The Sun.
London, England, 1842-06-28 00:00:00

terms as the former one, requiring Mr. Walter's attend-
ance; but on the meeting of the Committee on the follow-,
ing day, they received a second letter from Mr. Walter,
still declining; to attend, and stating that he had no other
answe;• to give than that which was communicated in his
former letter. This letter was read in the Committee at
their meeting on the 25th inst., and they accordingly re-
solved that the two letters should be reported to the
House, that the House might take such steps thereon as
to it might seem fitting.
Mr. ROEBUCK then moved that Mr. Walter be
called to the bar to-morrow.
Mr. WALLACE, as we understood, seconded the mo-
tion.—Agreed to.
Mr. BLACKSTONE would suggest to the Hon. and
Learned Member that his motion should be that Mr.
Walter should be called to the bar forthwith, as he be-
lieved he was in attendant?.
CASE OF MR. ST. GEORGE.
Mr. SHELL gave notice that on going into Committee
of Supply he should move for the papers in Mr. St.
George's case.

SYRIA.
Pr. BOW RING deferred the question of which he
had given notice, with respect to Syria, to a future day.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.
1,-,rd J. RUBSELL gave notice of his intention, next
session, to -move for leave to bring in a Bill to alter the
law with respect to Municipal Corporations.
BRIBERY BILL.
Mr. M....MILNES gave notice of his intention, in
Committee on the Bribery No. 2 Bill, to move the omis-
sion of the clause which disfranchised a voter for life

•-
who had ••
taken a bribe, and to substitute in its place a

clause disfranchising the voter for ten years.
MR. ROEBUCK'S COMMITTEE—RIGHT OF
MEMBERS TO BE PRESENT.

Mr. COCHRANE rose and said, on presenting him-
self at the door of the room of the Committee, of which
the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath was Chairman,
he was informed that, though a Member of the House, he
could not be admitted ; he begged to ask whether the
Committee were justified in issuing that order, and whe-
ther it was not a breach of the privileges of that House ?
Mr. ROEBUCK said the Hon. Member might have
saved himself some trouble, if he had asked whether such
an order had been issued or not. No person attending
on that Committee had received any such instructions ;
it was a misc;nception on the part of the person to whom
the Hon. Member applied.
Mr. COCHRANE said, on applying for admission, he
was told that no person was allowed to enter unless he
was a member of the Commit er. He certainly aided,
that if he (Mr. Clchrane) would send in his name, he
might be admitted. He did not do that, as he did not
want to ask any personal favour of the Hon. and
Learned Member.
Mr.- ROEBUCK said, in order to set himself right,
he might state that one Hon. Member had come into
the Committee that very day, asking if Members of the
• House were to be admitted. He was informed that the
Committee was at that moment under deliberation,
and that the Committee had come to the unanimous
conclusion that it was for the interest of the inquiry
that it should be conducted, if possible, with only the
witness under examination present. That resolution
was read to the Hon. Member when he applied for ad-
mission. _ _ _ _

Major BERESFORD said he had sent in a special
mesa; e, requesting to know if he might be present at
the inquiry ; the Committee deliberated on the subject,
and be was told that he could not be present.
—(Hear, hear.) He then stated that he had applied
for admittance as a Member of Parliament, but chiefly as
a person interested in the inquiry. About twenty mi-
nutes afterwards the Committee sent for him again, and
he was then told that it was the unanimous con-
clusion of the Committee that the person under
examination thoutd alone be present. He entered
into an argument to the efibct that he claimed
admittance chiefly a 5 a matter of right, as a per-
son accused, who had a right to hear the evidence
adduced against him. This Was the right of the greatest
critninal, even of one who might be pronounced a felon
On the next day.—(Hear, hear.) He claimed to be pre-
sent on the ground that evidence might be adduced
whieh he might be enabled to refute, while, if he was
absent, it was brought against him in the dark, and his
character might be calumniated behind his back,
without the power of reinstating it ;: he might be
stabbed behind his back by anonymous . enemies.—

(Hear, hear.) Ire was bohnd to state that the
manner of the Honourable Member and of the

CoMMittee was kind and courteous in a great degree, but
they decidedly stated the principle by which persons were
excluded. If
.he insisted on his right, as a Member
of Parliament, he was told he might be present.
He (Major Beresford) then stated that having laid his
reasons •belbre that Committee, and having been refused
as a principle, he would not avail himself of his right as
a Member, as if he did so he considered he should be
entering the room under false pretences—(Cheers)---
and under those circumstances he should decline enter-
ing the room. At the same time he felt bound to state,
as far as his own examination went, that although it was
most stringent and searching, yet it had been conducted
in a most gentlemanlike manner.
Mr. BAILLIE COCHRANE thought the House
would agree with him in opinion that some explanation
was necessary, as from what had occurred there had
been great room for misconception.
Mr. YORKE could confirm the statement of the Hon.
and Learned Member for Bath. It was not the intention
of the Committee to conduct the inquiry as though a charge
had been made against any individual ; and the Com-
mittee had come to the determination unanimously that,
•out of delicacy to all the parties concerned, it would be
hest that the inquiry should be conducted with closed door.
The application of the Hon. Member for admission had been
met precisely in the manner in which the Hon. Member
had stated, and the Hon. Member having been refused
lulmitt.ance as a party concerned; but having had admit-
tance granted to horn as a Member of the House, said that
he considered it useless to assert his right as a Member
of the House, and retired. The question of refusing ad-
mittance to a Member of the House had never evenbeen
raised before the Committee.
Mr. ROEBUCK moved that the documents which he
bud presented should be printed for the use of Members
4only.—Agreed to.
AMERICAN SLAVES IN CANADA.

