CONTESTED ELECTIONS.
From the year 1571 to 1700, only three petitions complaining of undue returns, were presented to the House of Commons, on two of which no report was made, and the other was reported to be in favour of the sitting members. The first petition to which reference is here made was that of Sir Willoughby Hickman, Bart. in 1700, against the return of Thomas White, Esq. on account of undue practices in the returning officers, when Sir Rowland Gwynn reported, that the first question was the right of election. The committee resolved "that the right of electing members to serve in Parliament for this Borough is in the burgesses non~resident, as well as in those resident within the Borough. That Thomas White, Esq. be not duly elected. That it is the opinion of the committee that Sir Willoughby Hickman is duly elected a burgess of this Borough."
In 1702 another petition was presented by Sir Willoughby Hickman, Bart. and William Levinz, Esq. against the return of John Thornhaugh and Thomas White, Esqrs. complaining of arbitrary and illegal power having been exercised by the bailiffs. Sir Rowland Gwynn reported, "That the right of election was agreed to be in the freemen and burgesses, but the question was whether the younger sons of freemen had a right to demand their freedom? When the committee resolved "That the younger sons of the freemen of this Borough have not a right to demand their freedom of this Borough." And "That the sitting members are duly elected."
In the succeeding Parliament, the same gentlemen petitioned the House against the return of the old members, upon the same grounds, when the chairman, (Mr. Bromley,) reported from the committee "That, the right of election was agreed to be in the bailiffs and burgesses," but they did not agree how they were qualified to he burgesses. The committee afterwards came to the ‘following decision "That all the sons of freemen of this Borough have a right to their freedom," and "that the petitioners are duly elected."
In 1705, Sir Hardolph Wasteneys, Bart. and Robert Molesworth, Esq. petitioned against the return of Sir Willoughby Hickman, Bart. and William Levinz, Esq. who had been elected on the assumption of the last parliamentary committee,—" that all the sons of freemen have a right to their freedom." Mr. Compton (the chairman) reported "That the right of election was agreed’ to be in the bailiffs and burgesses, or freemen." The points were, 1st. Who had a right to the freedom? And 2ndly. What power the Corporation has to make persons living out of the Borough, free by redemption? The counsel for the petitioners; to prove the custom of the Borough making foreigners free, produced the following ordinance agreed upon by the Corporation immediately after the granting of the last charter, dated September 6th, of the sixth of James the first.
"It is ordered, established, and decreed, that all and every such as shall he made free within the town by redemption, shall compound and agree with Mr. Bailiffs, and the aldermen of the town for their freedom, and that no foreigner shall he made free by redemption under 20s. to be paid to the town’s chamber; 20d. to Mr. Bailiffs; 20d. to the chamberlains; 12d. to the deputy steward or town clerk ; 8d. to the sergeant at mace; and 12d. to the relief of the poor, and that at the next court, after the said freedom granted, the party shall be brought in by the chamberlains, and there take the oath appointed for that purpose." Also another ordinance made in 1624,—" for disabling the burgesses to vote at any election or elections whatsoever within the Borough, who shall remove his dwelling out of the Borough, and continue so for one whole year, provided in case he did return again, and live within the Borough, he should vote, while he lived therein."
After considerable deliberations the committee came to the following resolution, "That the right of electing burgesses, to serve in Parliament for this borough, is in such freemen only, as have a right to their freedom by birth, as eldest sons of freemen, or by serving seven years apprenticeships or have it by redemption whether inhabiting or not inhabiting, in the said Borough, at the time of their being made free." They also declared the election of the sitting members to be void, and the petitioners to be duly elected.
Another petition was presented by Willoughby Hickman and Brian Cooke, Esqrs. in 1710, against the returns of Thomas White and Thomas Westhy, Esqrs. The Committee reported to the same effect as in the preceding case, with exception of the words "not inhabiting," and unseated the members, declaring that the petitioners were duly elected.
[<<Previous] [Next>>]
© A P NICHOLSON | PAGE LAST UPDATED: 29 MAY 2003