§ Lord Marshammoved, that the order of the day should be read for considering the report of the committee on the conduct of sir W Rawlins, knt. and R. Albion Cox, late sheriffs of the county of Middlesex, relative to their conduct at the election, in which W. Mainwaring, esq. and sir F. Burdett, bart. were the candidates for that county. After the order of the day was read, the clerk, on the motion of his 1dp. read the resolutions of the committee contained in the said report, and which were in effect as follows: "1. That it appears to this committee, that, on the 13th, 14th, and 15th days of the poll, on the first of which days there was a considerable majority of votes in favour of W. Mainwaring, esq. the sheriff, R. A. Cox, esq. and sir W. Rawlins, knt. wilfully, knowingly, and corruptly, did admit to poll for sir F. Burdett, bart. upwards of 300 persons, claiming to vote under a fictitious right as proprietors of a mill purported to be situate in the parish of Isleworth, and called the Good Intent Mill, by which means a colourable majority was obtained in favour of sir F. Burdett, who was thereby returned as having the greatest number of legal votes. 2. That it appeals to this committee, that, on the 15th day, towards the close of the poll, after such majority was established, they rejected persons tendering their votes under the same circumstances. 3d, That it appears to this committee, that the sheriff at the poll acted in a judicial capacity, by admitting counsel to argue the validity of votes, and by deciding in some instances on the validity of such votes; that in other instances they refused to decide on the validity of votes which were objected to, and stated, that 160 they would admit any persons to poll who would take the oaths, declaring themselves to be only ministerial officers, thereby acting in a manner contradictory to their practice in other cases, and in flagrant 'violation of their duty. 4. That it appears to this committee, that the obvious tendency of their conduct was, to admit persons having no right to poll, and to afford the greatest encouragement to perjury." —The clerk then, on the motion of lord Marsham, read from the journals the proceedings in the New Shoreham case, in 1771; and that of Great Grimsby in 1803.
§ Lord Marshamsaid, he proposed, in conformity with these precedents, to move four resolutions. 1st, That the charge should be heard at the bar. 2nd, That it should be heard on Friday, Feb. 1. 3d, That the sheriffs, sir W. Rawlins, and R. A. Cox, esq. be ordered to attend. 4th, That the said sir W. Rawlins, and R. A. Cox, esq. be furnished with a copy of the charge, and heard by counsel.— The noble lord observed, that he proposed an early day for the discussion of this business, as it was desirable that a question of so much importance, which had stood over so long, should be determined as soon as possible; and also, as he understood, that it would be attended with no inconvenience to the parties concerned, but rather agreeable to their wishes to expedite the discussion. Agreeably to the precedents already referred to, the house would perceive that it was usual to move that evidence should be heard at the bar upon such an accusation; but to that part of the course of proceeding the noble lord did not think it at all necessary to adhere upon the present occasion, because the report on the table contained a very full account of all the evidence which related to the conduct of the sheriffs; that account was taken in short hand by a person sworn to report it with fidelity, the several witnesses were interrogated by the members of the committee, who were also on their oaths, and they underwent an ample cross-examination by counsel of the highest ability employed by the accused. The circumstances of the case were therefore already before the house, and there was no necessity for the further examination of any evidence on the subject. An objection, indeed, offered against the further production of evidence, from this consideration, that witnesses not being examined on oath at the bar of the house as 161 they were before the committee, might be induced to prevaricate. On the score of precedent it did not appear to him to follow that a motion for the further hearing of evidence should be made; for in one of the precedents that had been read to the house, the reason alleged to shew the propriety of such a motion was, that the party accused had no counsel present at the committee to cross-examine the witnesses upon whose testimony the accusation was grounded. This consideration could not be urged in the instance then before the house, nor did he conceive any ground upon which such a motion as he alluded to could be fairly sustained. The full investigation of every thing connected with the charge against, and the defence for the accused, which had taken place before the committee, of which he had the honour to be chairman, seemed to him entirely to preclude the necessity of any fresh examination of evidence. The case of a court martial, the minutes of the evidence taken before which formed the ground for the sentence, to be subsequently ratified by higher authority, he thought analogous to that of an election committee. To the committee it did not belong to pronounce any sentence, or to inflict any punishment. They had only to inquire into the subject referred to them, and to report their opinion thereon. Such was the course pursued by the committee whose report was under the consideration of the house, and that inquiry was so minute that he really could not think any farther inquiry by the examination of evidence necessary. Upon these grounds the noble lord said he would decline to make any motion of that nature.
§ The Speakercalled the attention of the house to the course of proceeding which the noble lord had announced his intention of adopting. In every part of that course the noble lord proposed to act consistently with the accustomed order of the house, with the exception of omitting to move for the production of evidence at the bar. This was a departure from the usage observed in the precedents which, according to the motion of the noble lord, had been read by the clerk; and also from that which had been attended to in another instance, since these precedents had occurred. From a just solicitude for the important privileges and order of the house, lie felt it his duty to notice the proposed deviation; at the same time he ob- 162 served that no question would arise upon it to-day. The practical question on this point, as to the sufficiency or deficiency of evidence, would occur when it should be proposed to proceed to a decision, without any farther examination of evidence.
§ Mr. Francisrose to ask, for information sake, for what purpose the business was at all brought before the house for consideration, if evidence was not to be examined; or upon what question the house was called on to decide? If the subject was not to be investigated at the bar the house would have nothing left to do but to adopt the opinion and recommendation of the committee; and there could be no use for the hearing of counsel. But he trusted this measure would be differently considered; for if the course proposed by the noble lord were followed, it did not appear to him that any question would remain for the discretion of the house.
§ Lord Marshamstated, in reply to the hon. gent, that the question brought before the house for consideration was this., whether, from the whole body of evidence contained in the printed report on the table, and which comprehended the fullest information on both sides of the case, the committee was justified in the inference they made, and in the opinion they had pronounced upon the parties accused, and also whether any proceeding should be instituted grounded on such opinion. The noble lord repeated his objections to the farther examination of evidence.—The resolutions were then put and carried.—Adrjourned;