The Sun.
London, England, 1835-03-21 00:00:00

CITY OF DUBLIN ELECTION.

Mr. SHAW presented a petition from the Examiner of
the election petition for the City of Dublin, that a further
extension of time might be allowed them to inquire into the
validity of the -security tendered on that occasion.
Mr. O'CONNELL—This was now Friday, and time had
been given, since last Monday, to make these inquiries, and
he did not think it fair, after what had occurred on Tuesday,
that these extensions should be allowed. It was imperative on
them, by the Statute, that the sureties should be given in and
perfected within 14 days of the petition being given in, and
now that time was expired.—(" No, no," from Mr. Shaw.)
If this report had been in before the discussion on Tuesday
last, as a matter of course, the Ballot must then have been

postponed ; but the Right Honourable Gentleman with-
held it from the House until after that time, though
he pressed the bringing on that measure in opposition to his
motion, and though the sureties are precisely the same, in
order to deprive him of any advantage it might give him. He
would ask the House whether it would be fair to act on this
petition. If it had been any other case than his own he would
have made such an appeal as he felt convinced would persuade
the House to agree with him, but in his own he was deprived
of that advantage.

Mr. SHAWLSo long as the petitioners thought that peti-
tion would have been acted on, they did not think it right,to
extend the time, or to inquire so particularly into the security ;
but now that another petition had been substituted for that,
they thought it necessary to be.satisfied as to the responsibility
of the petitioners.__
_ _

Mr...O'CONNELL could not understand why the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman opposite so anxiously insisted upon
this report. It was alleged that no advantage would be gained
thereby ; but it would not be insisted upon for nothing. He
submitted to the House, that the petitioners, having lapsed the
time, they could not now come before it and ask leave to bring
up 'the report:

The SPEAKER made a few observations, which were
luite inaudible.

Mr. O'CONNELL could see no reason- why the House
should now enlarge the time.—(Cries of " Hear, hear:")
By keeping back the report; the opposite party had done this—
they had thrown it upon him (Mr. O'Connell) to make the
motion for the postponement, which had they brought in the
report earlier, would, have been their postponement. Was that
fair ? Was it he would ask, reasonable ? And if it was not
so in any other person's case, why should it be so in his ?
Sir J. CAMPBELL coincided in the view of the question'
taken by the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin. He
thought the application of the opposite party was most unrea-
sonable.—( Hear, hear.)
_ _

Mr. F. SHAW would not urge the matter upon the House
if it was its pleasure that he should withdraw it. He had now
another matter connected with this subject to bring before the
House—

Mr. 0' C ONNEL L—Then you withdraw the report ?
Mr. SHAW assented. He had now to call the attention
of the House to a matter which personally affected the character
of an individual who acted as agent to the petitioners.
though he fully agreed that whatever was stated by an Hon.
Member in this House should be received with great atten-
tion, and have all the sanction of an oath, he conceived it
would only apply to such Member's own case, and not to the
case and statements of a third party, who, he contended, ought
not to be shut out by any declaration of any Hon. Member.
Mr. O'CONNELL objected in point of order to the intro-
duction of any name and statement, unless they could be met
by a counter name and statement.

Mr. SHAW explained that he intended to relate the state-
ments of the petition only.
Mr. O'CONNELL acknowledged himself to be under the
correctk.n of the Right Hon. Gentleman, but he certainly un-.
derstood that he intended to refer to affidavits.--( Hear.)
Mr. SHAW—No ; the facts related to the petition only.
Mr. O'CONNELL then would put it to the 'House whe-
ther such statements should go forth to the public without
counter statements ?—not that he was afraid of investigation :
he desired nothing but investigation.
Mr. GO ULBURN spoke to order. An Hon. Member, in
presenting a petition, had a perfect right to speak of its contents.
After a few words from Mr. RICE, who was inaudible in the
gallery.
Mr. SHAW proceeded to state the facts detailed in
the petition. The petitioner on the 11th instant went, in
company with another person, on business wholly uncon
fleeted with the present matter to Sir Robert Sidney, who
in point of fact was the agent of the other side. He saw Mr.
O'Connell, who desired Sir Robert Sidney, as his agent, to
ask a petitioner to hand over a notice in reference to the
Dublin petition, which was given, and he said he would be
prepared on the 19th to go on. After joking on the subject,
he asked, " Do you mean to treat us with all the petition ?"
to which no positive answer was returned; and Mr. O'Connell
went away, but returned so after, and said, addressing
i
Sir R. Sidney—" I think t fair to tell you, that if you coin
plete the recognizances, I will let go the others ; but all
depends upon your not turning me round upon a point of
form." This he repeated several times ; to which Sir R.
Sidney replied—. To be sure, I understand you fully—yea
mean to make yourself secure." Nothing more occurred.
After that conversation on Saturday, to guard against any
fatality or failure on a point of form, a notice was posted,
that on Wednesday last he would be ready with his witnesses.
On Monday, two days after, the petitioner proceeded to the