ANALYSIS OF THE ELECTION PETITIONS.

{CONCLUDED.]

Colchester.—Mr. MaYnEw, an unsuccessful candidate, has presented a petition full of strong allegations. He charges the returning officer with direct partiality and partizanship for Mr. SPOT TISEFOODE ; and that, to enable the Corporation to make their usual bargain with a candidate to be returned on their interest, they delayed the commencement of the election for several hours. It is alleged that Mr. Seca TISWOODE having declined engaging in the contest, entered into a negotiation with the Corporation ; and having succeeded in making terms, was nominated a candidate a second time, notwithstanding the protest of the petitioner. That in order to favour Mr. SPOTTISWOODE, the returning officer ap- pointed an old and infirm person as poll-clerk, who polled only four votes in forty minutes. The petitioner charges that one of the voters had received three guineas from Mr. SPOTTISWOODE, esides twelve shillings- for his expenses ; but the chief allegation is, that Mr. SPOTTISWOODE is directly or indirectly concerned in the patent office of King's Printer, and thus dependent on the Lords of the Treasury. * Huntingdon.—The petition of Mr. WELLS, the unsuccessful candi- date, states, that the Earls of SANDWICH have for many years exer- cised an unconstitutional influence over the Corporation, who claim the exclusive right of nominating freemen. It avers, that that body con- sists of persons holding office, by the interest of the Earls of Sandwich, in the Stamp Office and other public Offices, of great emolument ; and that by such influence the Earls of SANDWICH have caused persons to be returned to Parliament according to their nomination. The peti- tioner states, that, suspecting partiality on the part of HENRY STAN. roan, the Mayor and returning officer, who acted under the advice of Mr. MAULE, an attorney, who is an agent of the Earl of SANDWICH, and Town Clerk of the borough, and the electioneering agent of the sit- . ng members, gave notice that he was a candidate. On the morning of the election, before proceedings were commenced, the Mayor, at- tended by the sitting members, Mr. 14/AuLE and Mr. WILLIAM Au- GUSTUS MONTAGUE, the principal agent for the estates of the Earl of SANDwicH, also an alderman of the borough, a post-captain in the Royal Navy, one of the Commissioners and Deputy Chairman of the Board for the Collection of Stamp Duties, with other aldermen and electors in the, interest of the sitting members, went into a separate room of the Common Hall, from which they excluded the petitioner. The petition also alleges, that on taking the votes by a show of hands, the Mayor declared the numbers" who voted in favour of the sitting members ; the Mayor, after constilting with Mr. MAULE, did not state the number for the petitioner, but declared the sitting members to be duly elected, notwithstanding the numbeis in favour of the petitioner greatly preponderated. Rye.—The most curious details are stated in the Rye petition. It is alleged, that members of Dr. LAma's.family, for nearlytt. auturipPity

have, by Meets of a solemn convention, secureathe possession of the cote ?orate rights in themselves chiefly, admitting only such persons to the freedom who, being old or single, were not likely to bestow the right to become freemen upon any descendant.

Stockbridge.—In the petition of the electors, it is averred that the right of election is in the inhabitants of the borough paying scot and lot; and the owner of a large majority of houses, who is a Peer, in order to, secure a political interest in the borough, and the votes of persons occupying such houses, lets them upou agreements that they shall quit them upon a Fortnight's notice; and that several of the inhabitants who voted against the sitting members who stood upon the interest of the. Peer, were, immediately after the election, served with notices to quit. A further allegation states, that an entire control over the making the rate of the borough has been maintained for many years, by continuing in office the same persons as overseers, one of whom tendered his vote for the sitting members, admitting that he was their agent, and also the agent of the peer for the management of his property in the borough, and that the sitting members stood upon that interest ; that this agent, as overseer, had the control of making the rate; and that two magis- trates, neither of them living in the district of the borough, have lately attended, and held petty sessions for confirming the rates so made, although there were several acting magistrates within that district—one of such magistrates being the sitting member, WILLIAM SLOANE STANLEY. It is also alleged, that after Mr. STANLEY had canvassed the borough, he attended at the session with the other magistrates, and voted for rejecting the claims of several persons who had been left out of the rate by the overseers, to prevent them giving their vote at the election. It is added, that many persons, who from age and infirmity are incapable of work, and were formerly supported by the parish, are collusively em. ployed by the agent alluded to, and the surveyor of the road also ap- pointed by the same interest ; and that such persons are paid wages which they cannot earn, and the amount of their rates deducted from