.On the motion for the reading of the Order of the
Da.)• being put.
Mr; HA WES wished to ask the Secretary of the
colonios, if it was true that on the 17th January last,
the authorities of the United States of America had de-
manded ot' the authorities of Upper Canada that they
should deli ver up a person of colour, named Nelson
Haggett, as a fugitive from justice, it being well
understood that a fugitive from justice meant
uothing more than a runaway slave. No charge
was made against the man except • that he
was a fugitive from justice. The demand was
acceded to, and Nelson Haggett was taken t.) Arkansas,
and lodged in gaol. He (Mr. Hawes) wished to know,
whether this statement was correct, and what was the
policy intended to be pursued by her Majesty's Govern-
ment in similar cases ?
Lord. STANLEY said the Hon. Gentleman was not
c -irrect in his statement. It was perfectly true that an
apt•dieation bad been made to the Canadian authorities
to daL;ver up the individual in question as a fugitive
from jo.ltice. Ile was charged generally with highway
robbery., There was an act of the Province of
Upper Canada, authorising the Governor to deliver
up to the ,American authorities fugitives from justice,
charged -Nith certain specified crimes, on being
furnished with the warrant for the committal of such
parson, and also on being furnished with a copy
of the depositions, provided it should appear
from those depositions that the person so de-
m:tided had been guilty of what would have been an
fierce against the law of Canada. On the first appli-
ceation made for the delivery of this man Haggett, these
documents were wanting, and the Governor refused to
deliver him up. A second application was made, accom-
panied by the proper documents, and from the de-
positions it appeared that the man had actually
committed a robbery on a person not his master, and he
was accordingly delivered up and imprisoned in Arkansas.
'Vie question as to the propriety of delivering him up.
Iwa been submitted by the Governor to the Executive.
CouNil, and, by their advice, the man had been delivered
up.

POOR-LAWS.
Mr. GILL begged to remind the Right Honourable
Gentleman, dal` Secretary of State for the Home
Department, that a deputation from Plymouth on the
subject of the Poor-laws, had requested an inter-
view with him, which ho (Sir James Graham) had
declined to receive. lie (Mr. Gill) had understood that
since that the Right Hon. Baronet had received deputa-
tions from Bristol and Canterbury on the subject of the
Poor-law Amendment Act. He wished to ask the
Right Hon. Baronet if this statement was correct, and
if so, on what grounds he had refused to, see the depu-
tation from Plymouth ?
Sir J. GRAHAM said that it was perfectly true that
he had received the deputations from Bristol and Canter-
bury. It appeared that a misconception existed in the
. minds of parties living in those places as to the operation
of the law on the local Acts. He had received those
,deputations for the purpose of removing that
Toisconception. With respect to the Plymouth Board
01' Guardians, he had some time before received
a• -memorial from those gentlemen, setting forth their
views of the Poor-law Amendment Act, so that no mis-
apprehension could exist in that case. One part of the
memorial of the Plymouth Guardians, related to the relief
given by them to the inhabitants of the Channel Islands, and
on tlisA point he had referred them to the Poor-law Corn-
inissiowss as being more likely to aftbrd them the
proper explanation. He must exercise some discretion
with regard to receiving deputations from the Boards of
Guardians, and he could assure the Hon. Gentleman that
it was the necessities of the public set vice alone which
had prevented Lim from receiving the Plymouth depu-
lation, towards which he had not meant the slightest
tlisrespEct.

IRISH STAMP ACT.
Tir• JOIIN O'CONNELL asked the Right
Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he :n-
-tended to introduce the Irish Stamp Act ?
'lllO CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER st.id
that on tits first vacant day he would introduce the mea-
sure.

POOR-LAWS.
Captain YECHELL asked the Right Hon. Baronet,
the Secretirry of State for the Home Department, if he
had declined to raceive a deputation from Brighton on
the subject ofthe Poor-laws ?
Sir JAMES GRAOAM said he did not know exactly
what took place as to We deputation to which the Hon.
Gentleman referred. He (Sir J. Graham) had had the
honour of seeing the Hon. .and Gallant Member at the
head of a deputation on the subject of the Gilbert
Unions, which rendered him rather cautious in future as
to such interviews.—(Loud laughter.)
Captain PECHELL wished to know if the Right Hon.
Baronet..had declined the interview with the deputation
fr°o3 the Brigiliva Board of Guardians