12 S. III. DEC., 1917.]
NOTES AND QUERIES.
513
the sworn Bayliffs." On the other hand
Gerard stated it would be proved tha
Wilkinson made treats to be chosen as Out
Bailiff, and he said the suggestion agains'
himself of bribery was utterly false, anc
that the riot of Mr. Pudsay and others o
Weddall's friends, and particularly the
clapping of pistols to men's breasts, hac
been so fully proved that an information
was actually brought against them in the
Crown Office. Gerard's party also alleged
that the Inquiry Jury had been improperly
discharged before the proper time, whereby
some of Gerard's supporters had been pre-
vented from being found and sworn a
burgesses, and proceedings were taken in the
King's Bench by mandamus to compel
their admission. Weddall's friends, how-
ever, had, as Gerard alleged " by surprise,"
got time allowed until Christmas to make
returns to the writs, so that the election was
over before the matter could be decided by
the Court.
It appears that at the time of election the whole number of electors on the Call Book was 85, so that as 45 voted for Weddall, 45 for Gerard, and 1 for Pudsay, there were more votes polled than there were electors. This is partly accounted for by the fact that Mainwaring accepted for Gerard the votes of 3 persons who had not been found by the Inquiry Jury and sworn. These were no doubt the persons for whom the writs of mandamus had been obtained.
On the eve of the hearing of the petition Richard Edge, writing from Waddow to Roger Kenyon under date of Dec. 28, 1693 (' Kenyon MSS.,' p. 278), states that
" great preparations were making on both sides, that Mr. Edmund Robinson, his son John, the late Bayliffe Stockes, Tom Dugdale, Colborne the Quaker, George Langford, and Madam Parker would sett out for London on Saturday next on Mr. Gerrard's party, and that Colonel Pudsay, Mr. Lister of Westby, Mr. Edward Parker, Mr. Robert Sclater, Mr/Oddy the Town Clerke, Dr. Whittacre, and two or three more that can speak about bribes, will certainly set out about Tuesday on Mr. Weddall's party."
The Journal of the House of Commons for Feb. 2, 1693/4, gives a somewhat cir- cumstantial account of the hearing of the petitions against Gerard's return. Not- withstanding the two decisions of the House of Commons that freemen had no right to vote in the elections, both sides admitted before the Parliamentary Committee that the right of election was in the burgesses and freemen, subject to this, that a freeman could only vote provided his landlord did not vote at the election as a burgess
in respect of the house such freeman*
occupied.
From the account in the Journal of the House it would appear that very little was attempted to be made before the Committee of the House of the charges of bribery. The only evidence on this point given on behalf of Weddall was by the Town Clerk, - who stated he was proffered " something should be worth five guineas " if he would vote for Gerard, and by a witness named Nowell, who said he saw Mrs. Parker offer an elector 40s. to vote for Bailiff Mainwaring and Gerard. In reply to this, evidence was given on behalf of Gerard that Xowell was a thief and had stolen 21 pairs of shoes,. and Mrs. Parker denied she had made any siich offer, and said that a witness who was by had been arrested by means of Weddall, and so prevented from coming to London to support her story. It was also testified on Gerard's behalf that Wilkinson, having great power in the borough, got votes for his being Bailiff by treating the burgesses and freemen.
The petition was mainly fought on the various irregularities that had taken place,, and voters were objected to on both sides on various grounds. The Committee, after hearing both sides, reported to the House that Gerard was duly elected.
When this report came before the House it was rejected by 162 votes to 140, and the House also rejected by 188 votes to 108 a motion that Weddall was duly elected. The election was then declared void, and the Speaker was ordered to issue a new writ. Finally, a motion that the Sheriff should be taken into custody by the Ser- ieant-at-Arms was only rejected by 101 votes to 99.
The new election took place on Feb. 23. 1693/4. Gerard was again the candidate n the Whig interest,, and Christopher .ister of Thornton was brought forward by he Tories. In the meantime it appears r . rom a letter dated Feb. 5, 1693/4, from litheroe, by Oddie the Town Clerk to Roger Kenyon (' Kenyon MSS.,' p. 284), that ' there was a report that a Bill was being pre- >ared to disfranchise our Corporation [that is jlitheroe] and make it fare no better than Stock- >ridge has done, and this occasioned by the tyotts committed or reported to be committed ince the first Election, which seems to be all' alse, no ryotts being committed." writer adds :
Mr. Lister [the Tory candidate] has enter ained his friends nobly both at Cliderow and Isewhere, and is resolved to the uttermost o' iis power to serve this Corporation."
