§ On the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the order for hearing counsel upon the report of the committee respecting the conduct of Messrs. Rawlins and Cox at the Middlesex Election of 1802, was read, and the counsel being accordingly called in;
Mr. Adamappeared at the bar. The learned counsel began by expressing his thanks to the house for the indulgence shewn him on a former evening, by postponing the consideration of this subject, and thus affording him an opportunity of more satisfactorily preparing his mind for the discharge of the important duty which belonged to him. For this he was the more grateful, because he was thus enabled to do that which, notwithstanding the utmost solicitude for the interest of his clients, he felt it unnecessary to do before the committee, upon whose report the house was now called on to decide. Before he proceeded to shew that the resolutions of that committee were unfounded in law, and the justice of the case, and that they were not sustained by the evidence on the table, he took occasion to observe, that from the order made in pursuance of which he appeared at that bar, the resolutions were perfectly open for discussion. He also felt himself intitled to think, that the mind of the house was quite open upon the subject. If, then, he could make it appear that the committee had drawn conclusions from the evidence in charging the sheriffs with corruption, which that evidence did not warrant, and which were quite irreconcileable with all the probabilities arising out of the nature of the case and the character of the sheriffs, he had little doubt, that not only the mind of the house at large, but that of the illustrious persons of whom, the committee was composed, would be prompt to determine against the resolutions. In those resolutions he begged the house to observe, that the committee had not only exceeded the evidence, but the charges of the petitioners who originally complained of the conduct of the sheriffs. The petitioners complained of the sheriffs having acted unduly: but the committee resolved that they acted corruptly, and did, knowingly and wilfully, admit fictitious votes to be put upon 840 the poll; that they acted in one instance ministerially and in another judicially, as it suited their corrupt views, to promote the election of sir F. Burdett. This farmed the substance of the 3 first of their 4 resolutions; and if the basis of those 3 should appear to be unsound, the 4th,which was a consequence deduced from them, must vanish of course. Now, us to the corrupt motive alleged, he could not conceive any allegation more unfounded, and unless that motive should appear to the house to have actuated the conduct of those gentlemen, it was impossible that it could come to a decision grounded upon the resolutions of the committee. The questions for the house to consider were these, whether the sheriffs had done their duty according to the best of their ability; whether in the situation in which they were placed, they could have done better; whether, without the power of investigating a case of difficulty by the examination of witnesses, having no authority of administering an oath to any person but the freeholder, and only that with respect to his freehold, they were right in resorting to that course which accorded with the usual practice at, elections, and which was prescribed by the law. Sheriffs were, the house would bear in mind, generally incompetent, from the nature of their education, to decide upon matters of law; and, this in competency was more naturally to be expected in the sheriffs of Middlesex than among the country gentlemen, as many of the former were persons who rose from success, perhaps, in mechanical professions, to the office of sheriffs. However, in consequence of this general in competency, great indulgence was due to mistakes of sheriffs where no corruption appeared; otherwise an office which held out no profit, but rather great expence and trouble, would be au extremely dangerous post. The sheriffs in this as in other cases of election, chose proper persons to assist; them, by their judgment on questions of law. That those persons were not wrong in the advice they gave in the disputed points which the house were, about to examine, would appear, he believed, very clearly from a revision of the acts of the 7th of Henry VI. the 7lh and 8th of Wm, III. the 10th of Anne, and the 18th of Geo, II. which pointed out the regulations relative to the administration of the freeholders oath; also the resolutions of the House, of Commons, on the York and 841 Dorset cases in 1625. From those latter; and other decisions referred to by Serjeant Glanville, the power of the sheriff was defined; and it was confined to this, that when objection was made to a freeholder tendering his vote, the sheriffs having no power to inquire judicially into the objections, they had no criterion to recur to but the path of such freeholder as to the