27 NOVEMBER 1830, Page 12

ANALYSIS OF THE ELECTION PETITIONS.

We have perused the whole mass of Election Petitions, intending to give a short analysis of each case. Our space, however, forbids this, as well as indulgence in the observations which the cases suggest. They would furnish materiel for the longest debate that ever took place in the House of Commons ; and we advise Honourable Members, who propose to take part in the approaching discussions on Parliamentary Reform, to peruse them attentively. It will prevent much false reasoning upon the sound working of the system. The greater number of the petitions deal only in general allegations, at- tributing bribery and sundry irregularities to the sitting members, or the officers who presided at the elections. The statements of the petitioners are ex parti; they will therefore be read as such. In the Committee, proofs of the allegations will be gone into. It by no means follows that the petitions which contain the strongest asseverations, are the most im. portant, as it is the practice of the wary practitioners in parliamen- tary business to employ the most general terms in the petition, avoiding all specific allegation, until the case is gone into upon the evidence. Some credit may, however, be given to the state- ments of these petitions, as the parties who prefer them incur a heavy responsibility in case they fail to establish them. To the practical re- former, it is a no less necessary and useful task to peruse these petitions attentively—to trace the workings of the elective franchise in its various modes of exercise, in county and in borough, in England, in Scotland, and in Ireland. Rioting, partiality, influence, intimidation, bribery, are pretty distinctly declared, by men of all parties, Whig, Toiy, and Liberal.

ENGLAND.

Boroughbridge.—Mr. LAwsoN and Mr. Macinararow have peti- tioned against this election. They allege that it was obtained through the influence of a Peer, who acted by the means of the postmaster, his agent there, whose interference also was illegal, he being engaged at the time in the collection of the revenue ; that the uncle of the postmaster was appointed assessor, and his brother-in-law poll clerk.

Cockermouth.—The Cockermouth petition states, that the borough, - though it has the reputed privilege of returning two members to Parlia- ment, and has a population of nearly five thousand persons, in point of fact, so far as regards the elective franchise, has entirely fallen to the disposal' of the Earl of LONSDALE, who possesses little property in the place ; the inhabitants having no voice in the election, are in con- sequence totally unrepresented ; and though, at the beginning of each

session, it is declared to be illegal for a Peer to interfere directly or reedy in theelection of members, it is notorious that the Earl of Lows- - DALE-appoints the membeia for Cockermouth. The petitioners pray an alteration in the -mode of choczing representatives, "but that if, in the wisdom of the House, the }resent system is to be continued, then that, in that place, the petitioners may no longer be insulted. with the farceof an election, but that the scene thereof may be removed to the festive board of the noble Earl, or to such other place as he may think best calculated for his own purposes." Maidstone.—A petition has been presented against the return of Mr. Alderman WINCHESTER, on the ground of his being a government con- tractor. The petition also contains the general charges of bribery and treating.

Oxford.—Mr. LOCKHART, the unsuccessful candidate, petitions against the return of Mr. HUGHES, principally on the ground of an alleged trick. He states that, a few days preceding the election, Mr. HUGHES declared he would not stand for the City, but that he appeared as a candidate on the day of election. In consequence, Mr. LOCKHART alleges, that his friends, who resided at a great distance, were unable to reach the place of election in time. The petition states the number of voters to be 2,200, half of whom reside in different parts of the kingdom. Petersfield. — A petition against the election, by the unsuccessful candidates, states, that the returning officer is the Mayor, who is nomi- nated by the Jury at the Court Leet ; that Jury is nominated by the steward of the lord of the manor, Colonel HYLTON JOLLIFFE, and the present steward is the solicitor and confidential agent of Colonel JOLLIFFE, and acted at the last election as the agent and solicitor for the sitting members ; that for several years ColonelJOLLIFFE has ex- ercised a controlling influence over the appointment of the returning officer, and the selection of his assessor at contested elections ; that at the last election, Mr. LIPSCOMBE, a tenant of Colonel JOLLIFFE, was the mayor, and acted as returning officer, and that Mr. J. PENFOLD, a solicitor, residing at Croydon, in Surry, acted as his assessor ; that, at the election of 1826, Mr. PENFOLD was the mayor, and acted as re- turning officer, although wholly unconnected with, and unknown to the inhabitants ; that the assessor was not impartially selected by the return- ing officer, but by Colonel JOLLIFFE, and the sitting members, who are his nephews. The petition also.states, that votes were admitted and rejected according to the side the elector supported ; and that one vote tendered on behalf of the sitting members, which their counsel admitted to be invalid, was afterwards accepted by the returning officer. Some of the electors have also presented a petition to the same effect. t Queenborough.—The petition of Mr. CAI'EL and Mr. Gromstown, the

( candidates for Queenborough, alleges that Mr. Holmes being Treasurer 1 of the Ordnance, and Sir PHILLIP DURHAM, an Admiral, and other , 'officers and servants of the Crown, employed the public ships and money itnd persons in the pay of Government, for the purpose of controlling the /election in their favour, and for carrying to the poll electors and persons

(pretending a right to vote, many of whom were in the pay and employ-

Iment of Government under the Board of Ordnance ; and that Sir IPHILIP DURHAM represented himself as Port Admiral, and about to raise his flag there, which would enable him to give them employment ; that !part of the band of a regiment of Royal Artillery attended Mr. HOLMES land Sir P. DURHAM ; and flags and other ensigns bearing the Ordnance

