VI. CHAP. it has not been proved at your bar, that it has been the wish, the design of Mr. Fox, to procrastinate the decision of the scrutiny. 1785. "The high bailiff has told you, sir, that he all along understood St. Margaret's and St. John's to be the parishes where the chief suspicion lay; and I maintain, that he had a perfect right, without the consent of either of the parties, to have proceeded first to those parishes but Mr. Fox, he tells you, insisted that this would be a partial arrangement, and it was agreed to ballot which parish should come first. It is known, that the parishes in question come next in turn; and I would appeal, therefore, to the common sense of the house, whether it is not reasonable, natural, and by all means expedient, that the high bailiff should be permitted to pursue his scrutiny, at least into those parishes, being informed at the same time, that as soon as ever he is capable of satisfying his judgment, he is at perfect liberty to make his return. "The house has already gone the length of determining a scrutiny to be legal, even after the return of the writ, should the circumstance of the case demand it; and truly, sir, how much more dangerous would it be to the constitution, if it should become a settled point, that all scrutinies are unlawful, and that if a VI. 1785. sufficient number of men are found, who will CHAP. take their oath at the hustings, every writ must be instantly made up, however notorious the invalidity of votes may be, and must be thrown upon the table of this house? The truth is, that the right of voting in Westminster, is not sufficiently ascertained, and a bill is wanted, therefore, for this purpose: but, sir, we must not decide against the law of the land ; we must not contradict the analogies of law in these cases; we must permit scrutinies, when the necessity of them, in order to form a right judgment, is clear; and if any thing is wanted to expedite and facilitate such cases in future, a new law must be made for the purpose." The house divided at six o'clock in the morning, and the original motion was negatived by majority of 174 to 185. The amended motion was then carried without any division, and afterwards read to the high bailiff, by the speaker from the chair. The comparatively small majority by which Mr. Ellis's motion was lost, proved that the means used to excite dissatisfaction and odium against the scrutiny, had not been ineffectual, and was a sufficient encouragement to Mr. Fox and his friends, to bring the subject again before the house, as Mr. Fox had threat VI. CHAP. ened. Accordingly, on the 18th of February, colonel Fitzpatrick presented a petition from 1785. certain electors of Westminster, stating, that they had reason to believe, that the evidence given to the house, was defective and incomplete, and that farther evidence might be produced; and therefore praying, that they might be permitted to lay such evidence before the house, and to be heard by their counsel. Some doubts were expressed, whether this petition ought to be received. It was agreed on all sides, that if it were in substance the same as that which had been presented a little time since, and already decided upon, it could not be received consistently with the rules of the house; but it being urged, that the present petition professedly related to new facts recently discovered, it was admitted: after which an order was made, that the petitioners should be heard, by their counsel, on the following Monday; and that the high bailiff, and the counsel of the three candidates, should attend. On that day, as soon as it was proposed, that the counsel of the petitioners should be called in, lord Frederick Campbell observed, that the proceedings would extend to an immeasurable length, if the counsel should be at liberty to range at large into the merits of the VI. 1785. election, and that it would be inconsistent with CHAP. the dignity of the house to allow them to argue against the legality of the scrutiny, which was decided in the last session, and confirmed in the present, after due re-consideration; and therefore he moved, that these words should be added to the motion just made :-" And that the counsel be restrained from going into any matters, but such as tend to prove the evidence offered at the bar of the house, on Wednesday the 9th of this instant February, defective and incomplete; or such other matters as may have been discovered since the order of this house of the same date." After a long debate, lord Frederick Campbell's amendment, which was supported by Mr. Pitt, was carried by a majority of 203 to 145; and when the counsel, Mr. Erskine and Mr. Pigott, were called in, and heard the motion read, they informed the house, that, as they could not submit to the restraint thus imposed upon them, without departing from the positive instructions of their clients, the electors of Westminster, they must beg leave to withdraw themselves from the bar. The high bailiff then underwent a short examination; the object of which was to prove, in contradiction to what he had said on former days, that Mr. Fox's counsel had, as early as CHAP. last July, proposed immediately to examine VI. the votes in the parishes of St. John and St. 1785. Margaret, and that the offer was rejected by sir Cecil Wray's counsel. This point was now mentioned to the house for the first time, and it was by no means established by any satisfactory evidence. Had, indeed, this proposal been actually made in a regular manner, it is scarcely credible, that so important a fact would have been omitted in the former debate, especially as Mr. Fox's party were accused of a marked reluctance to inquire into the votes of those parishes; and Mr. Fox himself had declared, in the house of commons, that he should have been "an idiot," if he had acceded to the very same proposal, when made to him by the high bailiff. After the examination was ended, colonel Fitzpatrick made a motion similar to that of Mr. Ellis, and it was rejected. by a majority of only nine; the numbers being 145 and 136. On the Sd of March, lord Muncaster presented a petition to the house of commons, from sir Cecil Wray's committee for conducting the scrutiny, stating, that they had carefully investigated the votes in the parishes of St. Margaret and St. John, and had discovered, that 400 persons had voted, as inhabitants of those parishes, not one of whom could be found |