value and time of possession, and such other points as are prescribed in the act of the 18th Geo. II. Such was the course adopted by his clients, and that course they uniformly followed throughout the election, as well with respect to the voters on one side as on the other. It appeared from the evidence of Messrs. Bushnell and Burchell, who assisted his clients with their advice, that a meeting took place the night before the election, at which a rule was laid down, among other arrangements, that in every case of objection to a voter, the voter's oath should be the criterion of decision, and that should the voter persist in tendering his vote, that vote should be received unless it came within the knowledge of the sheriffs or their assessors, that the party claiming had no right to vote. From this rule his clients never swerved; upon the ground of this rule, they admitted the voters from the inns of court and the public offices in favour of Mr. Mainwaring; on the same rule they admitted the mill voters for Sir F. Burdett. There was no case whatever, in which the oath of persons tendering their votes was rejected; but, in that of those claiming from the Emanuel hospital, the tenure of which Mr. Bushnel happened to know not to be a freehold; and those rejected persons, the learned counsel wished the house to bear in mind, tendered for Sir F. Burdett. The learned counsel traced the conduct of his clients through the several days of the election up to the 12th, during which he maintained that the evidence would bear him in stating that the regulations they adopted were approved of by both parties, and were in all cases applied with the most rigid adherence to justice and impartiality. That the charge of a conspiracy to promote the election of Sir F. Burdett by the introduction of the mill voters was utterly inapplicable to his clients, the learned gent. shewed by a reference to the evidence, as it relates to those voters. From that it appeared that the existence, of such voters was net known to the sheriffs until the morning of the 13th day of election, when 842 Albion Cooper and others came to the poll. The testimony of Mr. Clifford stated that those voters were discovered by him accidentally on the 6th day of the election, and that he kept it a secret for several days. The learned counsel therefore argued that his clients could have no pre-knowledge of the intention to produce such, voters. Upon the day the first set of them came to the booth, Cooper and others were taken round to the sheriffs' box, to have their claim discussed. This practice of taking objected voters round to the sheriffs' box to have their objections investigated, he observed, had prevailed from the commencement of the election, with the implied consent of all parties. After Cooper and the others had gone round, a discussion arose, which continued above four hours, the counsel on both sides being present. But yet it being impossible to decide the fact as to the tenure of the voters from the inability of the sheriffs, as he before stated, they determined to act upon the rule laid from the beginning. They, therefore, after fully explaining in the most solemn manner, to Cooper and the others who accompanied him, the nature of an oath, they requested him to deliberate upon what he was about to do, acquainting him, however, that if he persisted in demanding to vote, his vote must be received, upon taking the freeholder's oath. Cooper and his companions retired, and after some time came forward again to the hustings and tendered their votes. Mr. Burchell went to the front of the hustings, repeated a solemn admonition to them, and administered the oath to them; this oath they took, notwithstanding the menace of Mr. Sylvester to prosecute them for perjury. On the 14rth day it was stated by Mr. Sylvester, in his evidence, that he tendered the act of W. III. to sheriff Rawlins, and called upon him for a reconsideration of the case of the millers; but to this application, which was seconded by Mr. Mainwaring, sheriff Rawlins replied, that the case had been decided the day before, and that he would not go into it again. Mr. Sylvester also stated, that sheriff Rawlins would not suffer him or Mr. Mainwaring to put questions to the voters on the hustings, on the 15th day. Now, in point of fact, the act of W. III, which sheriff Rawlins refused to consider, had no relation to the question, and to permit the interrogation proposed by Mr. Sylvester on the hustings would be inconsistent with the 843 practice that antecedently prevailed without any exception, to; take votes objected to round to the sheriffs' box. This practice arose from a wish to prevent the interruption of the poll. It was acted upon during the 1st and 2d days of the election, when voters were crowding at the hustings for Mr. Mainwaring; and he would therefore put it to the candour of any man, whether it would not be the grossest injustice to allow any deviation from that