CA

THE

SE

Of the BOROUGH of

IL CHE S TE R.

TH

HE petition of Sir Samuel Hannay and Mr. Harcourt contained a charge of bribery against the fitting members, previously to and during the election; and that the returning officer had admitted many perfons to vote for them who had no right; by which means they had procured a colourable majority, and were returned in prejudice of the petitioners, who had the majority of legal votes.

The petition of the electors contained fimilar charges against the fitting members*.

* Votes, 25 May, p. 23, 24.

There

There is no refolution of the House afcertaining the right of election in this borough It has been understood to be in the bailiff, capital burgeffes, and inhabitants, not receiving alms *. On the present occafion, inhabitants were explained to be boufholders, legally fettled in the borough ; in this both parties agreed.

The numbers on the poll were,

The counsel for the petitioners propofed not only to avoid the election of the fitting members for bribery, but also to disqualify so many of their votes on account of bribes received by the voters, and by other objections, as would prove the legal majority to be in favour of their clients, and give them the feats.

The trial lafted from the 30th of june, (the day in which the cause was opened) to

*See 14 Journ. 147. and 3 Doug. Elect. 153, 154

the

the 21ft of july. The greater part of this time was employed in hearing evidence. The question confifted entirely of fact; for which reason, and because the final decifion contained no opinion upon the legal effect of the evidence, I have not pretended to give more than a general view of it.

The ground-work of the petitioners' case, as related by the witneffes, was as follows:

In october 1782, at which time a diffolution of Parliament was expected in many places, a general diftribution of money was made to the voters on three fucceffive days, at the House of a Mr. Lockyer, a gentleman of great property in the borough and its neighbourhood: The manner of doing it was this: The voters were invited to Lockyer's House (which was inhabited by one of his relations) and when affembled in the court-yard, were admitted one by one into the garden, by a man disguised in a woman's dress, and directed to go to a window of the House; from this window, a hand (no other part of the perfon being visible) diftributed to every one the sum of 301. Many of the voters were Lockyer's H h tenants,

tenants, and these received in ftead of fo much money, a difcharge for rent then due, with as much money befides as made the whole prefent amount to 30 1:

The diftribution on the third day was made with more diftinction; a list of those who had been omitted on the two firft, was marked by Lockyer upon an inquiry into their circumstances: He expunged from it a pauper, and an exciseman, because they would have no votes, and others for different reafons, and the next money was given according to the lift fo corrected.

Besides this distribution, some voters who were not mixed with the herd in the garden, received letters by the poft from London inclosing bank notes for 30l. and others received notes of that amount privately from an agent of Lockyer's and Cuft's.

This was the principal fact of bribery : A great deal of evidence was produced to shew that this distribution of money, actually procured fuccefs to the fitting members at the laft election; from whence it was argued, that their feats being gained by corruption, whether their act or not, could not be maintained:

4

To fhew likewife

that

that these presents were not retrospective, for past favours in the preceding general election, but profpective and with a view to the next election, whenever that might come: Likewife to connect the fitting members with this alledged bribery; Cuft, by a participation in the prefents of 301. and Hopkins (who had nothing to do with the borough till the week before the election) by becoming acceffary after the fact to all Lockyer's conduct; by canvaffing upon his recommendation with his agents and tenants, and by an avowed acquiefcence in the effect of his money fo diftributed.

Evidence was also produced to prove perfonal acts of bribery at the time of the election by each of the fitting members.

It seemed to me, that the petitioners made no great account of any other objections to the fitting members' votes befides that of bribery; upon this fubject, their evidence (if believed and allowed) extended to a number more than fufficient to have reduced the votes for the fitting members to a minority.