have polled for me, upon cross examination appears equally ignorant of the truth of the affidavits, and therefore the burthen of the proof rested upon the evidence of Affleck, whose testimony, nevertheless, after four hours examination, is expunged from your books as inadmissible. Expunged, however, though it is, I wish the house to recollect the answers he gave concerning the descriptions of the bad voters which are imputed to me and to the stated number of them. The number is said to be 143, and the house will recollect that although I repeatedly pressed the witness to name some of them, he could not even name one. I questioned Affleck particularly, whether the 143 were persons who did not exist where they pretended to reside his answer was that some did reside in the streets as mentioned in the poll books, and that others could not be found at all. Those who could not be found at all, if any such there were, might fairly be deemed bad votes, but the other class of voters involved a question of law, and I submit to the house, whether if the evidence of this man, instead of being rejected as incompetent, had actually been admitted, the whole tenour of it instead of exculpating would not in the strongest sense tend to criminate the high bailiff. Had he known his duty, or was disposed to discharge it, this he would have said to such a reporter. "You may be, and most likely are, interested in deceiving me. After much argument and discussion, I as the sole judge in this court have admitted these to be legal votes, which you (of whom I know nothing) affirm to be only lodgers or non-residents. My situation is too solemn to be affected by such information, and therefore I dismiss it as unfit for me to proceed upon."

This should have been the high bailiff's conduct, but his conduct is the exact reverse of it. He receives this species of information, and from these sort of men and not only this, but accepts affidavits imputing bribery to some persons who canvassed for me, acknowledging at the same moment that he had no cognizance of bribery, and never once inquires into the truth of the charge, nor whether

any credit is due to the deposer, nor even who the deposer is. All this the high bailiff does in concert with my adversaries, secretly, collusively, without even once giving me or any one of my agents the very slightest idea that any such intercourse had subsisted between him [the Judge of this court] and one of the parties litigating that upon which he was to exercise his judicial function.

To have received such information with the least attention was in itself criminal enough, but studiously, cautiously, and deliberately to have concealed it from me, was base and wicked in the extreme. Had I been apprized of these machinations, I might have established the falsehood of every accusation; and surely, if justice had been the object of the high bailiff, he would not rest one moment until he communicated to me the burthen of these informations and affidavits, especially if he meant to overturn the whole tide of precedents, and to innovate upon the practice of all the returning officers that ever lived in this kingdom, in granting a scrutiny to commence after the return of the writ. If truth was his aim, the obvious mode of ascertaining it was, to have given the other party an opportunity of knowing the charges brought against them, to let them have the chance of contradicting their accusers, and if we failed in falsifying these informations, the high bailiff would have had this presumption in his favour, that it was only because we could not. But, sir, not this nor any thing like it, did the high bailiff of Westminster. So far from acting like an impartial judge, he appears to have been the agent, or rather the mere tool of my opponents, and every syllable of these informations upon which he acted might have been, for aught he knew, the vilest mass of falsehood and perjury that ever thwarted the course of justice. I say then, sir, if the high bailiff absolutely possessed a legal discretion in granting a scrutiny, to have granted it upon this sort of evidence, and under these circumstances was, to say no worse of it, an act that cannot be justi

fied upon any obvious principle of law, reason, common sense, or common equity.

But what will the candid part of the house think of this high bailiff, when they consider that the grounds of his vindication at your bar, differ as much as light and darkness, from his vindication in the vestry of Covent Garden upon granting the scrutiny? And here, sir, I have to lament that the paper which he read to this house as his defence, which the gentlemen opposite to me [the ministry] for reasons as honourable perhaps to themselves as to the high bailiff so strenuously opposed being laid on the table, is now impossible to be produced. That paper, sir, would have enabled me from his own words, to have proved to you, that the principle he avowed at your bar, as the rule that governed him in this business, is exactly and directly the very reverse of the principle he pretended to act upon at the time of granting the scrutiny. Fortunately, however, this fact is established in clear unquestioned evidence before you. Mr. O'Bryen's testimony is complete and decisive to that point-his words were, "that the high bailiff in the vestry upon granting the scrutiny, disclaimed the informations delivered to him by sir Cecil Wray and his agents, that he replied with peevishness and some displeasure to Sir Cecil for having mentioned them; that he declared he believed he had never read them; certainly never with any attention; that he threw them aside unnoticed; that they had not the least operation upon his judgment; and that they did not, in the very slightest sense, influence his determination in granting the scrutiny." These were his words. Atkinson, upon cross examination, was obliged to acknowledge this, and Grojan's want of memory upon it, goes of itself a great way to establish the truth, if it required further corroboration.