practice on the last day of the election, when voters were crowding to the hustings for Sir F. Burdett. Mr. Sylvester also complained that he was rudely treated by sheriff Rawlins, but another, witness, Mr. Cater, who was present in the sheriffs' box when the thing complained of arose, stated that which fully justified the conduct of Mr. Rawlins, and that the demeanour of the complainant was very different from that which one would have a right to expect. From the rank and profession of Mr. Sylvester, he felt it an unpleasant task to make any observation upon him. He was no doubt, as a crown lawyer, respectable; and administered the law, in the court in which he presided, with much credit; but yet he must say, that in election law, it was clear that that learned gent was out of his proper sphere, that he undertook a new trade: Ne sutor ultra crepidam.—With respect to the charge against his clients, of refusing to examine the voters upon the land-tax assessments at the request of Mr. Mainwaring's friends, he begged to state to the house, that this request was not made until the 7th day of the election. Not a word was heard of it on the first day, when Mr. Mainwairing polled above 1,000 voters; and he would submit it to the consideration of the house, whether it would afterwards be fair, whatever might be the power of the sheriffs, to comply with that request, to establish a rule on the 7th day, that had been entirely overlooked during the preceding part of the election? Would this be dealing equitably towards all parties, as his clients had determined to do? The resolution of the committee charged his clients with admitting some mill voters on the 14th day, and rejecting some of the same description of voters who tendered their votes on the same principle on the 15th day, in order to preserve the majority of Sir F. Burdett. In the whole of the evidence, he could not find, one tittle to 844 sustain this allegation. The fact was, that in consequence of a suggestion from Sir W. Gibbons, who was a friend of Mr. Mainwaring's, on the evening of the 14th day, that some persons1 were expected to tender their votes on the following day for the Good Intent Mill, who had only just purchased shares for the purpose of voting, Mr. Rawlins questioned the first class of mill voters who presented themselves on that morning, and finding they were not qualified to vote, from time of possession, they were rejected. Now, although those rejected persons tendered for Mr. Mainwaring, it must be obvious that as at the time of their rejection that gentleman was 25 a-head on the poll, and also that the rejection occurred in consequence of the previous suggestion of Sir W. Gibbons, the corrupt motives which the resolution was of the committee ascribed to his clients completely inapplicable. As to the statement in the testimony of Turner Smith, who described himself as a roving commissioner of inspection for Mr. Mainwaring on the hustings, that on the 15th day the freeholder's oath was gabbled over by the voters for the purpose of expedition; that statement was most positively and pointedly contradicted, by the evidence of Messrs, Cater, who were the sheriff's agents for the administration of the oath, and who swore that they were enjoined to administer the oath in all cases with due solemnity.—Having gone through various parts of the evidence, to shew the facts of the case with respect to the conduct of his clients, he recurred to a consideration of the law. He maintained that the same principle of law must apply universally: that there could not be one law for Lancashire and Yorkshire, and another for Middlesex and Rutland, The spirit of the law did, he was quite convinced, sanction the rule laid down and acted upon by his clients. The law could not enact that which it would be physically impossible to execute. It allowed but 15 days for any election, and if the returning officers were to act judiciously, if they were to enquire into any disputed vote; if they were, to act otherwise than his clients had acted, to resort to the criterion of an oath upon all difficult cases, it would be utterly impossible to go through in 15 days the election of such a county as Yorkshire, to, receive above 40,000 votes. Indeed, it evidently was not the intention of the statute, that the returning officer should, act any other 845 than ministerially during those 15 days. If the close investigation of the votes were demanded, what was called the scrutiny act, prescribed 30 days for the continuance of such investigation. During this scrutiny the sheriffs were invested with judicial power, and the distinction between the 15 and 30 days clearly proved that the returning officers were merely authorised, in the first instance, to administer the freeholders' oath, and not entitled to go into any scrutiny of the freeholders' claim. If, indeed, the returning officer should refuse to receive the vote of a freeholder, who should express his readiness