The Sun.
London, England, 1835-05-27 00:00:00

CORK COUNTY ELECTION.

Mr. DYSON here brought up the following reduced list of
,he Members ballotted to serve on the Committee upon this
Election, the Members on which were sworn :
Barneby, John Houlclsworth, T. Maher, John
Campbell, Sir H. Lewis, NV Parker, J.
Don, O'Connor M*Namara, W. Whitmore, T. C.
Fergus, John Wilbraham, R. B.
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL RESUMED.
Mr. ROEBUCK thought if Honourable Members were
anxious to further the ends of religion by preventing per-
sons going out on Sunday, the best course would be
to shut up turnpikes, and the first that he should recommend
to be shut was Hyde-park turnpike..--(A laugh.) Hon.
Members knew well what turnpike he meant.—( Laughter. )
He (Mr. Roebuck) took a ride last Sunday in that
direction, and the first person that he saw was the
Duke of Wellington, on horseback.—( Laughter and
cheers.) Upon going a little further he saw several
persons watering Hyde-Park for the purpose of making it
commodious for the rank and fashion that resorted there on a
Sunday afternoon.—(Laughter.) When he got as far
as Hammersmith, he there saw the Lord Chief Justice on
horseback.—( Cheers.) He then went to Hampton Court,
and there he saw the Right Honourable Baronet the
Member for Tamworth.—( Cheers and laughter.) Now these
were all persons who, from their station in life, were enabled
to go from place to place in their own carriages, or upon
their own horses, but the persons who would go upon
the railroad, occupied a very different station in life. The
consequence of shutting up the railway would be this,
that persons, instead of going by the rail-road, would have
to go the other road, which would take them twice as long.
Such being the case, he thought the Honourable Member
for Somerset in introducing the present clause had
laid his finger upon the wrong point.—( Hear, hear.)
It was altogether a pharisaical extravagance on the part of
those persons who got up these petitions to persuade the House
to pass such a Bill as this. Why could they not leave every
man to manage his own conscience, and to take into his own
hands his own spiritual concerns ?—( Hear.) It was not the
business of any legislature to command men how to conduct
their religious duties. The truth was, that they meddle too
much with each other in these matters; but if they would
allow every man to take care of himself, they would have much
better people than they had now.—( Hear.)
Mr. BUCKINGHAM could not but condemn the fallacy of
attempting to make people religious by act of Parliament.
As a believer in the Gospel, he must confess
that he saw nothing in it which could call for
the observance of the Sabbath with the rigidity of the
Jewish law,--(Hear.) Indeed he was not disposed to
argue the point upon religious grounds ; he consi:
dered the Sabbath rather as a civil regulation, and
believed that the non-observance of it was a great injury to the
- • i..ses who were too much overworked._ The expe-
labouring - that rest upon one day in seven was
rience of mankind had 5ne...,. not alle ea upon t 9
beneficial, while he held that the State wW
"

-
legislate upon matters of 'conscience and religious duties, it
was bound to enforce the civil ordinance of the Sabbath as a
matter of civil right and privilege.—( Hear.)
Mr. O'CONNELL deprecated the introduction of such
clauses into a common railroad bill—( Hear, hear)—and
the waste of the time of the House in being called"
upon to legislate in this way. Why should this railroad
be shut up when it would enable the religious man to
visit so many more Churches ?—( Cries of " Hear, hear.")
It would also enable people to enjoy the fresh air with
greater facility. Would it not be monstrous to shut up
this railroad, by which a delay of twenty-four hours would
be occasioned in the remittance of the produce of Ireland,
such as meat, butter, and eggs, which would become tainted,
and provision, instead of being rendered cheaper to the
poor, made still dearer ? He hoped the House would
not entertain this motion, but if they were to legislate
upon this question, let it be fairly brought forward and man-
fully met; but let them not indulge in this kind of legislation,
which was unfair and unfounded in principle.
Mr. A. TREVOR supported the clause of his Hon. Friend,
because he thought that Sunday travelling ought to be pre-
vented, although he was against interfering with the reasonable
recreation of the poor on that day.
Mr. W. DUNCOMBE begged to advise the Hon. Gen-
tleman to withdraw the clause, for it was impossible to establish
a different principle, with respect to rail-roads, from what re-
gulates all other roads.
Sir A. AGNEW rose amidst loud cries of " Divide, di-
vide." He supported the clause of his Hon. Friend.—(The
cries of " Divide" were again renewed.)
An Hon. MEMBER, who stated that he had represented
Scotch constituencies for the last 20 years, during which time
he had frequently remarked the total inability of the poor
people of large towns to provide for themselves any recreation,
while the middling classes, such as shopkeepers, were able to
hire carriages, and with their families drive into the country on
the Sabbath, said he hoped the clause would be negatived.
The Gallery was then cleared for a division, when there
appeared for the introduction of
The Clause ... 34
Against it
.... 212
Majority against the Clause ..... ...-178
The announcement that the clause was lost was received with
loud cheering.

