gally returned a burgess to serve in this present parliament for the said borough of Great Grimsby, to the great prejudice of the petitioner, who was duly elected by a majority of legal votes given or tendered for the petitioner, who ought to have been returned a burgess with the said William Ellice, esquire, to serve in this present parliament for the said borough of Great Grimsby, in open defiance of the laws and freedom of election, and particularly of the act for more effectually preventing bribery and corruption at the election of members to serve in parliament; and therefore praying the house to take the premises into consideration, and that the petitioner may obtain such relief in the premises as to the house may seem meet.-See 62 Journ. 579; 63 Journ. 117, 118.

Petition of one of two Candidates for an English Borough, returned upon a double Return, complaining that illegal Votes had been received, which made an apparent Equality upon the Poll, and that Petitioner ought to have been returned singly.

THAT, at the last election of a burgess to serve in parliament for the borough of Banbury, in the county of Oxford, made on the 5th of May, 1807, William Praed, esq. and the petitioner were candidates; and that, at the said election, a majority of legal votes was offered

in favour of the petitioner above the said William Praed; but Richard Chapman, the mayor of the said borough, who presided as the returning officer at the said election, received the votes of several persons on the poll, in favour of the said William Praed, who had no right to vote at the said election; by which means the said William Praed appears on the poll to have an equal number of votes with the petitioner; and the said Richard Chapman hath unjustly made a return of the said William Praed, and of the petitioner, as having an equal number of votes; whereas the petitioner had a majority of legal votes, and was duly elected, and ought to have been returned as so elected; and therefore praying, that the house will take the premises into their consideration, and grant him such relief as they shall think proper. See 62 Journ. 7th July, 1807.

Petition of a Candidate for a County in Scotland, complaining of the improper Admission and Rejection of Votes in the Election of Preses, and Clerk; that Persons had been declared duly elected as Preses and Clerk, who had not the legal Majority, and that the Person so declared Preses had improperly admitted and rejected Votes, and had returned the Sitting Member, and alledging that Petitioner was duly elected, and declared so to be by the legal Preses.

THAT the petitioner and Patrick Heron, esq. were candidates at the last election of a com

missioner to serve in parliament for the stewartry of Kirdcudbright, in Scotland, and at the meeting for such election, which was held on the 23d day of July last; it was the duty of the said Patrick Heron, (who was then pre sent), as the commissioner last elected to serve in parliament for the said stewartry, to call over the roll of electors, in order to the election of preses and clerk of the said meeting, and in calling over the said roll, and other proceedings, for such election of preses and clerk, the said Patrick Heron was guilty of great partiality and injustice, and did various illegal and unwarrantable acts, and permitted such illegal and unwarrantable acts to be done by the freeholders in his interest, and by his agents and counsel present at the said meeting; and the said Patrick Heron, in calling over the said roll, refused or omitted the votes of several freeholders, whose names were upon the said roll, and who were entitled by law to vote in the said election of preses and clerk, and who thereupon actually tendered their votes, under protest, for John Gordon, esq. of Kenmore, to be preses, and Mr. James Niven, writer, in Kirkcudbright, to be clerk of the said meeting; and the said Patrick Heron also unjustly and illegally struck out or erased the names of some of such freeholders from the said roll; and the said Patrick Heron, in calling over the said roll, also received the votes of several persons who were by law incapacitated from voting, and whose votes were received by the said Patrick Heron, for Richard Alexander Oswald, esq. of Auchencruive, to be preses, and Mr. Robert Gordon, writer, in Kirdcudbright, to be clerk of the said meeting; and the said

Patrick Heron, having declared that said Richard Alexander Oswald and Robert Gordon, were duly elected preses and clerk of the said meeting; and having signed the minutes of such election accordingly, the said Richard Alexander Oswald and Robert Gordon, took upon themselves to act as preses and clerk of the said meeting, although the said John Gordon and James Niven had a majority of legal votes, and were duly elected preses and clerk of the said meeting; and the said Patrick Heron should have declared them to be duly elected, and should have signed the minutes of such election, and they should have been permitted to act as preses and clerk of the said meeting accordingly; and that, in proceeding to make up and adjust the roll of electors after the said meeting was thus constituted by the choice of preses and clerk, several other freeholders in the interest of the petitioner, who were by law entitled to remain upon the said roll, and to give their votes in all questions in adjusting the said roll, and in the election of a member to serve in parliament, were struck off or left out of the said roll by the said Richard Alexander Oswald and Patrick Heron; and the other freeholders in his interest, and other persons in the interest of the said Patrick Heron, who ought by law to have been struck off, or left out of the said roll, were, by the said Richard Alexander Oswald, Patrick Heron, and other freeholders in his interest, continued upon the said roll, and allowed to vote in all questions, in adjusting the said roll, and in the election of a member to serve in parliament, notwithstanding the objections made thereto by the petitioner, and the other freeholders in his interest;

and other persons, who had no right by law to be inrolled, were also unjustly and illegally added to and put upon the said roll, by the said Richard Alexander Oswald and Patrick Heron, and the freeholders in his interest; and some freeholders in the interest of the petitioner, who were by law clearly entitled to be added to, and put upon, the said roll, and who then duly claimed the same, were, nevertheless, by the said Richard Alexander Oswald and Patrick Heron, and the freeholders in his interest, refused to be inrolled; in all which proceedings, great and manifest partiality and injustice were shewn and done by the said Richard Alexander Oswald and Patrick Heron, and the freeholders in his interest; and that, after such proceedings as aforesaid had taken place, the said Richard Alexander Oswald did not, in the election of the member to serve in parliament, call for or receive the votes of the several freeholders in the interest of the petitioner, who had been struck off, or left out of the said roll, or refused to be added thereto in manner aforesaid, but rejected and refused all such votes, although such several frecholders duly tendered the same for the petitioner; and the said Richard Alexander Oswald, called for and received the votes of the several other persons aforesaid, who ought to have been struck off, or left out of the said roll, or refused to be added thereto, in manner aforesaid, and who then gave their votes for the said Patrick Heron, although the petitioner, and other freeholders in his interest, duly objected to and protested against the same; and the said Richard Alexander Oswald thereupon declared the said Patrick Heron to be duly elected; and that, by the means aforesaid,