54 



ANNUAL REGISTER, 1805.» 



poll, on the first of which days 

 there was a considerable majority of 

 votes in favour of William Main- 

 waring, esq. the sheritVs K. A. 

 Cox, esq. and sir William Rawlins, 

 tnight, wilfiillyand knowingly, did 

 admit to poll, for sir Francis Bur- 

 dett, bart. upwards of three hun- 

 dred persons claiming to vote un. 

 der a ficitious right, by which a 

 colourable majority was obtainiBd 

 in favour of sir Francis Burdott ; 

 that they afterwards rejected per- 

 sons tendering their votes, under the 

 same circumstances ; that they act- 

 ed sometimes judicially and some- 

 iimes ministerially, in a manner 

 contradictory to their practice in 

 other cases, and in gross violation of 

 their duty ; and that the obvious 

 tendency of their conduct was to 

 admit persons to poll, who had no 

 right to do so, and thereby offered 

 an encouragement to perjury : a 

 petition was presented on the 25tli 

 of January, 1805, in behalf of the 

 sheriffs, praying to be heard by 

 themselves, or their counsel, against 

 the charges contained against tliem 

 in the said report. In consiqiience 

 of this, an order was made, after 

 various discussions, for the hearing 

 of counsel, which took place on the 

 llth of March, when Mr. Adam 

 made a very luminous and able 

 speech, in exculpation of them, in 

 which he went into all the various 

 details of their conduct, throughout 

 the election, and concluded by ob- 

 serving, that the si eriffs.j not being 

 themselves edncat«d in the prolcs- 

 sion of the law, did all in their 

 power to secure themselves fro.n 

 error, by acting according to the 

 advice and instructions of profes- 

 sional people. On the question 

 feeing put, that the honse should 

 agree to the resolutions of the com- 

 3 



niittce, Mr. Rose represented th^ 

 partiality of the sherilis to sir Francis 

 uurdctt as so very glaring, and the 

 insults they suffered to be offered to 

 IMr.Mainwaring so gross, that, wheri 

 this resolution was agreed to, he 

 should feel it his duty to propose 

 another, for a proper punishment 

 of those returning officers. — Mr. 

 P. jMoorc, on the other hand, did 

 not think the report Avarranted by 

 the evidence, and strongly conten- 

 ded, that the sheriffs acted with 

 strict impartiality. After soma 

 conversation, the following resolu- 

 tion was voted, " That the said K. 

 " A. Cox, esq. and sir William 

 " Rawlins, knight, by their con- 

 " duct and practices at the said 

 " election, as stated in the fore- 

 " going resolutions, as well as by 

 " rtlusing to refer to the assess- 

 " nients of the land tax, have acted 

 '• in violation of their duty, con- 

 '• trary to law, and in breach of 

 " the privileges of that house." 'It 

 was then also ordered, on the mo- 

 tion of Mr. Rose, " That the said 

 " R. A. Cox, esq. and sir William 

 " Rawlins, knight, for their said 

 " offence, be committed to his ma- 

 " jcsty's gaol of Newgate, and that j 

 " the speaker do issue his warrant 

 " accordingly." 



On the l2th, after the third 

 reading of the mutiny bill, the,.] 

 Secretary at War brought up a 

 clause, by way of rider, which con- 

 tained the oath to be in future ad- 

 ministered to all the members ser- 

 ving in regiinental courts martial, I 

 and also another for swearing all 

 the witiies.ses who should give evi- 

 dence before them. 



General Fitzpatrick, after ob- 

 serving that though, originally, only 

 small oflences were meant to be 

 tried before these courts, yet, as at 



present 



