CALLINGTON ELECTION. (Hansard, 12 June 1820)

§ Sir Charles Burrell

reported from the Committee appointed to try the merits of the Petition against the Callington Election reported,

"That it appeared to the committee that the merits of the petitions did depend in part upon the right of election; and that therefore the said committee required the counsel for the several parties to deliver to the clerk of the said committee statements in writing of the right of election for which they respectively contended: that, in consequence thereof, the counsel for the petitioners, Matthias Attwood and William Thompson, esqrs. delivered in a statement, as follows: 'That the right of election is in persons seized of 1038 freeholds, whether resident or not, and in leaseholders, being resident house-holders, and rated within the borough:' that the counsel for the petitioners, William Hender and others, delivered in a statement, as follows: 'That the right of election is in persons seized of free-holds, whether resident or not, and in leaseholders, being resident householders and rated, and in inhabitant householders paying scot and lot:' that the counsel for the sitting members delivered in a statement, as follows: 'That the right of election is in freeholders of houses or lands within the borough, resident or non-resident, and in beneficial lease-holders of entire tenements, consisting of houses or lands within the borough for years determinable on a life or lives, being resident householders for forty days before the day of election, and rated to the poor at forty shillings at the least:' That upon the statement delivered in by the counsel for the petitioners, Matthias Attwood and William Thompson, esqrs., the said committee have determined, that the right of election, as set forth in the said statement, is not the right of election for the said borough: That, upon the statement delivered in by the petitioners, William Hender and others, the said committee have deter mined, that the right of election, as set forth in the said statement, is not the right of election for the said borough: That upon the statement delivered in by the counsel for the sitting members, the said committee have determined, that the right of election, as set forth in the said statement, is the right of election: That the said committee have determined, that sir Christopher Robinson, and the hon. Edward Pyndar Lygon, are not duly elected burgesses to serve in this present parliament for the said borough: That Matthias Attwood, esq., and William Thompson, esq., were duly elected, and ought to have been returned burgesses to serve in this present parliament for the said borough: That the petition of the said William Hender, and others, did not appear to the said committee to be frivelous or vexatious: That the opposition to the said petitions did not appear to the said committee to be frivolous or vexatious".