CANTERBURY ELECTION.
Mr. WALTER brought up the report of the Committee
on the Canterbury Election, delaring that Mr. Lushington,
the sitting Member; had been duly elected, that the petition of
Mr. Villiers was not frivolous or vexatious, and that the oppo-
sition to the petition was neither frivolous nor vexatious.
HULL ELECTION.

Mr. HANDLEY 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 28 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. PE EL 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 not in
tha, ease pledged to adopt any specific measure in relation to
it, but had merely to rcc,ive 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 within 28 days from
the time of such alleged payment.--( Hear, hear.)
Mr. HANDLE Y 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 14 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. Handley, 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 control, 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 Government, 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 or another. On the accession of his Grace the Duke
of Wellington to office he ( Mr. Robinson) received from New-
foundland a strong memorial, complaining of the long delay in
giving an answer, and almost insisting that the Government
must say whether the memorialists had a right of fishing on
that part of the coast alluded to. On the 25th of February he
wrote to the Duke of Wellington, enclosing the memorial,
and in the letter he stated it to be his opinion that the English
had a concurrent right with the French of fishing on the coast
in question, and that the Government ought to tell them so,
or tell them if, and why, the right was taken away. He
was told soon after by the Under Secretary for the Colonies,
that the reason the Duke of Wellington had returned no an-
swer to his communication was, that the negociations with
France were still pending. It was for these reasons that he
placed a notice of motion on the subject on the books for
that day, and which made him feel it his duty to advert
once more to the matter. He protested against any fur-
ther delay in adjusting this question. The French had an
interest in having the settlement of the question indefi-
nitely postponed, because, whilst it was so, they arrogated
to themselves the right of interrupting all others fishing on
the coast. Unless the Government could satisfy him by co-
gent reasons that the question could not as yet have been
settled, he would persevere in his motion. This right of fish-
ing was given so far back as 1730, and so important was it
thought to be that it formed a separate article in all treaties
between this country and France ever since that time. France
had no other right of fishing than that given by the treaty of
Utrecht, and that was nothing more than a permissive right to
fish. He remembered having written a letter to a former Se-
cretary for the Colonies, the Right Hon. Sir George Murray,
pressing him to tell those people if they had a right of fishing
on what was called the French shore or not, and, strange to
say, the Right Hon. Gentleman, (able minister as every one
knew him to be) answered his letter by saying that the Go-
vernment did not know. In the year 1831 a vessel was fitted
out in this country for the purpose of trying the disputed right.
On the approach of this vessel to the French coast, the French
assembled, and warned the Captain of the vessel, telling him
he had no right to fish there, and that they would prevent it.
The captain answered that he was sent to try the right, and
that he would not withdraw unless he was compelled to do so
by force. A French ship of war then appeared, and told the
English captain that he had orders from his Government to
prevent the Britith from fishing upon those shores, and that he
would do so. Upon this intimation the captain of the English
vessel withdrew. He contended that, according to the fair con-
struction of all the treaties existing between the two countries on
the subject, the right which France exercised was a permissive,
and not an exclusive right. France had always pursued in
reference to other nations a course of selfish policy, and he must,
therefore, say that if this question were suffered to remain
much longer unsettled the dignity of the British Crown would
be compromised.
Mr. POTTER (interrupting)—l move, Sir, that the
House be counted.

The House was then cleared of strangers for the purpose,
but there being, as we suppose, forty Members present, the de-
bate was proceeded with, although strangers were not re-ad-
mitted until Mr. Robinson had concluded, and Mr. P. Thom-
son's reply was drawing to a close. On our return to the
Gallery we found
Mr. P. THOMSON saying that the question arising out
of the treaties on this subject was now under the consideration
of the law officers of the Crown, and the instant their opi-
nion was obtained is was the intention of the Government to
adopt such steps as, in their judgment, would be the best cal-
culated to lead to the final adjustment of the difference exist-
ing between the two countries. The Right Hon. Gentleman
assured the Hon. Member for Worcester that all authority
was opposed to the views wick he entertained in reference to
the question arising out of the treaty of Utretcht, and was
proceeding to point out the inexpedience of sending out armed
vessels to enforce 4 disputed right, when
Mr. JERVIS moved that the House be counted.
The Gallery was again cleared for the purpose, and forty
Members not being present, the House adjourned at Seven
o' Clock.

Nary Venal)les Wa4 yostuday committed from this
office, for having occasioned the death of her infant through
intoxication, by suffering it to fall on the pavement of the
street, in consequence of which its skull was fractured, and it
died immediately on its removal to the Meath 119spital-
Dublin Resister.