The counsel for the member whose return was impeached further observed that if sheriffs could not be chosen members of parliament, the Crown would be able to prevent any one from being elected, by taking care to make him a sheriff before the election; by which means, in bad times, every friend to the rights of the people might be excluded from sitting in the House of Commons. On this occasion, as the high sheriff had returned himself, that is to say, for his own county, it was thought proper to decide that the election was void; thus, at the same time, disqualifying the petitioner as well, which, was seemingly unreasonable.
There were two petitions presented in reference to the controverted election at Morpeth, Northumberland, in 1774. On this occasion it was violence and intimidation more than corrupt and illegal practices—though all had been resorted to—which had unjustly influenced the return. The candidates were the Hon. William Byron, Francis Eyre, T. C. Bigge, and Peter Delme.
“It was proved by a number of witnesses, that, at the end of the Poll, the majority was declared to be in favour of Delme and Byron (a counter-petition set forth that a majority had been obtained for Delme by the corrupt practices of Byron), but that the returning officers were compelled to return Delme and Eyre: and it was also proved that, on the morning of the election, before it began, Eyre made an inflammatory speech to the people; that after the riot began, he having retired some time before, the returning officers sent him word they would return whom he pleased, and that an answer being brought them, that they must return himself and Mr. Delme, they complied, and the riot ceased.”
The decision of the committee was that the gentleman who, as master of the mob, had directed the storm, was not duly elected, while the Hon. W. Byron, who had found his way to the suffrages of the voters through their pockets, must be returned, together with his nominee, Delme, already seated.
At Petersfield, Hants, in 1774, the Hon. John Luttrell was unfortunate, and brought a petition against the two members returned, Sir Abraham Hume and William Jolliffe, the former being high sheriff for the county of Hertford, and both—
“having been guilty of divers acts of bribery, by money, meat, drink, reward, entertainment, and provision; and that James Showell, pretending to be mayor, had acted partially.”
Three or four witnesses were called to prove that gifts and promises had been made by Mr. Jolliffe in the presence of the other sitting member; in the course of this evidence—
“one Newnam was called to prove a declaration made to him by Brackstone a voter, about having got the promise of a house from Mr. Jolliffe for his vote.”
The committee resolved that the evidence was inadmissible on the grounds that—
“although the declaration (not upon oath) of a person who cannot be obliged to be a witness on the subject himself, is admissible in evidence to affect such person, yet is not admissible against a third party.”