duction of it, as if Mr. Jefferys had been a party to the deed, or, as if Mr. Bryant had been a party to this caufe. The committee, after deliberation, directed that the deed fhould be produced: but, no subscribing witnefs appearing to atteft the execution of it, the counsel for the petitioners put in an examined copy of the proceedings in chancery for Answer to a fpecific performance of the fale under the deed, mentioned a bill in equity. fup. p. 94. Mr. Bryant, in his answer to the bill filed upon that occafion, had admitted the existence and the due execution of it. This evidence was alfo objected to, as being res inter alios acta, and as fuch, not admiffible: but the committe e over-ruled the objection, and the deed was read without farther proof. Charge of bribery, The counsel for the fitting member, in opening the cafe of their client, proposed to fhew that the petitioners, Meffrs. Bird and Moore, had been guilty of treating. This was objected to on the other fide; the petitioners having abanhaving abandoned that part of their case, in which they claimed the feat. The committee determined,That, although the petitioning candidates no longer claim the return, the counsel for the fitting members are at liberty to bring evidence to prove that the petitioning candidates did act in violation of the ftat. 7 Will. 3. c. 4. doned their claim to the feat. The committee refolved, 11th March, 1803, That N. Report. Jefferys, Efq. not being qualified according to the provifions of an act paffed in the 9th year of the reign of her late Majefty Queen Anne, intituled "An act for securing the Freedom of Parliaments, by the further qualifying the Members to fit in the House of Commons," was not elected a citizen to ferve in this present parliament for the city of Coventry at the laft election of citizens to represent the said city.h That F. W. Barlow, Efq. was duly elected. ► See Note (A) Stat. 9 Ann. C. 5. NOTE (A), page 99. The following are the cases which have come before the Houfe of Commons, with refpect to the qualifications required by this ftatute: In the 12th year of Queen Anne, petitions were presented against the members for Wigan, Marlow, Caernarvon, Bishop's Castle, and Bedford, The first was discharged, because it was not figned by the petitioner himself: the others do not appear to have been proceeded in. In the cafe of Malden, 1715. 18 Journ. 129, the election of Serjeant Comyn was declared void, he having refused to take the oath of qualification at the poll, and neglected to take it before the meeting of parliament. And the petitioner was feated. In the case of Weymouth, 1730. 21 Journ. 574, the counfel for Mr. Betts, the fitting member, admitted that his qualification was not fworn to, nor a particular of it delivered; but they infifted that the electors, not being apprised of his disqualification, ought to have an opportunity of making another choice. The election was accordingly made void. Hertford, 21 and 24 May 1715. 18 Journ. Upon petition, Mr.Boteler's qualification was held good by the house. On a petition against his election for Wendover in 1737, 22 Journ. 467, the fame qualification was relied on, and the decifion of the house was contrary to the former. In this latter cafe, the evidence is preferved at length. The queftion turned on the furplus of an eftate left in truft for the fitting member, after the discharge of certain incumbrances. Huntingdon, 1739, 23 Journ. 403. 413. Mr. Mitchell petitioned to be returned in the room of Mr. Clarke, who, he alleged, was not qualified by law: Mr. Clarke was refolved to be duly elected. For the cafe of Colchester, 1784, vid. 1 Lud. 416.* For the cafe of Bristol, 1786, fee the minutes of the committee. Mr. Cruger was declared duly elected. 24 March. And see the cafe of Colchester 1782. 3 Lud. 166. CASE VIII. THE BOROUGH OF BRIDGEWATER, IN THE COUNTY The Committee was chofen on the 21st of February, 1803, and confifted of the following Gentlemen: Sir Ralph Milbanke, Bart. Chairman. W. Bagwell, Efq. Sir E. O'Brien, Bart. Pafcoe Grenfell, Efq. W. Bagenal, Efq. Hon E. Bouverie, of Downton. Sir C. M. Pole, Bart. E. Levefon Gower, Efq. Petitioners. Lord Andover. Cha. Smith, Efq. Sir T. Troubridge, Bart. R. Adair, Efq. for the Peti- F. Gregor, Efq. for the fitting 1. J. Agnew, Efq: 2. Electors in the intereft of Mr. Agnew and Sitting Members. Jefferys Allen, Efq. George Pocock, Efq. Counsel for the fitting Member: Nominees. Mr. Serjt. Lens. Mr. Mackintosh. In the abfence of either, THE petitions charged : 1. That the fitting members Petitions had been guilty of treating, and bribery: 2. That the returning officer had acted unfairly, in the receiving and rejecting of the votes offered for the several candidates: and, 3. That the majority of legal votes was in favour of Mr. Agnew and Mr. Harcourt. 