, 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,