i such wages is retained collusively to afford evidence of such persons being payers of scot and lot.

* Surry.—Colonel JOLLIFFE has petitioned against the election of Mr. BRISCOE, The principal allegation of the petition is, that, not being the eldest son or heir-apparent of a Peer, or of any person qualified to serve as knight of a shire, Mr. BRISCOE had not such an estate in law or equity of the annual value of GOO/. above reprizes as qualified him to be elected

IRELAND.

* Armagh.—Some electors have petitioned against Mr. GOULBURN'S return ; alleging that he has never been a resident inhabitant nor a bur-

gess of Armagh, and was therefore ineligible, not only by the charter, but by an act of the 10th Henry VII., which renders seven years' resi- dency or servitude within the precincts of any corporate town of Ireland a necessary qualification. There is also another petition from the inha- bitants of Armagh, setting forth that, by its charter, the municipal body should consist of twelve burgesses and a sovereign, each sovereign to be annual and elective ; that the present sovereign has been ten years in

office, and consequently every act done in his time after the first year has been void and that, in place of the burgesses having been chosen by the inhabitants, out of tWelve, ten are clergymen, dependent upon the will and pleasure of the Primate, and that most of them are non-re- sidents; that at the last election 'Mr. GOULBURN was proposed by a, non-resident divine, and, at the command of the Primates chaplain, he was seconded and returned by the sovereign. It asserts that Mr. °MILBURN has never been in Armagh. * Carlow.—The petition alleges that the control and influence of the elective franchise in that borough were many years ago usurped by the Earl of CEARLEVILLE, and that he still retains it.

Clare.—A petition has been presented against the return of Mr. aGOR3IAN MAHON. The objection taken is, that he employed flags and banners emblazoned with his arms, or with his name, the sign of the cross, and other similar emblems and devices, to excite popular ani- mosity against the other candidate, Lucius O'BRIEN. The petition also alleges, that green bands and sashes, ribands and badges, desig- nated with the insignia of the illegal order of Liberators, were worn both by himself and the electors who voted on his behalf. * Cork.—The return of Mr. D. CALLAGHAN is petitioned against. It is said that he was ineligible, as a Government contractor.

Droyheda.—Mr. Maumee O'CONNELL has presented a petition against the return of Mr. NORTH, the Judge of the High Court of Admiralty in Ireland,—on the ground of his holding that office, and because the wife of Mr. NORTH enjoys a pension from the Crown during pleasure or for years. * Dublin.—Mr. HENRY GRATTAN, the unsuccessful candidate, has presented a petition against the return of Mr. SHAW. The latter gen- tleman is Recorder of the city of Dublin, and, in that character, receives a certain salary from the Crown. It is alleged that the Recorder pos. sesses great influence over many electors, who are professional persons practising in his Court, or are suitors there, or are confined in the gaol, whom it is his duty to discharge. * Dundalk.-31r. FLANAGAN', the unsuccessful candidate, states in his petition, that on a vast concourse of the inhabitants going to the Guild- hall to inspect the corporation-books, they found the doors surrounded by an armed force of police, with Lord RODEN'S steward and officers, some of whom were also armed, who denied admittance to any person without an order from Lord RODEN or the Bailiff; that an election was held, to the exclusion of the rightful voters, and the most unconsti. tutional means resorted to—a breach of privilege of the House commit- ted by a Lord of Parliament ; that the Honourable J. H. CRADOCK is a stranger not only in Dundalk, but in Ireland, and is now residing on the Continent.

