The Sun.
London, England, 1835-05-26 00:00:00

HULL ELECTION.

Mr. HANDLE Y presented a petition from a person
named White, a voter for Kingston-upon-Hull, praying that
the House would declare the election of David Carruthers,
Esq. null and void. The petition was founded upon the re-
solution which was agreed to by the House sometime since, by
which voters who could prove bribery at an election might,
within 2S days, petition the House to declare the election of
the Member at whose instance the bribery had taken place void.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL doubted whether the petition
was in time, but as the present was the first instance of a
petition being presented in consequence of the Resolution,
and as there might some doubts arise, perhaps the best way
would be to receive the petition at the present moment, in
order that it might be printed, deferring its consideration
till to-morrow.

Sir R. PEEL was of opinion that provided the petition con-
tained allegations of bribery and corruption, and was presented
before the expiring of the fourteen days, the House was, in that
case pledgedfto adopt any specific measure in relation to it,
but had merely to receive it as an election petition.
The SPEAKER thought that in looking at this case
the House had two facts to consider as to the propriety of
receiving or rejecting this petition—the first was whether
the time of payment was alleged in the petition, and secondly
whether the petition has been presented with 28 days from the
time of such alleged payment.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. HANDLEY stated the payment as we understood him,
was alleged to have taken place the 13th of April, and the House
it would be recollected, was not sitting from the 20th of April
till the 12th of May, so that the petitioner was excluded from
availing himself of that interval.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL read the rule of the House in re-
lation to this point—it required that a petition alleging bribery
or corruption against any member, by himself or his agents,
must be presented within 28 days after the alleged payment,
bribery or corruption. And in case the House should not be
sitting, the petition must be presented within 16 days after its
next meeting. The question is, was the House sitting dur-
ing the 28 days of the alleged bribery, and if it were not, had
the 14 days since the meeting of Parliament expired.
Mr. Goulburn, the Attorney-General, Mr. O'Connell, and
Mr. llandley, explained their interpretation of the rule referred
to by the Noble Secretary of State for the Home Department.
Mr. F. KELLY referred to the terms of the resolution,
which limited the time of petitioning to 28 days, after the day
of the alleged act of bribery, which In this case was committed
on the 13th of April, or if the House was not sitting at the time
within 14 days after the meeting of the House.—( Hear.)
After a few words from Sir G. CLERK,
Lor JOHN RUSSELL said he was of opinion that it was
a petition which should not be received.
Sir ROBERT PEEL was of the same opinion, because
28 days had expired, and the parties had not embraced the
opportunity, which they might have done.
The SPEAKER suggested that the rule of the House
ought to be strictly adhered to on all occasions, to secure the
proper regulation of the public business.
Mr. HANDLEY said he had not had the petition more
than ten minutes or a quarter of an hour in his possession.
The petition was then withdrawn.
NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY.

Mr. ROBINSON rose to propose his motion relative to
the right of British subjects to a concurrent fishery on that
part of the coast of Newfoundland, commonly called the French
Shore. The Hon. Member contended that this was not
merely a question of local con;rol, but one affecting the general
interests of the country, and therefore one which deserved the
attention of the House, and especially his Majesty's Government.
Though twenty-one years had elapsed since the treaty was
signed, yet no one was able to read it aright. Therefore it
was that he thought he was entitled to bring the subject under
the notice of the House and Governtmet,in order that the people
of Newfoundland might know whether they had a right to fish
upon their own shores. He had frequently brought the ques-
tion on before, but had yielded to the Government upon one
ground in another. When the Duke of Wellington came into
office, he received a strong memorial from Newfoundland upon
the subject of the great delay they had experienced.
He enclosed that memorial to the Noble Duke, strongly
pressing the subject upon his notice, in order that the people
of that island might exercise their rights if they really had them,
and if they really had not, they should be told at once that
they had not, and so put them in a much better situation than
now. He. whatever Government was in power, must
now protest against any further delay—the French had
a motive for delay, because they were now allowed
undisturbed possession of a great part of the share ; but
surely it was the duty of the Government, now after a delay
from 1814, to put a final settlement upon the words of the
treaty. He was bound to admit that the pretensions of the
French were not altogether without foundation, for there was
a declaration annexed to the treaty, which in some degree
countenanced them in their pretensions.