traceable to another matter ? This
district was situated at a distance of 400 miles from the
capital of the province, it was separated from it by a distance
of 400 miles of forest land impassable in winter and scarcely to be
passed in summer. Its manufactures were of a totally different
nature from those in which Quebec took any interest, and he would
ask the House if it were not possible that some feelings towards the
individual who had advocated the separation of this district from
the province and its addition to that of New Brunswick, might
not have influenced the Members of the Assembly of Quebec
to act as they had done ? This gentleman had most . openly
advocated a separation, and he (Mr. W:) in the same situation
would have done the same, and he would promise that next session
he would go more at large into this part of the subject.- This dis-
trict contained a most influential a nd numerous population, amount-
ing to 14,000, and the representative of this large number of per-
sons had been five times expelled the assembly of Quebec.—
( Hear, hear.) What would be said if that House should
act in a similar manner to those Irish Members who advocated
a repeal of the Union, and had not the people of Gaspe the same
cause to complain which the people of Ireland in such a situation
would have ? He was not aware that any objection was to be made
to this petition. The petitioner prayed to be heard at the bar of
that House, in order that that House might decide whether, as a
gentleman, a magistrate, and an honest man, he had 'done anything
to disqualify him from being a Member of the Assembly of Que-
bec. He claimed from the House on the part of this much
injured individual an opportunity of showing that he was an honest
and injured man, and he (the petitioner) was indifferent whether
this opportunity was afforded him at the bar of that House or before
a public tribunal in his own country—it was to him one
and the same thing.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") He hoped
it would be enough to repeat that this gentleman had been five
times unanimously elected, and as often expelled,—the constituency
being thus in his person disfranchised—to induce the Government,
as this was an extreme case, to step forward and interfere.
The Hon. Member then presented petitions from the Chambers of
Commerce of Greenock and Glasgow, complaining of the Light-
house Dues.

Mr. C. RUSSELL presented a petition from the Mayor, Ma-
gistrates, and 300 inhabitants of Reading, complaining of the in-
crease of beer-shops.
Mr. JONES presented several petitions from the Diocese of
Armagh, in support of the Irish Established Church.
Mr. BARHAM presented a petition from a place the name of
which we did not hear, complaining of agricultural distress.
Mr. BLAMIRE presented a petition from Carlisle against the
proposed increase in the duty on licenses.
Mr. HOWARD supported the petition.
Mr. C. FERGUSON stated that the proposed increase in the
duty on licenses was very generally called for.
Mr. BLAMIRE then presented a petition from Elizabeth
Moore, who had been committed to the Meet, for contempt, and
praying the interference of the House.
Sir J. REID presented several petitions from Kent, in support
of the Established Church.

Mr. dOULBURN presented, several petitions from Boston,
and other places, to the same effect.
Admiral FLEMING presented a petition from 800 electors of
the town of Chieff, in Perth, many of whom had voted for Sir
George Murray, complaining of undue influence, and praying for
vote by ballot.

CINQUE PORTS PILOT BILL.
On the motion of Admiral TROWBRIDGE the House
resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the Cinque
Ports Pilot Bill.
It being three o'clock, the House adjourned.