Now let the house and the world judge of this high bailiff, who, upon granting the scrutiny, affects to be insulted at the supposition of his acting upon this ex parte information, and yet rests all his defence at the bar of this house upon that very ex parte infor

mation which but a fortnight before he disclaimed and despised.

Without adverting to his shameful and scandalous conduct (which, if he had one spark of feeling would make him blush to show his face, much less to avow the act) in holding this fraudulent intercourse with my enemies, cautiously concealing that any such intercourse subsisted between them, treacherously betraying the cause of justice which his situation bound him to support inviolate, and basely lending himself to one party for the ruin of the other; can any thing better show his iniquity than varying the, grounds of his defence according to the variation of scene, and the pressure of exigency. This continual shifting demonstrates that he has no honest defence to makeput the most favourable construction possible upon his conduct, and the best of the alternatives marks him a hypocrite at the least. If he has spoken truth in the vestry, he is an arrant liar before this houseor if he vindicates himself before you upon pure principles, he has grossly and wickedly deceived me and all who heard the contempt he expressed in the vestry for that information, upon which he has expatiated at the bar of this house with such extraordinary reverence.

Šo much for the consistency of the high bailiff, respecting his alleged motives in granting a scrutiny. It is said upon the other side of the house that the poll was not a scrutiny, and said, in express contradiction to the evidence produced at your bar. Never was a poll a scrutiny, unless the poll in question was such. It is established by respectable testimony at your bar, that the poll was an absolute scrutiny. It is proved that the parish books were constantly at the hustings and each voter's name, profession, and description, collated with the books. It is proved, that when the names of voters could not always be found in the parish books (which was often the case, and yet the votes perfectly legal) a gentleman in the interest of each side frequently went to the very street in which the voter said he lived that the vote was

suspended until that inquiry was made, and that the decision was always governed by the report of the inquirers in such case. Was this, or was it not a scrutiny?-But it is said that the poll was crammed at one time, and hence an inference is drawn that the poll was not a scrutiny. This is strange reasoning, surely. To support this inference it should be proved that votes were excepted to, and yet admitted in the hurry without examination or inquiry. Does this appear to be the case?-Nothing like it. With all Mr. Grojan's disposition to shelter the high bailiff, with all his power of memory at one time, and his want of it at another, does he assert any such thing? No, sir, he could not with truth, and even he could not venture upon this without truth. Did you ever hear or did such a thing ever happen as that a returning officer of his own accord should reject any votes not excepted to by the contending parties? Certainly not. These votes, therefore, in whose legality the candidates themselves agreed must be justly presumed by the high bailiff to be unexceptionable, and from hence to suppose that the poll was no scrutiny, is weak in the extreme. In the early part of the election it was the natural wish of each candidate to get upon the head of the poll. Each brought up as many friends as possible, and this. accounts for what they call cramming the poll. Respecting the high bailiff's difficulty in forming an opinion as to which of the two had the greater number of legal votes; had I been lowest upon the poll at the close of the election, there might have been some little colour for his affectation of scruples. Why? because upon the days when the poll was most crammed, when the greatest numbers polled, and when there was least inquiry and least examination into their legality, Sir Cecil Wray had a very great majority over me. I began to gain upon my adversary, not when thousands polled of a day, but when only a few hundreds, and less than a hundred polled on each day-at a time when there was sufficient leisure to scrutinize the votes, and when the most