Petition of electors in the intereft having received a precept from the fheriff of Middlefex for electing two citizens to ferve in parliament for the faid city, had taken and finally closed the poll on the 17th day of May last, being the day next before the day of the return of the faid writ, he be now directed forthwith to make return of his precept of members chofen in pursuance thereof," 40 Journ. 577. On the 4th of March the high bailiff made a return of Lord Hood and Mr. Fox, according to the numbers ftanding on the poll as reduced by the fcrutiny on the 3d of March 1785, which return was ordered by the house to be annexed to the writ. Ib. 588, 589. Bedfordshire, 7 June, 1784, 40 Journ. 99. The petition of certain freeholders in the intereft of Mr. St. John, the of the fitting fitting member, is mentioned by Mr. Luders to have occawithdrawn, fioned fome debate in the house, and finally to have been withdrawn by the member who prefented it. See Lud. 326'. member, Fetition for Colchester, 16 Jan. 1789, 44 Journ. 87. A petition of leave to pe- certain freemen of Colchester for leave to petition against tition againft an infufficient return, was withdrawn by leave of the cient return, houfe. an infuffi withdrawn. Petition of votes re Bodmin, 14 Dec. 1790, 46 Journ. 62, 63. The petition complaining of George Hunt, Efq. an elector of Bodmin, ftated that jected by a Mr. Hext, the mayor, had held an election, and had made perfon who a return of Sir John Morfhead and Roger Wilbraham, Efq. election, but againft which certain petitions had been prefented; that made no re- Robert Edyvean, claiming to be the returning officer as had held an turn, not received. fenior capital burgefs and counsellor of the borough, had held another election, and had rejected the votes of the petitioner, and of eight others: that he had declared Sir James Laroche and John Sullivan, Efq. to be duly elected, but had made no return of them; and that an information in the nature of quo warranto, had been filed against Hext. * For an account of the proceedings in the House of Commons in this cafe, fee the Journals, and Parliamentary Debates, by Debrett. The refult of them was the ftatute 25 G. 3. c. 84. f On this occafion the entries in the Journals refpecting Bridgewater, 18 & 21 Nov. 1768, and 9 Mar. 1769, were, read to the house, q. v. * See 2 Fra. 237. The The petitioner, fearing that if the felect committee should be of opinion Edyvean was the legal returning officer, his franchise would be loft, by the rejection of his vote by Edyvean, prayed the house to take his cafe into confideration, and to afford him fuch relief as they might fee fit. The house, on reading the ftatutes 10 G. 3. c. 16.5 25 G. 3. c. 84.; and 28 G. 3. c. 52. determined, that this petition did not come within the provifions of any of them; and the fame was not delivered in at the table. The motion, that it be brought up, was negatived. of electors against the of the un not received. Middlefex, 7th Dec. 1802. A petition of feveral free- A petition holders of the county of Middlesex was read, ftating, 1. the names of the three candidates at the election; and the re- pretenfions turn of Sir F. Burdett and G. Byng, Efq.; 2. that Wm. fuccefsful Mainwaring, Efq. the unsuccessful candidate, had petitioned candidate, against the return of Sir F. Burdett; 3. that Mr. Mainwaring had not the legal majority of votes; that he was disqualified, both in refpect of eftate, and of his holding certain offices; that he had been guilty of bribery and treating, of using undue influence, of threatening the voters for Sir F. Burdett; of endeavouring to overawe the returning officer; of procuring paupers to fwear themselves poffeffed of tenements to the value of 40s. a-year, and of endeavouring to procure a majority of votes by various other unjust, illegal, and unconftitutional means; that the petitioners were ready and willing to prove the premises aforefaid: "and the petitioners further ftated, that they conceived the faid W. M. was not competent to claim the return in the manner in his petition mentioned, or to proceed upon the fame against the faid Sir F. Burdett, until he the faid W. M. had cleared himself from the feveral charges aforefaid; and therefore prayed relief against the pretenfions of the faid W. Mainwaring to be one of the reprefentatives for the county aforefaid." "A motion was made, and the queftion being propofed, that the faid petition be taken into confideration upon Tuesday the 12th day of April next, at the fame time that the petition of W. Mainwaring, Efq. is ordered to be taken into confideration: "And леу. "And a doubt arifing, whether the matter of the faid petition was within the provisions of any of the acts passed for the regulation of the trials of controverted elections or returns of members to serve in parliament; "A motion was made, and the question was proposed, that the faid petition does not come within the description of a petition, the proceedings upon which are regulated by any of the faid acts. "And a debate arifing in the house thereupon: "Ordered, "That the debate be adjourned till Monday morning next." On Monday Dec. 13. the debate being resumed, Mr. Tierney argued for receiving the petition, and the Mafter of the Rolls (Sir Wm. Grant) against it. Mr. Mr. Tier- Tierney said, he should contend, that at least the spirit of the ft. 28 G. 3. c. 52. authorised the reception of the petition. The petition itself, was a precaution taken by certain electors to provide against the poffible events of Sir F. Burdett's death, or his declining to continue his oppofition to the petition of Mr. Mainwaring; in which cafes, it was apprehended that the select committee might be obliged to report Mr. Mainwaring to be duly elected, unless -other perfons should prefent themselves to refift his claim '. This precaution was usually taken on the part of unfuccefsful candidates; the practice was, for the electors in their intereft to petition against the return of the fitting members: left, in the cafe of the petitioning candidate * dying, or abandoning his cafe, or being declared ineligible, the fitting member should maintain his feat, against the justice of the cafe. He thought it unfair that the electors in the oppofite intereft fhould not have a fimilar fecurity; and that was 1 "See Bridport, 52 Journ. 