:arms were used by their partisans, and hung out of the windows of the house where they were staying. The petition also states, that many , prize-fighters and boxers, strangers to the borough, were taken there, kin order to overawe the legal voters. Stamford.—The electors have presented a petition against the sitting members. They distinctly allege, that the Marquis of EXETER, who is recorder of the borough, influenced the votes of electors ; and that several of the aldermen, being masters and landlords of electors, took up positions near the polling-booths, and attempted to influence and intimidate the electors ; and that the returning officer and deputy re- corder (nominated by the Marquis), acting as assessor, allowed them .to remain in such positions, notwithstanding the protest of Mr. C. TEENY. SON, the unsuccessful candidate. Tregony.—The petition of the unsuccessful candidates contains a spe- cific charge of bribery. It states, that a person who was an utter stranger to the borough, and who therefore went by the appellation of " Mr. Nobody," but who was in reality one of the agents of Mr. Gon. now and Mr. MACKILLOP, the sitting members, drove into the borough shortly before the election, in an open vehicle, with a box, bag, or parcel containing money, crowns and half-crowns, amounting to a considerable sum, and proceeded to the house of NICHOLAS MIDDLECOAT, a nom. rious general borough-agent, and an elector. The petition states that MIDDLECOAT was one of the agents in the interest and employ of the sitting members. It then goes on to state, that MinroJecoAT distri- buted the money among the electors, retaining a portion of the fund for himself.

Truro.—This is one of the most important and interesting of the cases to be determined. There are two petitions from Truro,—one from the members, and the other from the burgesses claiming a right to vote. By the charter, it appears, the right of voting is in the bur- gesses • but, in their default to elect, in the capital burgesses. This latter body, many of whom are non-residents, are persons of rank and influence, and have little or no connexion with the merchants and traders of Truro. The Earl of FALMOUTH is the Recorder ; and among the capital burgesses are Lord EXMOUTH and Admiral Devowsnanz. Of the burgesses, Sir JOHN Limaocx and Mr. TooKE polled one hundred and seventy-eight, and one capital burgess. Lord ENCOMBE and Mr. PEACH polled fourteen capital burgesses, of whom six were non-re- sident, and *hose right, it is said, is excluded by the charter on that ac- count. The Mayor, Mr. FERRIS, refused to take the election at the hustings in the open air; but retired to the Common Hall, from which it was attempted to exclude all but the capital burgesses. It is alleged that the influence of a Peer (supposed to be Earl FaaatouTn) was directly exerted in favour of the successful candidates. The occupation of the office of Recorder by a nobleman seems especially indecorous-4 fla- grantly contravenes the resolutions of the Lower House, which forbids the interference of Peers in the election of its members. The Recorder is the adviser of the Corporation, and it is contended that the right or election is vested in that body ; the Mayor, who presides too at the elec- tion, may need, and demand, the assistance of his law adviser. Is the noble Peer competent to afford him assistance in the exercise of his ministerial duties ? Ought it not to be forbidden by the law of elec- tion ? The charter is clear as to the rights of the claimants ; but it affords,another illustration of the folly of placing a popular privilege upon such a basis. The technical requirements render it almost hypos- sible that, in the lapse of years, want of caution, negligence, or the de- sign of those who; understanding the legal position better than those to whom the right belongs, should not induce R departure from its conditions, and expose the privileges to the risk of forfeiture. The right of election, wherever it exists, whether in a limited or extended district, compre- hending few or many voters, should be simple and intelligible to all, and not couched in a legal document, to be preserved only by the astute- ness of the lawyer, and at the same time exposed to doubt and difficulty whenever the interests of an unsuccessful antagonist call for a reason from his law adviser why the election should be set aside, and the heat of the election be protracted through the litigation of the right. Wigan.—Messrs. JAMES HARDCASTLE and RICHARD POTTER peti- tioned against the return of Messrs. J. A. HODSON and JAMES LINDSAY, on the ground that a number of legally qualified voters for the peti- tioners were refused. One of the members returned, Mr. J. A. HOD- SON, has since resigned.

SCOTLAND:

Forfar Burghs.—The Honourable DONALD OCIr-vIx, brother to the Earl of AIRLIE, petitions against the return of the Honourable Joust STUART WORTLEY, son of Lord WH Al2NCLIPFE. The election for this district is usually performed by five delegates, chosen by the Town Councils of Perth, Forfar, Cupar, Fife, St. Andrew's, and Dundee. At the late election, however, Dundee was suffering the penalties of dis- franchisement, and there was no Town Council in existence to receive the Sheriff 's precept or to give effect to it by choosing a delegate. Of the four qualified boroughs, Perth and St. Andrew's voted for Mr. STUART WORTLEY, Forfar and Cupar for Colonel OGILVIE, and For.. far being the presiding burgh at the election, gave its casting-vote for the latter gentleman ; who would thus have been declared duly elected, had not a spurious vote on behalf of Dundee been tendered by some in- triguing individuals of that town, for their own ends rather than Mr. leonTLEy's, and, oddly enough, been received as genuine by the re- turning officer. Much trickery and deception was employed, to bolster up this Dundee vote ; and the case is expected to furnish, in the Com- mittee, a pretty little specimen of the elective system in Scotland.

Glasgow Burghs.—A petition is presented against the return of Mr. A. CAMPBELL, the member for Glasgow, on the ground that the Com- missioner, ALEXANDER GARDEN, had not been duly elected. Mr. ROBERTSON, the Commissioner, who voted for Mr. KIERNAN FINLAY, the unsuccessful candidate, had, it is alleged, been elected by sixteen of the Town Council, while only fifteen voted for ALEXANDER GARDEN, who took upon himself to give a double vote, he presiding as Provost at the meeting. The Provost's vote is the contested point : was he entitled, as Provost, to vote at all, save in the case of eqt.al numbers ?

(To be continued.)