Galway.—The petition against the returrefor the County presents a most picturesque account of the lively scene of disorder which prevails at an Irish election. Parties headed by gentlemen and .clergymen—voters attempted to be intercepted, and, having succeeded in reaching their own quarters, locked up to prevent the too near approach of the enemy ; then a siege, and the kidnapping of the voters, and'sending them to sea ; end, not the least prominent feature of the picture, the assessor, exclaim- ing, in the joyous spirit of successful partisanship," We are at the head ef the poll—our friends are a-head I"

*Limerieli.---The petition for the unsuccessful candidate sets forth some agrOnSeellegaticeis. It is avetzed that the workmen who are engaged on

a public work in the neighbourhood, which had been brought about by the instrumentality of Mr. SPRING Rica—who had the appointment of the. Commissioners, and through them of the workmen—were paid wages beforehand, and engaged in the interest of Mr. RICE : that a police ma- gistrate had actively. interfered in his behalf, as well as a police constable, who had lately received his appointment, through the interest of Mr. RICE. The petitioner also alleges, that the Magistrates, who were ap- pointed to take the qualification-oath from Roman Catholics, clan- destinely met in the committee-room of Mr. RICE, and took the oath "upon a hook of blank paper only, in place of a copy of the Evangelists, as re- quired by law, inasmuch as the Roman Catholic freeholders very gene- rally refused to take the oath required by law on the Holy Evangelists." * Londonderry.—The return of Sir ROBERT A. FERGUSON, the sit- ting member, is impugned, on the ground of his being the Mayor of the City, and, in that character, returning officer at the time of election ; and because he was not a resident in Ireland.

* Louth.—The election of Mr. M‘CeileT ocx is petitioned against, on the ground that, as Sergeant at Arms of the late Irish Rouse of Com- mons, and of the Irish Court of Exchequer, he is ineligible. His salary is 12001. It is urged that, as Sergeant at Arms, he is deputy to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the Auditor of the Exchequer, and to the Tellers of the Exchequer, and obliged to account to them'; and that, by the 41st Geo. III. c. 53, s.4, they are disqualified, and therefore he is disqualified.

Tipperary.—Mr. J. H. Herm-resole. For want of registry, riot, and intimidation.

We.rforcl.—The petition of the freemen of the borough charges the interference of the Marquis of ELY; that the officers of the Corporation have been, in many cases, filled by persons appointed through his fluence ; and that there are entries in the books of the Corporation of the names' of several pei sms as freemen, residing in different and re. mote parts of Ireland, and no way connected with Wexford ; but who are the private friends, domestics, or servants, of tl Marquis of ELY. It is also asserted, that of one hundred and forty freemen, only fourteen are residents in the town, which contains a population of above twelve thousand inhabitants. The Mayor. it is alleged, confined thirty freemen in his house, to prevent any body speaking with them but the friends of Sir ROBERT WIGRAM or the Marquis of ELY. The Marquis and the Mayor appear, by the petition, to have acted in direct concert. The petitioners also charge, that Mr. Wronam offered to expend 20001. in building a dock or sluice for their use, provided he was returned at the next election ; and made various promises of place in the East India Company's service (in which Company, it is said, he and his brother Sir ROBERT possess great influence) to individual freemen. This petition affords some clue to the mode by which Corporations have obtained the control of elections, and how influential persons in their neighbourhood have influenced the Corporation. If the right of election be still in- trusted to the limited suffrage of corporations, some effort should be made, either by a Select Committee or by Commissions, to ascertain what is really the right, and how established, and in whom vested. If the right be extended only to the large towns, and the present boroughs suffered to remain, it is necessary to learn the nature of their pretensions, and how' they have abused or exercised them. The petitions detail circum- stances, which, if substantiated, will exhibit a sad illustration of the borough system.

* The orders for considering the Petitions thus marked have been discharged, the Petitioners not having entered into the required recognizance's.