to take the oath, such returning officer would be liable to an action, from which, even should the verdict be in his favour, he could not escape without some loss. This consideration would, he trusted, combined with the law and the facts he had slated, produce in the mind of the house a due degree of indulgence for the situation in which his clients were placed, and render the house slow to pronounce a verdict of guilty against men who were so circumstanced, and who had so acted. The learned counsel denied that his clients had come to any adjudication that rendered them liable to the charge of acting judicially on the last day of the election, as Mr. Sylvester seemed to infer. The fact was, that the persons tendering on the occasion to which the adjudication was said to refer, could not conscientiously take the oath. If they would take that oath, their votes must have been received and put on the poll. The learned counsel concluded a most able, luminous, and comprehensive speech, replete with legal knowledge and forcible argument, by conjuring the house to weigh well the circumstances in which his clients were placed; to take a fair and full review of the conduct they had pursued throughout the election; that being themselves not legally educated, they Bad acted under the advice of those who were;—that although they might be mistaken, their uniform unvarying application of the same rules to all parties proved that they were not corrupt. Addressing himself to an enlightened assembly, he trusted that the fate of his clients would be consistent with its character, and with the force of their claims. As soon as the counsel had withdrawn from the bar,
§ The Speakerput the question, that the house do agree with the resolutions of this committee, the substance of which was, 846 that the sheriffs of Middlesex had been guilty of partiality and corruption, particularly on the 13th, 14th, and 15th, days of election, by admitting persons to voe who claimed under right of their being partners in the Good Intent Mill, in the parish of Isle worth, so as by that means to give a colourable majority to Sir F. Burdett, and also by refusing to admit other persons to poll in favour of Mr. Mainwaring.
Mr. Rosesaid, he had given his whole attention to this case, and he conceived it as strong as possible in favour of the resolution. He was happy the sheriffs had had the benefit of counsel, who had discharged his duty so ably; that if it were possible for any argument to alter the impression of plain and strong facts, he would have made their criminality disappear. He saw in the whole of the proceedings of the election a general partiality of the sheriffs in favour of one of the candidates. They had from this partiality put on the poll a number of votes notoriously bad; they had acted in some cases judicially, in others ministerially: they had admitted the mill votes contrary to every possible right. Here the right hon. gent. entered into a detail of the partial conduct of the sheriffs. They had a person who was called the orator to declaim against Mr. Mainwaring in front of the hustings, and to apply every vilifying expression to that gent.; and when the impropriety was represented to them, they contented themselves with saying he was a droll fellow. They permitted the flags of Sir F. Burdett to be displayed in front of the hustings, with the motto of "No bastile" upon them; they suffered black bread and dead vermin to be exhibited, as if this were a specimen of the treatment in a prison with which Mr. Mainwaring was supposed to be connected. A man naked from the waist upwards, of an emaciated appearance, was exhibited with another flogging him, with a view to cast odium on the same gentleman. All this was permitted for several days, notwithstanding it was allowed there was a sufficiency of constables in attendance to put a stop to such disgraceful scenes. When Mr. Mainwaring attempted to speak, an outcry was raised which rendered it impossible for him to be heard. When Sir F. Burdett abused the Bastile, one of the sheriffs' prompted him; and the sheriffs' clerks wore Burdett's colours. When facilities were given for inflaming the mob, which 847 there was no possibility of governing when it was once agitated, what mischief may follow it was impossible to calculate! To prove that votes notoriously bad had been received, it was sufficient to state, that one man had been allowed to vote from the heart of the city, which the sheriffs must have known to be illegal. Till the 5th day the votes had been examined, when the right of admission was put solely upon the tender of the oath. He censured the conduct of Sir W. Rawlins, who had rudely prevented Mr. Mainwaring and Mr. Silvester from questioning some of the mill voters on the hustings to the same point on which he himself rejected others of them the next day. Here the right hon. gent. entered into an examination of the nature of the interest of the mill voters, whose