the very first day of meeting, petitions were laid against the returns from Devizes, Marlborough, New Sarum, Old Sarum, and Cricklade, and on the following day, from Malmesbury. That from Devizes took the following form: 21 March 1689. Upon the petition of Sir John Eyles and William Trenchard, Esq. against the election of Sir William Pynsent and Walter Grubb, Esq. The committee of privileges reported, that the question was, whether the right of election in Devizes lay with the Mayor and burgesses as a select number, or with all the free burgesses. The petitioners brought forward the usual proofs in such cases, such as the language of Charters granting liberties to "Burgesses" simply, and the copy of a return of members made 1st of Queen Mary, which the Mayor had described as "pro se et communitate Burgi." They also brought forward the particulars of the popular election of 1679 [See page 309] though their witness for this affair was compelled to admit that it was the only instance of election by the "populacy" which he had known during a residence of sixty years in the town. For the sitting members, it was insisted that the borough was a corporation by prescription, and that thereupon the power could only be said to lodge with the "Mayor and burgesses." And they recited such of the proceedings of the aforesaid popular election of 1679 as were most damaging to Sir John Eyles, such as his giving a bond of indemnity to the Mayor for making an illegal return. Richard Whatton who had been the Mayor in that memorable transaction was also put forward, to declare how "fearful he had been to make Journals x. 522. See also the extraordinary evidence against Sir Bazil Firebrass at the Chippenham election, at page 637 of the same volume. Sir Bazil was in this instance unseated for bribery, although such a decision reflected but little if any disgrace on the gentlemen of that day. One Joseph Simpkins of Calne who undertook to return Edward Baynton and George Duckett for the borough in 1710, actually caused a new seal to be made for that particular occasion. Commons' Journals xvi. 412. that return an election by the "Burgesses in general" having never, to his knowledge, occurred in Devizes before. But being pressed to make it, he confesses that he took the bond." The recital of this anecdote seems to have laid violent hold of the imaginations of the Committee, for they forthwith decided that the right lay with the Select number only, and in this determination the House agreed, thus establishing the return of the Tory members Sir William Pynsent and Walter Grubbe. In thus designating Sir William Pynsent, we have not, it is true, any positive evidence of his Jacobite tendencies beyond what may be gathered from the character of those whom he opposed: and further it may be added, that though after being pricked as Sheriff by King James, he was set aside by King William in favour of John Wyndham of Norrington, yet his name re-appears as Sheriff only five years later. But of the politics of his colleague Walter Grubbe Esq., of Potterne, there is no room for doubt. Among the Grubbe MS. is preserved the following extract from a Life of King William by T. and J. Sprint, published in 1703. "Their Majesties having the same day, viz., 13 February, been proclaimed King and Queen of England, the same was attended with the utmost exclamation of joy, &c. And now take a view of the Lists of both Lords and Commons that constituted this Convention, of whom those among the latter, not marked with an for making the Prince of Orange King. WILTS. 1689. The Rt. Hon. Edward Viscount Cornbury. DEVIZES. Sir William Pynsent, bart. * Walter Grubbe, Esq. &c. were The election of 17 March 1690 witnessed another irregularity. The candidates were John Methuen, Walter Grubbe, and Sir Thomas Fowle. Of the 59 burgesses who attended the poll, 55 voted for Grubbe, 36 for Methuen, and 23 for Fowle. But Richard Hillier the Mayor having resolved, for reasons of his own, to return Sir Thomas Fowle, adjourned the poll and obtained the additional votes of eight non-residents who had been inserted into the Burgess roll by the defunct charter of James II. Thus armed, he made return, not with the common seal, but with his own seal, of Grubbe and Fowle his brother burgesses meanwhile making return of Grubbe and Methuen. The case was argued in Committee on the 29th March, and decided in favour of the Mayor's nominee, Sir Thomas Fowle. But Mr. Methuen was determined that the matter should not rest here. The Parliament was prorogued on the 23rd of May, but on their meeting in the autumn, he again petitioned to be heard, 6th October; and again on the 22nd December were the borough politics brought on the floor of St. Stephen's. Mr. Gray reports from the Committee that it appears to them the right of election resides in the free burgesses of the Devizes; that there are in Devizes