members. fitting members; they acknowledged however that 8 of their own voters had alfo appeared to have received this money. The poll would then ftand thus; Manners 57; Graham 56; Hunter 55; Plummer 54. The counfel for the fitting members however, difputed this statement. They called no witneffes: but refted their de-, Cafe of the fence on impeaching the credit of the witneffes for the fitting petitioner; and on contending, that the rights of the fitting members ought not to be affected by acts, in which they were not proved to have had the fmalleft thare; but that the punishment for fuch offences thould fall upon those only who had been proved to have been guilty of them. As for the treating, it was faid that it had not been proved to fuch an extent as to call upon the committee to avoid the elec tion on that account. On the 26th of March, the committee came to the fol lowing refolutions: 1 1. "That it does not appear to this committee that the fitting members have, by themfelves or their agents, been guilty of bribery. 2. "That it is the opinion of this committee, that the fitting members have, by themfelves or their agents, been guilty of treating. 3. "That it is the opinion of this committee, that the following 32 perfons, viz." (naming them) having received bribes previous to the laft election for the borough of Ilchefter in the county of Somerfet, were thereby disqualified from voting at the faid election; which 32 votes being ftruck off, will leave the ftate of the poll as follows; For Thomas Plummer, Efq. William Hunter, Efq.. Sir W. Manners, Bart. 4, 5. Determined, that T. Plummer, Efq. and W. Hun ter, Efq. are not duly elected. 6,7. That Sir W. Manners, Bart. and James Graham, Efq. are not duly elected. 8. That the last election is void. Proceedings in the House of Commons. Criminal Informatien. 9, 10, 11. That neither the petition, nor the oppofition of the fitting members, was frivolous or vexatious. 12. "That fuch a fyftem of corruption was formed, and fuch inftances of individual acts of bribery committed previ cus to the faid election, with a view to infinence the fame, as to render it incumbent upon this committee to fubmit the fame to the moft ferious confideration of the house, in order that fuch proceedings may be inftituted as the house in its wifdom may think proper to adopt. 13. "That Alexander Davifon of St. James's Square, Esq. was engaged in the faid fyftem of corruption. 14,15. That John White Parfons, and Thomas Hopping of Weft Camel in the county of Somerset, were alío engaged in the faid fyftem of corruption." On the 28th of March, the committee refolved that the eight laft refolutions fhould be reported to the house. Upon the report being made, the minutes of the committee were ordered to be printed, and laid before the house and upon the 22d of April, the firft of the fpecial refolutions of the felect committee having been read, the house refolved, "that fuch a fyftem of corruption was formed, and fuch inftances of individual acts of bribery were committed, previous to the faid election, with a view to influence the fame, as to render it neceffary that the fame fhould be taken into the moft ferious confideration of this houfe, and that further proceedings fhould be instituted thereon." On the 18th of May the refolutions of the committee refpecting the perfons engaged in the faid fyftem of corruption, &c. were read and agreed to, and the Attorney General was directed to profecute them for their offence. The information filed by the Attorney General was tried at the fpring affizes at Taunton, 1804, before Mr. Baron Graham; when the three defendants were found guilty, and being brought up for judgment in Eafter term following, were feverally fentenced by the court of king's bench to one year's imprisonment in the prifon of that court. CASE XVIII. THE TOWN AND BOROUGH OF EAST GRINSTEAD, IN The Committee was appointed on the 17th of March 1803, and confifted of Petitioners. following Members: Right Hon. J. C. Villiers. W. Dickfon, Efq. W. Smith, of Norwich, Efq. for Ch. Shaw Lefevre, Efq. for the 1. John Froft, Efq. 2. Electors. Sitting Members. Sir Henry Strachey, Bart. Daniel Giles, Efq. Nominees. MR R Froft in his petition, alleged, 1. That the right of Peticions. election in East Grinstead is in the inhabitants paying fcot and lot, as well as in the freeholders of the borough: 2. That a majority of legal voters polled for the petitioner : 3. That the returning officer admitted several illegal, split and occafional