property consisted of one-eighth of an acre of land, 90 feet by 45, with three cottages on it, let each for six guineas a year, when they took it. These had been thrown down to erect the mill, to which there were 1002 subscribers, at 2 guineas each. The mill was not then roofed; nor was it assessed even to the poor's rate for a year after; and the reason the parish officers gave was, that they were afraid the proprietors would all come to the parish as paupers. It was impossible under these circumstances, that there could be an interest of 40s. to each individual. He contended that the assessment to the land tax was a point indispensable by the law, independent of any agreement between candidates or parties. The clerk of the peace was in attendance with the rolls, and the Sheriffs were ineffectually called upon to go into the examination. The neglect of this duty was carried so far, that one voter from Waltham bridge had been admitted, though he allowed he had not been assessed. He allowed that Mr. Burchell and Mr. Bushnan were respectable solicitors, but the sheriffs should have had regular counsel, as Mr. Walsh, the second under sheriff had recommended. If the oath were to be the criterion, elections would be carried by chimney-sweepers and link-boys, and by whoever could command a corrupt mob. It was true no violence had been committed, but the danger and intimidation to Mr. Mainwaring and his voters was dreadful. Though a false return may only establish the sitting member for a session, yet the event might deprive the country of its fair representation during a whole parliament, from the impression 848 of the danger, the expence, the anxiety, and the fatigue of a second contest. The house was called upon now to decide whether the right of election for Middlesex was to be in the returning officers, or where the constitution had vested it. No man that heard him could delight in the punishment of the individuals concerned, if the house should think proper to punish them. The end of all punishment inflicted by the house, was not to give pain to the individual, but to prevent a repetition of the offence. In this view, when the house should have agreed to the resolution of the committee, as he had no doubt it would, he should, follow it up with another proposition.
§ Mr. P. Mooreexpressed his astonishment at the extreme frivolity of some of the observations of the right hon. gent. who had just sat down. If the committee had fallen into an error, he was sure nothing could be further from the intention of the noble lord who had presided in that committee; nothing could be further from the intention of the committee themselves, than that the house should sacrifice their integrity for the purpose of maintaining them in an opinion proved to be erroneous. The right hon. gent. had expatiated largely on the conduct of the sheriffs, he only hoped, that if it ever fell to that right hon. gent's lot to have the honour of filling the office of sheriff, he might execute the duties of his situation with as much credit and propriety as the gentlemen who were now the subjects of discussion. After the very luminous speech which the house had heard from the learned counsel at the bar, he should abbreviate what he had to say as much as possible. The hon. gent. here entered into an examination of the report of the committee, and of the evidence on which that report was founded. He asserted, that although there might be 30 or 40 bad qualifications for votes on the part of Sir F. Burdett, there were ten times as many on the other side. The committee had struck out 600 votes indifferently on both sides, because the voters had not been assessed to the land-tax. The papers on the table proved that the sheriffs had refused votes for Sir F. Burdett as well as for Mr. Mainwaring: 128 votes admitted by them for the last-named candidate were struck off by the committee, because they were official, and not freehold votes. Could any circumstance rebut the charge of partiality more strongly than this? He reprobated the conduct of the right hon. 849 gent. in deluging with criminality one of the most immaculate characters that ever existed; he alluded to Mr. Birchall, on whose talents and virtues the shadow of suspicion had never before rested, he praised the conduct of the sheriffs in waiting an hour after the poll had closed, for the purpose of allowing the defeated party to demand a scrutiny. He confessed he was of opinion that no gentleman who had examined the whole of this complicated subject, could conscientiously vote for the motion. The question was not, whether or not the sheriffs should be committed to Newgate, or what should be the quantum of punishment; but whether or not the house would sacrifice their dignity to support a committee evidently in error, so evidently to him, that he firmly believed, if they went back to their room, and reexamined their report they would themselves feel the necessity of correcting it.