9 March, 1769. "Refolved, that the inhabitants of the Laft deter borough of Bridegwater, paying fcot and lot, have a right to Journ. 26 Nov. and 7 Dec. 1802. The electors claimed the feat for both Mr. Agnew and Mr. Harcourt; Mr. m inatio Poll. Agency. Offer of a bribe by an Actual payment of rates. vote in the election of members to ferve in parliament for the faid borough." 14 March 1769. "Refolved, that the inhabitants of the eastern and western divifions of the parish of Bridgewater have no right to vote, in the election of members to ferve in parliament for the borough of Bridgewater; but that the right of election is in the inhabitants of that division which is called the borough, paying fcot and lot within the faid divifion, and in them only." 32 Journ. 302. 314. The numbers on the poll, as declared by the returning officer, were; for Allen, 166; Pocock, 149; Agnew, 143; Harcourt, 127. The cafe of each party comprifed; 1. a charge against the other of bribery; 2. a claim to the majority of votes. With regard to the firft, it is only neceffary to mention, that upon the admiffibility of evidence of the acts of an agent before the proof of agency, the committee refolved, That the counsel for the petitioners fhould be at liberty to enter into proof of fuch acts of fuppofed agents, as are to be followed by evidence that fuch acts were authorised or confented to by the fitting members. They also refolved, "That voters offering bribes to other Elector. voters, by that act were not disqualified from voting." With refpect to the majority of votes, the petitioners first propofed to add to the poll of Agnew and Harcourt, the names of feven perfons who had been rejected by the returning officer, because, although rated to the poor, they had not paid the rates due at the time of the election. Some of thefe, had tendered their rates at the place of polling, and even depofited the money on the table; but it was not received, and their votes were ftill rejected. It was attempt ed to fupport these votes, firft, by contending that, in point of law, an actual payment was not neceffary: and fecondly, by fhewing fraudulent practices on the part of the parifh-officers, who, for election purposes, either omitted to demand the rate, or concealed themselves to avoid the payment of it. The committee, as will be prefently feen, decided that, in general, actual payment was neceffary; but they added to the poll five of the num ber ber claimed, whofe default of payment appeared to have been occafioned by the fraud of the overfeers. payment The arguments on the part of the petitioner, to fhew that payment is not neceffary, were to the following effect: The payment of fcot and lot, in its original fenfe, is Argument, univerfally acknowledged to fignify a contribution to public that actual burthens. What those burthens formerly were, or to what is not criterion the House of Commons reforted, before the 43d of necellary. Elizabeth, to afcertain who bore them, is now unknown; for no accounts of the proceedings in controverted elections before that time, relative to this point, are preserved. Since that time, recourfe has uniformly been had to the rates made by the overfeers of the poor by virtue of the act then paffed; and whatever was formerly understood by the payment of fcot and lot, the term, at prefent, when used to define the right of election, means no more than the being rated to the poor. It is evident, however, that when the right of election is said to be in them who pay scot and lot, it is not to be understood that the payment confers the right, but that it indicates those who already poffefs it; not as being itfelf the qualification, but as being the character and defcription of a certain clafs of perfons, who are conftituted by charter, or by common right, the electors. The poor's rate, therefore, is not, in its nature, an exclufive regifter of the voters, but is, in the firft inftance, an eafy and convenient criterion. Still lefs are thefe words "who pay fcot and lot," to be confined to fuch narrow limits, as to comprise those only who have actually paid the fums affeffed on them, to the exclufion of fuch as are in a courfe of payment, or are liable to pay; for the latter with equal propriety, may be faid to be perfons, not who have paid to the laft poor's rate, but who, in the words of the last determination for this borough, pay foot and lot. Thefe words are fatisfied by a legal obligation to pay. The infertion of a perfon's name in the poor's rate, if unappealed from, is conclufive as to his ability to pay, and affords coercive means to the overseer to b 1 Ld. Gl. 140. 3, 75. 126. 4, 81, 3 Lud. 125. |