objecting to the qualification of voters, as well as in his attempts to make them aware of the consequences of taking a false oath, the said James Stuart experienced the greatest difficulty in obtaining a hearing, by reason of the loud clamours and the interruption proceeding from the adverse Candidate and his partisans, and the encouragement given to the voters to take the oath at all hazards. And further this Deponent saith not. Sworn at the City of Quebec, the 21st day of (Signed) EDWD. BOWEN, J. B. R. True Copy, J. STUART. No. 4. Affidavit of ROBERT JONES, Esquire. DISTRICT OF MONTREAL. ROBERT JONES, of the Borough of William-Henry, in the District of Montreal, in the Province of Lower Canada, Esquire, Lieutenant Colonel in the Militia of the said Province, and also one of His Majesty's Justices of the Peace for the said District, maketh oath, that he has resided for upwards of fifty years in the said Borough, and was particularly acquainted with the proceedings which took place at the election of a representative for the said Borough, held there in July, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-seven. That he, the deponent, attended the hustings daily, during the continuance of the said election, and was seldom absent therefrom. That he, the deponent, was present when Antoine Aussant, François Vandal, Nicholas Buckner, Joseph Claprood, and others, who presented themselves as voters at the said election, were objected to by James Stuart, Esquire, one of the candidates, and were required to take the oath of qualification to entitle them to vote. That the said James Stuart, when the said oath was about to be administered to the said persons, used every exertion in his power to make them acquainted with the nature of the said oath, and the penalties they would incur if they swore falsely, but experienced great difficulty in doing so, in consequence of clamorous interruptions proceeding from the adverse candidate, Mr. Nelson, and several of his partisans, who loudly and vehemently urged the said persons to take the oath, the said Mr. Nelson assuring them in the most earnest manner that no harm could or should happen to them from doing so, and that he, the said Mr. Nelson, would stand between them and harm: and the deponent recollects that it was stated by the said James Stuart, with reference to the impropriety of the these assurances, that the Pillory was one of the punishments annexed to the offence of Perjury, and that Mr. Nelson could not and would not supply their places there. That the said James Stuart repeatedly represented to the Returning Officer, Mr. Crebassa, the necessity there was that he should explain to these individuals, they being illiterate and extremely ignorant, the nature of the oath to be taken, that they might not unguardedly become liable to the penalties of Perjury, but the said Returning Officer refused to do so, saying it was his duty to administer the oath and nothing more, without any explanations on his part, and he did accordingly administer the oath to them, amidst the clamorous outcries of Mr. Nelson and several of his partisans, urging them to take the oath, and the assurances of indemnity on the part of Mr. Nelson as aforesaid. That the said James Stuart did tell the said persons, by whom the oath of qualification was taken as aforesaid, that if they swore falsely they would be prosecuted for perjury, and this was said by him as it would have been said by any other candidate under like circumstances:—but the said James Stuart did not say that he, as Attorney General, would prosecute them for perjury, or that he, as Attorney General, had alone the right of prosecuting for perjury, or that those who voted for him had nothing to fear, while those who voted against him would be prosecuted for perjury, nor did the said James Stuart, on the occasion of administertng the oath to the said persons, use any words of such import, or that could bear such an interpretation, nor did the deponent ever hear, either during or subsequently to the said election, that any such language had ever been used by the said James Stuart until, to his great surprise, being present in Court, he heard the said Mr. Nelson, on his examination as a witness, on the trial of the said Antoine Aussant for perjury, in March last, declare that such language had been used by the said James Stuart. That deponent having been long resident at the Borough of WilliamHenry, and having himself represented the said Borough in several Parliaments, was frequently referred to by the said James Stuart, for information respecting the qualification of persons about to vote, or who it was expected would vote at the said election; and in every instance, within the knowledge of the deponent, in which the right of a person desirous of voting for the said James Stuart was deemed questionable, the particulars of his supposed qualification were inquired into by the said James Stuart, and if his right to vote was found defective, he was told it was so and his vote was not accepted. That the deponent is