19. 144. iSee the cafe of Waterford, post, p. 239. and the cafes cited in the note. Ibid. * 27 Jan. 1772, Mr. Buller petitioned against Mr. Skrine's election for the borough of Callington. 17 Feb. the houfe being informed that the petitioner was dead, the order for taking his petition into confideration was discharged: the day fixed for that purpose was the 24th of Feb. See alfo Mitchell 1696, 11 Journ. 603. Shrewsbury 1774, Lud. 456. 1 Ld. Gl. 461, 462. See Coventry, post, p. 94. the the fole object of the prefent petition. The ft. 28 G. 3. St.29 G. 3. c. 52. f. 2. only made a provifion for cafes where the fitting . 52. member, before the day appointed for taking the petition into confideration, became unable ", or unwilling", to defend his feat. In fuch cafes, other perfons might be admitted as parties in his ftead; but if the present petition was inadmissible, then, the default of a fitting member after the day appointed for the confideration of the petition, was cafus omiffus, and needed a further provifion. He contended, that the purposes and the duties of a felect committee, were the fame as thofe of the former committees of elections, before the paffing of the Grenville act. They were sworn to try "the merits of the return, and of the election"." There were not wanting refolutions of the houfe relating to petitioners, as well as to fitting members; as, that their qualifications may be inquired into ; that those who have endeavoured to procure themselves to be returned by bribery, fhall be feverely proceeded against 4. And to prove that the present petition, if presented to the house before the Grenville act, would have been received, he cited the cafe of Lyme Regis, 1727', where a petition of inhabitants against the pretenfions of Henry Holt Henley, Efq. the petitioning candidate, was received by the house, and referred to the committee of privileges and elections, to be taken by them into confideration, together with the petitions of Mr. Henley, and of Mr. Smith and others, freeholders of the borough.. The Master of the Rolls (Sir W. Grant) faid, that the Mater of house itself was clearly incompetent to proceed upon the the Roll. petition. The question was, whether under the terms of the acts of parliament, it might be referred to a felect committee? He did not agree with Mr. Tierney, that a By death, Ludgershall 1791, poft, P. 377. 1 Lud. 425. Honiton 1715, Leomin- See Flintshire, pott, Appendix, ning, 1:24-5, Minehead 1727-8, No. 3. St. 10 G. 3. 4. 16. f. 13. See Standing Order, 21 Nov. 1717, 18 Journ. 629. and cafes cited Weltbury 1734-5, Liverpool 1734-5. a 4 fele& felect committee was fimilar to the ancient committee of privileges and elections: the most obvious and important diftinction was, that it was not regulated by the orders of the house, but by the provisions of the legislature. The ftatutes which created that jurifdiction, limited its powers, and extent. As in the cafe of other new jurifdictions created by act of parliament, there wanted no negative words to confine its power from thofe things which the legislature did not intend to subject to it: every thing was withheld, that was not exprefsly given. What then was the power here given? That of hearing and determining upon the merits of certain petitions defcribed in the statutes, and none others: a power, now no longer under the control of the house, either to extend, or to restrain. It was the very object of the Grenville act, to deprive the house of that right. Under the 10 G. 3. c. 16. the petitions that might be referred to the house were of two forts only; thofe complaining, 1. Of an undue election: 2. Of an undue return. The cafe of Westminster 1784 difcovered a defect in that statute; the house, feeling the impoffibility of referring to a felect committee a petition complaining of no return being made, paffed the bill which afterwards became the ft. 25 G. 3. c. 84. The 10th fection of this ftatute, reciting the defects of the former, extended its provifions to cafes 1. where no return, or 2. where an infufficient return has been made. Hence it appeared, that the houfe admitted of no loofe, or extended construction, to embrace cafes feemingly within the spirit of the former act. He admitted, that he was now arguing for a strict adherence to the words of the ftatutes; but he thought the house could not adopt too literal a construction, when the question arofe upon the extent and exercife of their own powers. The ftatute 28 G. 3. c. 84. f. 2. mentioned four cafes, where voters, might be admitted, upon their petition, to be parties in the room of the fitting member: 1. the death of the fitting member: 2. his being made a peer; 3. his feat being declared vacant: 4. his giving a notice that he will not defend his return: these provifions ftrongly fhewed the inadmiffibility of the prefent petition; for they were |