a Mayor, a Recorder, 12 major capital burgesses and 24 minor capital burgesses, as they are called, in the nature of a Common Council. At the election in question Richard Hope town clerk, took the poll thus-For Sir Thomas Fowle 23-for Mr. Methuen 36. Dauntsey Brouncker who took the poll by order of Sir Thomas Fowle, found it-for Sir Thomas Fowle 31-for Mr. Methuen 36. After which, the two candidates went to Mr. Mayor's house and proposed a scrutiny, Mr. Methuen agreeing, so his opponents said, that previous neglect in any burgess to take the two oaths called the Declaration and the Test should vitiate his vote. On this quibble the dispute turned-Francis Paradise, John Rogers, and Francis Paradise junior, in Mr. Methuen's favour, testifying that Mr. Recorder Danvers had been heard to declare his opinion that the free burgesses were not obliged to take the oaths; and the elder Paradise further stating that in respect of five of Mr. Methuen's voters objected against, for not subscribing, they had in effect done all that men could do who were unable to write; having taken the oaths, paid down their money, and requested that their names should be entered. For the opposite party, Charles Danvers the Recorder said "he had never pronounced the opinion attributed to him; the oath was always administered according to the 13th Charles II. and even Sir John Eyles though a freeman, was put out of the burgess list for neglecting to be sworn." Francis Sadler testified "that the Recorder had sent the serjeant round to all the burgesses to acquaint them that in default of taking the oaths their names would be erased ;" and Richard Bundy said, "the Quarter Sessions were adjourned several times for swearing in free burgesses." John Bolles gave the following narrative of proceeding on the eventful day of election, "that after thirty-six had voted for Mr. Methuen and twenty-three for Sir Thomas Fowle, Richard Hope the town clerk announced that there was now an end of the Poll, when the Mayor turning to him observed, "That's no business of yours," whereupon there was a great tumult the "Town clerk did not go on," but afterwards there were eight more polled for Sir Thomas Fowle. Upon the whole matter, the Committee of Privileges came to the conclusion that Sir Thomas Fowle's election must stand; but on the question being put to the House, that decision was negatived by 157 against 149. Mr. Methuen's name was therefore inserted in place of Sir Thomas Fowle, 23 Dec. The Right Honourable John Methuen, as he is now styled in history, lord of the manor of Bishops Cannings, and son and heir of Paul Methuen the great Bradford clothier, eventually proved himself to be one of the most sagacious statesmen of his age. He was of the privy council, and Lord Chancellor of Ireland in the reigns of William and Anne. His name as a diplomatist is associated with embassies of the highest importance, but is principally signalised by the compact called after himself "the Methuen treaty," which for a hundred years regulated our commerce with Portugal. He died at Lisbon in 1706, whence his remains were conveyed to England to be interred in Westminster Abbey. 1689. The Commons' Journals of 27th November makes mention of one Smith, living near the Devizes, who was ordered into the custody of the Sergeant-at-arms for counterfeiting a protection as under the hand and seal of Sir Richard Onslow a member; which counterfeit document, being allowed by the Sheriffs of Wilts and Hants, had enabled the said Smith to get himself discharged from an arrest. And Sir Robert Napier at the same time acquainted the house that this illegal practice of members giving written protections was still much in use. The readers of John Aubrey's life will remember how the pecuniary difficulties of that gentleman's later years induced him in like manner to accept a humiliating letter addressed to him in the capacity of "menial servant" by the Earl of Thanet, in order to shelter his person from arrest: (though the Earl courteously soothed his wounded feelings the next day by addressing him as his affectionate friend). Two years after the date of Aubrey's affair, the House made an effort to abolish this abuse, a favourable opportunity being furnished by a case of unusual flagrancy committed by Colonel Thomas Wanklyn the member for Westbury. Mistress Angela Margareta Cottington made complaint that she was hindered in her prosecution at law against her husband Charles Cottington Esq., by "a protection" describing him as Mr. Wanklyn's "menial servant;" and what added greatly to Mr. Wanklyn's offence was his throwing a similar ægis over one Jones, whereby to frustrate a writ of restitution already awarded by the Court of King's Bench. It was therefore resolved to make an example of Mr. Wanklyn; and the House having unanimously resolved, that in calling these persons his menial servants he |