PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMONS ON THE WESTMINSTER ELECTION.

The proceedings of the commons with respect to the election of a burgess for Westminster were attended with some extraordinary circumstances, which we shall now record for the edification of those who pique themselves on the privileges of a British subject. We have already observed, that a majority appearing on the poll for lord Trentham, the adherents of the other candidate, sir George Vandeput, demanded a scrutiny, which was granted by the high bailiff of Westminster, the returning officer. During this tedious investigation, which rolled chiefly on the qualifications of voters, he acted with such address and seeming candour as gave entire satisfaction to both parties, till at length he determined in favour of lord Trentham, whom he returned as duly elected. Those who styled themselves the independent electors did not acquiesce in this determination without clamour, reproach, menaces, and riot. They taxed Mr. Leigh, the high-bailiff, with partiality and injustice; they loudly affirmed that ministerial influence had been used in the most scandalous manner; and, finally, joined sir George Vandeput in a petition to the lower house, complaining of an undue election and return of a member for the city of Westminster. The commons, instead of inquiring into the merits of these petitions, ordered them to lie upon the table; and, without any complaint from any person whatever, a motion was made that Leigh, the high-bailiff, should attend the house immediately, in order to make them acquainted with what he had done in pursuance of the directions he had formerly received from that house, touching the execution of the writ for electing a new member to represent the city of Westminster. As this motion had been preconcerted, Leigh was attending in the lobby, and immediately called into the house to be examined on this subject. Having, in the course of his examination, alleged that the election had been protracted by affected delays, he was asked by whom, and by what means; but, before he could answer, the earl of Egmont, interposing, objected to the question as improper, and moved for the order of the day. A debate immediately ensued, in which the impropriety of the question was demonstrated by Mr. Henley, now lord-keeper, Dr. Lee, and some others, the most sensible and moderate members of the house; but they were opposed with great violence by lord viscount Corke, Henry Fox, esquire, sir William Young, colonel Lyttelton, and the weight of the ministry; so that the motion for the order of the day was carried in the negative, and the high-bailiff required to answer the question. Thus interrogated, he declared that he had been impeded in the scrutiny, and maltreated, by Mr. Crowle, who had acted as counsel for sir George Vandeput, by the honourable Alexander Murray, brother to lord Elibank, and one Gibson, an upholsterer, who had been very active, zealous, and turbulent in his endeavours to promote the interest of sir George Vandeput, or rather to thwart the pretensions of the other candidate, who was supposed to be countenanced by the ministry. These three persons, thus accused, were brought to the bar of the house, notwithstanding the strenuous remonstrances of several members, who opposed this method of proceeding, as a species of oppression equally arbitrary and absurd. They observed, that, as no complaint had been preferred, they had no right to take cognizance of the affair; that if any undue influence had been used, it would naturally appear when the merits of the election should fall under their inquiry; that a complaint having been lodged already against the returning officer, it was their duty to investigate his conduct, and punish him if he should be found delinquent; but that nothing could be more flagrantly unjust, and apparently partial, than their neglecting the petitions of the other candidate and electors, and encouraging the high-bailiff, who stood charged with iniquity, to recriminate upon his accusers, that they might be disabled from giving evidence on the inquiry into the merits of the election. What difference is it to the subject whether he is oppressed by an arbitrary prince, or by the despotic insolence of a ministerial majority? Mr. Crowle alleged, in his own vindication, that he had been employed as counsel by the electors of Westminster, and attended the scrutiny in that character; that after the high-bailiff had, in the course of the last session, received the order of the house to expedite the election, he hurried on the scrutiny with such precipitation as, he apprehended, was unjust and prejudicial to his clients; that, in this apprehension, he (Mr. Crowle) insisted upon the high-bailiff’s proceeding with more deliberation, and in so doing he thought he did his duty to his employers. Some evidence being examined against him, declared he had not only protracted the scrutiny, but also spoken disrespectful words of the house of commons; he was therefore reprimanded on his knees by the speaker, and discharged.