§ Lord Marshamassured the house, that the committee had not determined on the report which they had presented, until after the most mature deliberation. How far they were borne out by the evidence before them, it would be for the house to decide. With regard to himself he could confidently say, that he felt no alteration of opinion on the subject, and he rather thought the other members of the committee adhered as closely to their former decision. His lordship went through the whole of the evidence on the table of the house, reading extracts from it, and commenting upon them as he proceeded, The committee had with regret been under the necessity of striking off votes to both par. ties, in every respect good, but that they had not been assessed to the laud tax. The outrages complained of by the right hon. gent. who opened the debate were unjustifiable, although some exertions had certainly been made by the sheriffs to suppress them. The learned counsel had insisted strongly on the propriety of the sheriffs being tried by the evidence which they had it in their power at the moment to benefit themselves by, and not by that afterwards collected for the Committee. He acknowledged the justness of this observation, and accordingly the committee in their report had withdrawn all that part of the evidence relating to the mill voters, which the sheriffs could not be in possession of at the time of the election. The committee were certainly of opinion, that by acting sometimes judicially and sometimes ministerially, the 850 sheriffs had become culpable. The principal point was certainly that of the mill voters, and to that point, to the question of possession, Mr. Mainwaring's enquiries' were chiefly directed on the 1:5th day of the election. He was convinced, that an undue bias had existed in the minds of the sheriffs, and that at different periods they had pursued different modes of conduct, as it suited their wishes. With regard to the excuse that had been attempted to be set up, of the embarrassments in which the sheriffs found themselves involved in their decisions, he confessed it appeared to him, that a very moderate understanding indeed would have extricated them. Upon the whole he trusted, that the house would feel little difficulty in agreeing with the committee in the resolution which they had submitted to them.
§ The Solicitor General (Sir Vicary Gibbs)did not think it necessary to trouble the house long, when he recollected the mass of evidence which had lain so long on the table, and with which members must by this time have become familiar. He had listened with the utmost attention to the arguments of the learned gent. at the bar, but he owned that he remained entirely unconvinced by them. In considering the merits of the question, the acts of irregularity mentioned by his right hon. friend near him, ought not to be wholly omitted, as they tended distinctly to shew the motives by which the sheriffs had been actuated. The question was, whether or not the sheriffs, with an intention of giving sir F. Burdett an unfair majority, did wilfully and corruptly admit the mill-voters, knowing them at the same time to be bad, and on the 15 day of the poll, towards the close, when the majority turned in favour of sir Francis, rejected votes exactly similar to those they had before accepted. Examine them by their own evidence. They had laid down two rules for their conduct; one, how to acquire information, the other, how to act on such information when acquired. The hon. and learned gent. proved, by an examination of the circumsances of the case, that they either departed from, these rules, or adhered to them as inconvenience dictated. After exposing the' impossibility that the sheriffs should be ignorant of the absurdity of the claims set up by the Isleworth mill-holders to aright of voting, from their possession of a freehold, be commented severely on their conduct with regard to Albion Copper. 851 Satisfied as they must have been, that this man had no right whatever to give his vote on the election, they allowed him to be sent to his oath, that is, to go to certain perjury. The sheriffs had decreed, among their regulations, that no inspector should put a question to a voter but through the medium of a poll clerk; but the right of pulling questions in this way was never questioned until the 14th day of the poll, when Mr. Silvester objected to the first set of mill voters that were brought up, on the ground of joint tenantry, and shortness of possession. On an absurd pretence that the question should not be asked on the hustings, but in the box, they prevented him from making the necessary inquiries, and on his requesting Mr. Mainwaring to do so, sheriff Rawlins in a very rude way, and which was still more reprehensible when Mr. Mainwaring's age wu6 considered, shoved him from the hustings. It should be the object of the returning officer, at every election, to ascertain the truth, if possible; but here the endeavours of the sheriffs were evidently directed to smother it, and they strictly forbade the voters to answer any question, lest they should betray themselves. Nor did these facts depend solely upon the evidence of Mr. Silvester, it was corroborated by that of Mr. Smith, who confirmed it indeed in every particular. The hon. learned gent. entered into a strict investigation of the circumstances attending the last day of the poll, and contended, in opposition to the learned gent. who had been heard at the bar, and who wished to prove, that the conduct of the sheriffs on that day was favourable to Mr. Mainwaring, that their conduct was directly the reverse. On that day all the old whigs, as they were called, voted for sir Burdett. About the middle of the day, when according to the evidence of Mr. Clifford himself, who was sir F. B 's counsel, the election was a hollow thing in his favor; objections were listened to by the sheriffs against a body of mill voters, and for this proceeding they qlaim the praise of candour and impartiality, when in fact, the election being secure, they began to think they had carried the matter top far by the unquestioned admission of these voters, and wished to retrieve their character by an affected severity. The hon. and learned gem. concluded by expressing his hope, that under all these circumstances, the house would feel no. hesitation in agreeing to the report of their committee on this subject.