votes in favor of the fitting members; and rejected many legal votes tendered in favor of the petitioner and 4. That the fitting members had procured their * Prefented 29 Nov. 1802, return Facts. Journals. Right of election. Facts of the Cafe. return by many undue, illegal, and unwarrantable practices. b The petition of the electors contained allegations nearly fimilar. At the trial of the caufe, the petitioners abandoned the allegations of a right of election in the inhabitants, and of corruption in the fitting members, and but flightly infifted on the misconduct of the returning officer, in not requiring that the voters fhould produce their deeds: and they confined themselves, with this one exception, folely to the ob jection of occafionality, which they attempted to apply to all the burgage tenants who had voted for the fitting members. One burgage tenant only had voted for the petitioner; another perfon had offered himself as fuch, but had been rejected by the returning officer; and the petitioners precluded themfelves from offering evidence to fubftantiate his vote, by omitting to mention his cafe in their opening; as will be further feen among the incidental points which arofe in this caufe. As the right of election did not come to be discussed, it is merely neceffary to refer the reader to fuch entries as occur in the journals refpecting this borough: 24 Apr. 1640. 9 Feb. 1645. 19 Mar. 1678. 7 Apr. 1679. 29 Mar. 1689. 25 Nov. 1695. 9 Jan. 1695, when it was refolved by the houfe, that the right of election of burgeffes for the borough of East Grinstead " is in the burgage holders only, and not in the burgage holders and inhabitants." On the 7th Apr. 1679,it had been refolved to be in the inhabitants as well as in the burgage holders. On the 27th March 1689 the committee came to the fame refolution as that of 1679, but upon the queftion, that the houfe doth agree with the committee in the faid refolution, it paffed in the negative, nem. con. The facts of the cafe, concerning which there was very little difpute, were as follow: The borough of East Grinstead is of burgage tenure, held of the Duke of Dorfet, who is the lord of the borough and Prefented r Dec. 1802. manor, manor, at certain quit-rents payable for each burgage, fome at Is., fome at 6d., and some at 3d. per annum. The Duke of Dorfet and Lord Sackville are feverally the proprietors of moft or all of the fe burgages. Of the nine perfons who voted. for the fitting members, four derived their titles under conveyances from Lord Sackville or his father, and five derived their titles under conveyances from Lord Romney and Mr. Marsham as trustees of the legal eftate for the Duchefs of Dorfer; that eftate having been previously conveyed to them from Lord Loughborough, the former trustee. The eftates granted by Lord Romney and Mr. Marsham, were for the joint lives of the grantee and the Duchefs of Dorfet, in whom the beneficial intereft was velted. Those by Lord Sackville were either for the joint lives of himfelf and the grantec, or for the life of the grantee only. The date of the earliest of thefe conveyances was in November 1772; of the lateft, in July 1800. They had been regularly prefented at the courts of the borough upon the oath of the homagers there affembled, and feveral of the voters had attended upon thofe occafions, and had ferved upon the homage. It further appeared that none of the voters had ever paid the quit-rents to the lord of the borough in refpect of their burgages, but that the rents of fuch as were a part of Lord Sackville's eftate had been regularly paid by his steward to the Duchefs of Dorfet; that none of the voters ever paid the land-tax, but that in the affefsment, the names of the Duchefs of Dorfet, or Lord Sackville, were found, as the owners, or proprietors of all thofe tenements: who were in the receipt of the rents and profits, and were at the expence of repairing and maintaining the buildings, &c. In the cafe of the burgages conveyed by the trustees of the Duchefs of Dortet, no confideration was paid; but the grantees when they accepted. the conveyances, figned a declaration of truft, as trustees for the Duchefs. None of the grantees had the poffeffion of their deeds, except Mr. Gilbert and Mr. Hoper; the former the steward, the latter the deputy-steward of the estate. The deeds were brought in a bag to the place of election by the agents of the Duchefs of Dorfet and Lord Sackville, and carried back by them in the fame manner. But at the election |