well acquainted with one François St. Germain, who voted for the said James Stuart at the election. That the said St. Germain told the deponent, the day before he voted, that he intended to vote for the said James Stuart, and grounded his right to vote on a reservation, which he said he had made in a Deed of Gift to his son of a house in the Borough, by which he had reserved to himself the usufruct for his life of two apartments in the house, over and above a liferent; and the deponent also knows that the said St. Germain, before he gave his vote, went to the lodgings of the said James Stuart, to consult him as to his right to vote, under the reservation which he stated he had made in the Deed of Gift to his son as aforesaid. That the conduct of the said James Stuart, throughout the said election, in every instance in which it came within the knowledge of the deponent, was marked by fairness and a strict regard to propriety. That to the deponent's knowledge, persons who had voted at former elections and were desirous of voting for the said James Stuart, were interrogated by him as to the nature of their supposed qualification, and he being of opinion that they had no right to vote, declined their votes, which were not given. That the deponent has also a knowledge that several persons, who were desirous of voting for the said James Stuart, and were willing to take the oath of qualification, towards the close of the election, were sent out of the way to a distance from the Borough, by the desire and at the expense of the said James Stuart, after he had inquired into their supposed qualification, and had ascertained that they had no legal right to vote:-and the reason then assigned by the said James Stuart for this step was, that the partisans of the adverse candidate, not being scrupulous as to means, might, if these persons were not sent out of the way, induce them to vote for him. And further this deponent saith not. ANTHONY VON IFFLAND, of the Borough of William-Henry, in the District of Montreal, in the Province of Lower Canada, Esquire, Doctor of Physic, and one of His Majesty's Justices of the Peace for the said District of Montreal, maketh oath, that he has a particular knowledge of the circumstances which occurred at the election of a representative for the said Borough, held there in July, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-seven, he the deponent having been present daily at the hustings, and having only occasionally absented himself from them. That the deponent was present when Antoine Aussant, Antoine Hus, alias Cournoyer, Nicholas Buckner, François Vandal, and others who presented themselves as voters at the said election, were objected to by James Stuart, Esquire, one of the candidates, and were required to take the oath of qualification to entitle them to vote. That the said James Stuart, previous to the administering of the oath to the said persons last named, endeavoured to make them acquainted with the nature of the oath they were about to take, and the penal consequences they would incur by swearing falsely, but found great difficulty in doing so, by reason of the interruptions he experienced from the adverse candidate, Mr. Nelson, and several of his partisans, who with vehemence and loud clamour urged the said persons, and particularly the said Aussant, Hus, alias Cournoyer, Buckner, and Vandal, to take the oath; the said Mr. Nelson assuring them, in the most positive terms, that no harm should or could happen to them from doing so, and that he, the said Mr. Nelson, would stand between them and harm; in reference to which assurances, and by way of putting the said persons on their guard, it was stated by the said James Stuart, that the pillory was one of the punishments annexed to the offence of perjury, and that Mr. Nelson could not and would not supply their places there. That the said James Stuart, to prevent the effect of the assurances and solicitations proceeding from the adverse candidate, repeatedly represented to the Returning Officer, Mr. Crebassa, the necessity there was that he should explain to these individuals, they being extremely ignorant, the nature of the oath to be taken, that they might not be unguardedly involved in the penalties of perjury, but the said Returning Officer refused to do so, saying it was his duty to administer the oath and nothing more, without any explanation on his part, and he did accordingly administer the oath to them, amidst the loud and importunate requests of the said Mr. Nelson frequently repeated, that they would take the oath and his assurances of indemnity as aforesaid. That the said James Stuart did tell the said persons, by whom the oath of qualification was taken as aforesaid, that if they swore falsely they would be prosecuted for perjury, and this was said by him in such terms as would have been used by any other candidate under like circumstances; but the said James Stuart did not say that he, as Attorney General, would prosecute them for perjury, or that he, as Attorney General, had alone the right to |