1838. Petitioners allowed to enter on a new class of objections and afterwards return to former class. was whether the part retained by the voter had been proved to be of the annual value of 101. Vote disallowed. Mr. Cockburn then proposed to strike off the vote of George Brotherton for change of residence after registration, but being unable to proceed with the case in consequence of the absence of a material witness, he proposed to take the class of bell-ringers, and to return to the case of Brotherton, when his witness should arrive. Mr. Banks objected to the petitioner being allowed to return to a class after having once left it, and referred to Rogers, pp. 74, 5. "According to the present practice, Committee's compel parties to continue a class of objections when they have began upon it." Resolved. That considering the Committee have not previously laid down any rule binding the course which counsel should take in this particular instance, and considering there are some peculiarities in this case, upon the whole of their imperfect knowledge of the subject, they are unwilling to interfere with the receiving of evidence which is thought material, but decide for the future to go on with one class. Votes of ringers held good. HENRY HERITAGE'S CASE. The voter himself was called and proved that he and other persons who were the regular ringers, had rung for the canvass and election. They were employed for twelve days in ringing for the canvass and for nine days in ringing for the election; 20. was paid for the ringing at the canvass by Messrs. Rushout and Borthwick, and the same sum for the ringing at the election. The money for ringing at the canvass was divided amongst five, that for ringing at the election, amongst EVESHAM. Mr. Cockburn contended that this voter was disqualified under the Act of Parliament. Mr. Banks argued in support of the vote. Resolved.-That although the Committee consider the employment of ringers for the purpose of the election might be perverted into a great abuse, yet as in this case it is not alleged that the payment was so large as to constitute in itself an act of bribery and corruption; and as the only ground on which it is sought to disqualify this voter, is founded upon the Act of Parliament which makes all persons employed and paid for the purposes of the election, liable to lose their votes for that election, the Committee think themselves justified in taking into consideration the circumstance that ringing was the ordinary occupation of these men, and the prevalence of the practice, and are not prepared to disqualify the voter. A few other cases of trifling importance were decided, and the scrutiny was closed, leaving Lord Marcus Hill in a majority of one over Mr. Borthwick. Mr. Austin stated, that it was not his intention to protract the scrutiny any further, but he wished to call the attention of the Committee to a question of serious importance to his client. There had been two cases brought before the Committee for the purpose of establishing a charge of personal bribery against Mr. Borthwick. One of these cases related to the gift of a snuff-box: the other to a promise alleged to have been held out to a voter of the name of Clements. The latter case would have been important if unanswered, and it was therefore answered; the former was treated by Mr. Borthwick himself, and by those to whom the conduct of his case was intrusted as one of no importance, and it was thought that after the manner in which the law had been expounded in the opening, it would not be treated by the Committee otherwise than as a trifling proceeding. What took place 1838. 1838. when the point of law connected with that case was argued, confirmed this opinion. But the decision that had been made had been both painful to Mr. Borthwick and to his counsel, and entirely unexpected. He therefore now applied to the Committee to allow him to furnish evidence to destroy the presumption that the snuff-box had been given with an intention to bribe. When counsel were asked to argue the legal question, it was thought that the legal question alone would have been decided upon; and the decision made upon that question appeared to render it unnecessary to give further evidence upon the facts. But as it now turned out that this evidence was material, the earliest opportunity was taken to apply to the Committee to hear evidence of all the facts of the case, and it was to be hoped that the application would be regarded as just and reasonable. Mr. Cockburn. The adjournment of the Committee was consented to yesterday, upon the understanding that the scrutiny would be abandoned. As the scrutiny had been abandoned, and Lord Marcus Hill is now in a majority, he had no interest in opposing the application. There was no wish to affect Mr. Borthwick with the penal consequences of any act that he might have committed, or to prevent his giving evidence to remove any incapacity to which the resolution of the Committee, if unreversed, might expose him. The Chairman.-From the course pursued at the time by the counsel upon both sides, the Committee had reason to believe that all the evidence relating to the case had been given. Without the arguments upon the resolution of 1677, the Committee were in a position to have decided upon the evidence. But that resolution having been referred to in the reply upon the evidence, counsel were asked to argue the question of its effect. The Committee then passed their resolution, which was not founded on the resolution of 1677; and they now consider that the question on which they made their resolution was ripe for their decision, and there are no sufficient grounds for entering into a fresh inquiry. A Member of the Committee.-The evidence purposed to be given would be ex parte; will the counsel for the petitioners attempt to answer it? Mr. Cockburn. The petitioners have no wish to prevent the evidence being heard. Resolved. That no sufficient grounds have been shewn to justify the Committee in granting a re-hearing. The usual resolutions were then passed, declaring Lord Marcus Hill duly elected. 1838. CASE XVIII. STIRLINGSHIRE. The Committee was chosen on the 26th of April, 1838, and consisted of the following members : Mr. Thesiger, Q. C., Mr. Austin, and Mr. B. S. Follett. The lists of objections on the part of the Sitting Member contained 123 names, those on the part of the petitioner 350 names. The following are the principal headings of the lists of the petitioners. 1. That there is only one Peter Wilson on the register, that Peter Wilson voted twice, and both of his votes were |