Mr. W. Smithfelt unwilling, after the weighty arguments that had been urged on both sides of the question, to obtrude himself on the attention of the house; but he was desirous to offer some remarks which had escaped the notice of the gentlemen who had already delivered their sentiments on the subject, he most sincerely hoped that no gent. would give his vote on it who had not heard the able speech of the learned counsel at the bar, and who had not studied with attention the documents on the table. He was in some difficulty with regard to the part he should take in the question. He certainly thought, that very considerable blame attached to the sheriffs for their conduct; but he could not allow that their motives were corrupt; and on this point he should feel inclined to differ from the decision of the committee. In his opinion, the right hon. gent. who had commenced the discussion had aggravated the case, by dwelling on circumstances omitted by the committee. The exhibitions to which he alluded were certainly scandalous, but unfortunately in most contested elections, particularly those of Middlesex and Westminster, such outrages were but too frequent. The hon. gent. commented on the evidence of Mr. Adolphus, which, he said, was in some points contradicted by other testimony. He perfectly agreed with the noble lord that the point of most consequence related to the mill voters: had it been his situation, he certainly would not have acted as the sheriffs had done; but it did not follow that they acted corruptly. He thought most of the statements of the learned gent. who had just sat down, irrefragable; there were strong proofs of ill temper and passion, exhibited during the election; he meant only on the part of one of the sherifls, for from this charge Mr. Cone was exonerated. As to the case of Mr. Albion Copper, whom Mr. Silvester had threatened to prosecute, if he had been a wilfully perjured man, would be have been selected as an evidence on behalf of Mr. Mainwaring before the committee? Though he admitted that were was a difference between a solicitor and a barrister at law, yet Mr. Burcball was no common solicitor; and if he ware himself a sheriff, he should trust to his advice as soon as to that of many barristers he could name. He knew not Mr. Burchall personally, nor at all until the present transaction, but from his great experience in the affairs of the county, he thought him as capable of 853 giving sound advice touching an election, as any barrister who might be chosen by the sheriffs. It was a general feeling with gentlemen on a charge of this kind, to have a leaning against the returning officers: but if gentlemen would look into the evidence; they would find, that the sheriffs bad conducted themselves equally and impartially, by adhering firmly to the rules they laid down for their conduct. Though they had acted wrong, he did not think their conduct merited the adoption of any severe resolutions, for it appeared that whatever might have been the riots the poll had never been impeded. He had voted himself, and for the favourite candidate, and was exposed to the abuse of the mob because he appeared without the Colours, though he suffered no violence: If the word corruptly, however, were omitted, he should have no hesitation in agreeing to the report.
Sir. W. W. Wynneagreed completely with the noble lord who had been chairman of the committee. That the sheriffs had acted very improperly no man could' deny. He thought, however, that their1 guilt consisted as much in acts of omission as of commission. Their conduct with respect to the mill voters was highly reprehensible.
Lord Hennikerobserved, that the hon. gent (Mr. Smith) seemed to be mistaken respecting the power of the magistrates at the election. The power was chiefly vested in the sheriffs on these occasions, and it depended on them to restore order, and keep within due bounds the proceedings of the mob. They, therefore, were answerable for whatever misconduct might have taken place.
