of his accidental poffeffion of an office with which it has not interfered.

On the whole, if the Committee will confider the particular periods of the several acts charged to be criminal, and the fituations of all the parties concerned, their motives and tendencies, and compare together the whole ftate of the evidence, fimply and legally, without the aid of conjectures, they will find it impoffible to say, that Mr. Cator has obtained his feat by a breach of the law.

The Committee deliberated on the rèmaining part of the day on which the counsel finished, and on the whole of the next; on the following day (June 18th) after fome time spent in deliberation, they determined,

That neither the fitting member nor the petitioner, was duly elected, and that the laft election was void as to Mr. Catōr (E), which refolutions the chairman reported to the House on the fame day *.

* Votes, June 18th, p. 247.

NOTES

NOTE S

ON THE CASE OF

IPS WIC

H.

PAGE 34, and 46. (A.) It may be useful in this place

3.

to transcribe the ftat. 7 & 8 W. ch. 4. called the Treating Act: The title of it is, " For preventing charge and expence in elections."

Sect. 1. "Whereas grievous complaints are made and manifeftly appear to be true in the kingdom, of undue elections of members to Parliament, by exceffive and exorbitant expences contrary to the laws, and in violation of the freedom due to the election of reprefentatives for the Commons of England in Parliament, to the great fcandal of the kingdom, dishonourable,and, may be, destructive to the conftitution of Parliament: Wherefore for remedy therein, and that all elections of members to Parliament may be hereafter freely and indifferently made without charge or expence, Be it enacted and declared by, &c. That no perfon or perfons hereafter to be elected to ferve in Parliament for any county, city, town, borough, port, or place, within the kingdom of England, dominion of Wales, or town of Berwick upon Tweed, after the teffe of the writ of fummons to Parliament, or after the tefte or iffuing out or ordering of the writ or writs of election upon the calling or fummoning of any Par

liament

liament hereafter, or after any fuch place becomes va cant hereafter, in the time of this préfent or of any other Parliament, fhall, or do hereafter, by himself or themfelves, or by any other ways or means on his or their behalf, or at his or their charge, before his or their election to ferve in Parliament for any county, city, town, borough, port, or place, within the kingdom of England, dominion of Wales, or town of Berwick upon Tweed, directly or indirectly give, prefent, or allow, to any per fon or persons having voice or vote in such election, any money, meat, drink, entertainment, or provifion, or make any prefent, gift, reward, or entertainment, or shall at any time hereafter make any promise, agreement, obligation, or engagement to give, or allow, any money, meat, drink, provifion, prefent, reward, or entertainment to or for any such person or persons in particular, or to any fuch county, city, town, borough, port, or place in general, or to or for the use, advantage, benefit, employment, profit, or preferment of any such person or perfons, place or places, in order to be elected, or for being elected to ferve in Parliament for fuch county, city, town, borough, port, or place.

Sect. 2. That every person and persons so giving, presenting or allowing, making, promifing or engaging, doing, acting or proceeding, fhall be, and are hereby declared and enacted, difabled and incapacitated, upon fuch election, to ferve in Parliament, for fuch county, city, town, borough, port or place; and that fuch perfon or perfons fhall be deemed and taken, and are hereby declared and enacted to be deemed and taken, no members in Parliament, and fhall not act, fit, or have any vote or place in Parliament, but shall be, and are hereby declared and enacted to be, to all intents, con

ftructions

ftructions and purposes, as if they had been never returned or elected members for the Parliament."

P. 45. (B.) I do not remember that the following cases were mentioned in this argument: In the case of Bewdley, 10 March, 1676, (which was about three weeks before the paffing of that resolution on which the Treating Act was afterwards founded) the Committee reported, "that the chief matter on which they grounded their opinion was, the bribery of the fitting member to procure the voices of the electors; on which they had resolved, that he was not duly elected, and that the petitioner was," with which refolutions the House agreed. 9 Journ. 397.

The following cafes happened after the above-mentioned refolution, (See it, 9 Journ. 411. and 2 Doug. elect. 404.) and before the Treating Act. In the case of Stockbridge, 15 Nov. 1689, the petitioner complained of bribery on the part of the fitting member, who retorted the fame charge upon the petitioner, and the Houfe declared the election void for the bribery, 10 Journ. 276, 286, 287.

In the cafe of Mitchell, 12 Nov. 1690, the fame thing happened; as the report is fhort, I have tranfcribed it, because it ftates the evidence on which the refolutions of the Houfe were founded.

"The numbers on the poll were thus,

For Mr. Courtney (petitioner) 20

But it was teftified by Peter Stapley, that as to feven that polled for Mr. Rowe, they were not housekeepers; one of which only was justified by Mr. Rowe.

It was further teftified, That this election was managed by one John Atwell, on the part of Mr. Rowe,

who had offered fix pounds apiece to thofe that would vote for Mr. Rowe.

Thomas Riccard teftified, That he was prefent the evening after the election, when his father and eleven others, that voted for Mr. Rowe, received five pounds apiece, i. e. 31. 18s. 6d. in filver, and a guinea, which was faid to be for their wives.

John Soper faid he had 31. 18s. 6d. and a guinea for his wife; and faw Richard Euftace's wife, and Roger Nancaroe's daughter receive the like; and that this money was paid the morrow after the election.

John Atwell being examined faid, What money he paid was for meat, and drink, and tobacco, and many he had paid faid, they were not yet satisfied; and that he promised no money before the election.”

Hereupon the Committee refolved,

First, That Anthony Rowe, Efq; and his agents were guilty of bribery, in his endeavouring to be elected, &c.

Secondly, That he was not duly elected.

Thirdly, That the petitioner was duly elected; with all which the Houfe agreed. 10 Journ. 469, 470.

In the cafe of Wotton-Baffet, 22 Dec. 1690, the chairman reported, That it had been fuggefted that the petitioner had obtained votes by bribery, whereupon the Committee had directed the counfel on both fides, "to apply themselves to the matter of bribery firft;" and in conclufion, the petitioner was declared not duly elected, upon that charge, and his agent was ordered into cuftody for diftributing bribes to the electors. 10 Journ. 522. In the cafes of Chippenham and Aylesbury, in 1691. 10 Journ. 638, and 644. bribery was likewife the fubject of the petitions..

In