and other freeholders of the county, complaining of an undue election,
and double return, the matter of these petitions was heard at the bar of
the house on the third day of December. The counsel for lord Wenman and
sir James Dashwood alleged that they had the majority of votes upon the
poll, and this circumstance was admitted by the counsel on the other
side; then they proceeded to prove by evidence, that, after closing
the poll, the sheriff declared the majority of votes to be in favour of
these two candidates, and adjourned the court from the twenty-third day
of April to the eighth of May; so that the scrutiny demanded and
granted on the behalf of lord Parker and sir Edward Turner could not
be discussed before the last day of the month, when the writ was
returnable; that the scrutiny did not begin till the ninth day of May,
when the time was protracted by disputes about the manner in which
it should be carried on; that lord Parker and sir Edward Turner were
allowed to object, through the whole poll, to the votes on the other
side, on pretence that their competitors should be permitted to answer
these objections, and, in their turn, object through the whole poll to
the voters for lord Parker and sir Edward Turner, who should, in
the last place, have leave to answer: that lord Wenman and sir James
Dashwood had disapproved of this method, because they apprehended
it might induce their competitors to make such a number of frivolous
objections, that they should not have time to answer one half of them,
much less to make objections of their own before the writ should be
returned: that they foresaw such a number of frivolous objections were
made, as engrossed the attention of the court till the twenty-seventh
day of May; so that they could not begin to answer any of these
objections till the twenty-eighth; and on the thirtieth, the sheriff,
having closed the scrutiny, made the double return. The proof being
exhibited, the counsel insisted, that as they had established a majority
on the poll, and demonstrated that this majority neither was nor could
be overthrown by such an unfinished scrutiny, it was incumbent on the
other side to proceed upon the merits of the election, by endeavouring
to overthrow that majority of which their clients were in possession. A
question in the house being carried to the same purpose, lord Wenman
and sir James Dashwood objected to five hundred and thirty voters on
the other side, whom they propos