Mr. W. Smithexplained, by observing that he did not say that it was the business of the magistrates in the first instance to quell the tumult; but only said, that if the conduct of the mob was so gross as it was on some occasions represented, the magistrates might have interfered, and the sheriffs would scarcely have refused their concurrence in such measures.—The question was then loudly called for, and strangers were ordered to withdraw. Whilst we were excluded from the gallery, the house agreed to the resolutions of the committee without a division. On our re-admission we found
§ Mr. Foxon his legs, commenting on a motion which had been submitted to the house by Mr. Rose, grounded on the re- 854 port to which they had agreed. The motion was, that the conduct of the sheriffs was in violation of their duty, contrary to law and in breach of the privileges of that house. Mr. Fox was observing, that if they were to rely on the neglect of referring to the land tax assessments, as a gross instance of the violation of law in the conduct of the sheriffs, that ought to be expressed in the motion. It ought to be particularly stated, especially as there was not a single sentence in the resolutions they had agreed to, that warranted-such a charge.
Mr. C. Wynneobserved, that it was on all hands agreed that the conduct of the sheriffs had been extremely improper in admitting the Mill votes; but there was a doubt entertained1 whether they had acted corruptly, and not rather from neglect Or inattention. This might be discovered by a reference to other parts of their conduct. The under sheriff's opinion relative to a reference to the land-tax assessments, seemed to be formed on a supposition that the act of parliament was absurd, he thought that the house should follow up its adoption of the resolutions of the committee, with some other proceedings, for the sake of asserting the right of electors, as well as the privileges of the house; and he had only to regret the length of time that it had been delayed.—The question was then put on the motion, when
The Chancellor of the Exchequer,in order to obviate the argument of the hon. gent. opposite (Mr. Fox), thought, that, as the most striking breach of law that had been committed by the sheriffs, was their having admitted the votes of persons who were not to be found in the assessments to the land tax, the words "as well as by refusing to refer to the assessments to the land tax," should be inserted in the motion. As this formed part of the guilt of the sheriffs, it ought to be expressed in the resolution of the house, especially as it had been attempted by some persons to define the duty of the sheriffs, otherwise than as the law directed. This would be a security that no sheriffs hereafter would act as those sheriffs had done in the instance under consideration.
§ Mr. Foxthought that the greatest breach of law committed by the sheriffs, was their having omitted to conform to the injunctions of an act of parliament which no man could deny to be highly improper. As the committee had made 855 no report on the subject, it was not unlikely that the committee saw reasons for the omission. The fact was, he believed, that the same conduct had taken place uniformly at every election for Middlesex, and that the reference to the land tax, assessments, for many elections past, had been reserved for the scrutiny; but this fact the committee were best acquainted with.
§ Lord Marshamhad some doubt whether the amendment proposed by the right hon. gent. could be agreed to consistently with the report. The evidence, as well as he could recollect, did not prove that the sheriffs refused the reference, but that they would not stop the poll for it; and they certainly bad not facilitated, the reference to the assessments, which was left to be made in the particular booths.
The Attorney Generalproved from a passage in the evidence given by Mr. Adolpbus, that the sheriffs had declared it not to be their duty to examine the books of assessments, and had refused to refer to them, and he therefore supported the amendment.
Mr. W. Smithsaid he had already stated what he now begged to repeat, that the evidence of Mr. Adolphus ought not to be considered as conclusive by the house.
The Chancellor of the Exchequeralso cited some passages from the evidence, to shew that the sheriffs had not attended to a request on the part of Mr. Mainwaring, that they might refer to the assessments of the land tax. The house agreed to the amended motion; "That the said R. A. Cox, and sir W. Rawlins, knt. by then conduct and practices at the said election, as stated in the foregoing resolutions, as well as by refusing to refer to the assessments to the land tax, have acted in violation of their duty, contrary to law, and in breach of the privilege's of that house."—It was then ordered, on the motion of Mr. Rose, "That the said R. A. Cox, and Sir W. Rawlins, knt. for their said offence, be committed to his majesty's gaol of Newgate, and that the speaker do issue his warrant accordingly."—Adjourned.