The Sun.
London, England, 1835-03-28 00:00:00

DUBLIN ELECTION COMMITTEE.

At one o'clock to-day the Committee met in the Court of Chan-
cery, Westminster. Mr. Jonx MaxwELL in the chair. Great
interest was excited, the Court-house being crowded to excess.
The Clerk read the petition against the return of the sitting
Members (Messrs. O'Connell. and Rutliven). The chief ground
of the petition was that the majority by whom the sitting Members
were returned were not qualified voters, having not paid (as re-
q_uired by Act of Parliament), their municipal taxes due at the
Easter previous to the said election, which took place in the month
of January last.
Some doubt existing as to the identity of the petition which had
been read, as being the one in support of which the reeognizances
were entered during the inquiry respecting it,
Mr. O'CoN NELL availed himself of the opportunity to'state that
it was his intention to apply for a •Commission. He made thii
statement so as to enable the Learned Gentleman (Mr. Harrison)
in his opening speech, either to prevent, or anticipate the apil•
cation.

Mr. 'TAR aisoN said he was determined to oppose the application
when made, as well from principle, precedent, and convenience. •
Mr. O'Cox NELL was able to chew both from principle and pre-
cedent that. the application was proper, and as to convenience, that
argument was all in his favour.

The Clerk (Mr. Dyson) was called, but could give no proof of
the authority of the petition under consideration.
Counsel for Petitioners agreed to take the petition read and pro-
ceed upon it, at their peril.
Mr. O'CoxNELL objected to the Committee proceeding to inres-
tigate a petition which the petitioners' Counsel not only at first
doubted, but which was actually repudiated by them. There was
no proof whatever that this was the petition upon which the re-
cogr2izane was entered.

Mr. Rose, Clerk of the Reco.nizances, was called. lie had not
the recognizance ; he believed it was in the possession of the
Speaker's secretary, who, after the report. of the examiners, gets
the custody of all recognizances.
Mr. O'CONNELL insisted that as the recognizance was a security
Ca- the expenses of the petition, it was necessary for the protection
of the Sitting Member, that the recognizance and petition should
be identified. In this case there were four petitions—it was indis-
pensably requisite, then, to know upon which the petitioners en-
tered into recognizances.
The Committee rithdrew to consider the objection, and in the
meantime,

Mr. ltommt.v (Clerk to the Speaker), tame into Court: On
being sworn, he said he had the Dublin 'recognizance, dated on the
3d of March, and another recognizance on the 10th of March.
Mr. ItosE said that he did not know xrhich was the right re-
cognizance.

ROMILLY—The recognizance of the Cd of March bad at-
tached to it the report of approval.
Mr. O'CONNELL contended that the petition was dated the 4th
of March, whereas the Act required the recognizance to he entered
into within fourteen days after the presentation of the petition; this
recognizance was, therethre, not legally entered. The recognie.
ance being then dated the 3d of March, and the petition the 4th,
the Committee, he submitted, could not proceed a step further.
The Committee retired to consider the question.
The objcc'ion was overruled.
Mr. Ha italsoN then proeeedel to state t ie cue on behalf of the
petitioners.