The committee of privileges and elections, contrary to modern practice, proceeded to try the merits of the election as well as that of the return, and reported, 1. "That Sir William Franklyn is not duly elected a burgess to serve in the present parliament for the borough." 2. "That Thomas Christie is duly elected a burgess to serve in this present parliament for this borough." 3. "That the matter on the petition of Sir William Franklyn, and of the returns of the burgesses for the said town, be especially reported to the house."

A petition of Sir William Franklyn was then offered to the house, and brought to the table, to the following effect: "That he was surprised by the order of the committee which Mr. Christie had obtained to hear the merits of the election with the matter of the double return, and therefore had not instructed his counsel, nor was provided for defence in that matter; the said order being ex-parte; and it being proposed to read the petition, it was refused. Then a motion was made to recommit the report, which was also denied." The several resolutions were then read a second time, and agreed to by the house. Ordered. 1. "That the under-sheriff of the county of Bedford be taken into the custody of the sergeant-at-arms, attending this house, for his misdemeanour touching the return of the burgesses to serve in this present parliament for this borough." 2. "That the mayor of the town be taken into custody of the sergeant-at-arms attending this house, for his misdemeanour in the late elections of burgesses to serve in this present parliament for this borough.' 3. "That the mayor and bailiffs of this town do attend the house on Monday next, to amend the return of burgesses to serve in this present parliament for this borough; and that the clerk of the crown do there also attend with the said return." Resolved, "That after a return made into the crown office of members to serve in Parliament, the same shall not be altered by the sheriff or clerk of the crown, or any other but the house."-Journ. of H. of C. Vol. 10.

1705, Nov. 2. A petition of Samuel Rolt, Esq. was read, shewing that the peti

tioner was a candidate at the last election of members to serve in Parliament for this town, but by bribery measures and other indirect practices, Sir Philip Monoux and William Farrer, Esq., procured a considerable majority of votes over the petitioner ; and praying, &c. Ordered, "To be referred to the committee of privileges and elections to examine the matters, and report it with their opinion." No determination entered on the journals.-Journ. of H. of C. Vol. 15.

+1713, March 15. A petition of William Farrer. Esq. was read, shewing, that at the election for this borough, where the petitioner and Samuel Rolt, Esq. were candidates, that Mr. Rolt, at the time of the said election, was not qualified according to act of parliament, and that the petitioner had the majority; notwithstanding which, the mayor and bailiffs of the said borough did unduly elect and return the said Mr. Rolt, in wrong of the petitioner; and praying, &c. Ordered, "To be referred to the committee of privileges and elections to examine the matters, and report it with their opinion." No determination entered on the journals.―Journ. of H of C. Vol. 16.

1727.8. At this election there were four candidates, John Orlebar (who polled 240.) J. T. Brace (236), Samuel Ongley (465), and James Metcalfe (462). Petition of Samuel Ongley and James Metcalfe, Esqs. referred; instruction to hear it on a certain day. Petition of several burgesses, freemen, and inhabitants referred; instruction to hear it at the same time the above petition is heard; order for hearing. Reports to be made.

Par.

Members.

Par.

Members.

*1730 Sir J. V. Sambrooke, 1754 Fr. Herne. Rob. H. Ongley.

Bart., v. Metcalfe (deceased.)

Sam. Ongley.

1734 Sir J. V. Sambrooke, Bart.

1761

Rich. Vernon. 1764 Richard Vernon, v. The

1740 Sir B. Chernocke, v. Sam- 1768 Samuel Whitbread. Richard

brooke (deceased).

Ongley.

same (accepted office.)

Vernon.

Sparrow.

1741 Sir B. Chernocke, Bart. Sam. 1774 Sir Wm. Wake, Bart. Robt.

1747 Thos. Gore. Jno. Offley.

† ON PETITION, Whitbread, v. Sparrow.

Resolved, "That Samuel Ongley, having an office touching the collecting the customs at the time of the election of burgesses, is incapable to sit in parliament for the said borough. That Mr. Orlebar and Mr. Metcalfe are duly elected, that John Thurloe Brace, Esq. is not duly elected. Return to be amended." Question, "That the late mayor is guilty of a violation of the laws, for presenting false returns." NegativeReturns amended.-Journ. of H. of C. Vol. 21.

1730. Feb. 19. A petition of Thomas Browne, Doctor of Physic, presented to the house and read; setting forth that at the last election of a burgess to serve in this parliament for the borough of Bedford, in the room of James Metcalfe, Esq., deceased, Sir Jeremy Vanacker Sambrooke, Bart., and the petitioner stood candidates; where many persons were admitted to poll for Sir Jeremy who had no right to vote, and many other corrupt and illegal practices were used by, for and in favour of him, in order to procure him to be chosen and returned, and he is returned, though the petitioner was duly elected and ought to have been returned, and praying, &c." Ordered to be heard at the bar. Leave given to withdraw it.-Journ. of H. of C. Vol. 21. †This election was contested by Sir William Wake, Bart., (who polled 527,) Robert Sparrow (517,) Samuel Whitbread (409,) John Howard (402). As the influence of the Bedford family about this period received a severe shock, we will here concisely give its history. The corporation, whom the then Duke of Bedford had offended, in order to destroy his interest in this town, created, as we have elsewhere observed, a great number of honorary freemen, among whom, were the late Sir Robert Barnard, Mr. Alderman Townsend, John Horne Tooke, Esq., and several more independent gentlemen, traders, yeomen and freemen. The first of these they chose Recorder; and the borough seemed to have entirely emancipated itself from aristocratic influence. A petition was however presented in 1774 by Mr. Whitbread and Mr. Howard, against the election of Sir William Wake, Bart. and Robert Sparrow, Esq., in which the petitioners disputed the right of such burgesses and freemen as were nonresident, which they supported on the last determination of the House on the 12th April, 1690. The committee were of opinion that the words of the above resolution "being householders" do not refer to the burgesses and freemen, but to the inhabitants only. The chairman also added, although not in the formal words of a resolution, that the committee were already of opinion that the objection of occasionality would not be with freemen resident or non-resident, made above a year before the election. By this determination, the independent freemen made in 1768, the time above alluded to, were all declared legal electors of the borough. This important question being thus decided in favour of Wake and Sparrow, the sitting members, the petitioners proceeded to establish certain voters who had been refused on the ground of pauperism, and several decisions were made, which being contrary to former decisions, it may be proper to state. The first question was, whether persons having received a charity within a year before the election were entitled to vote? The committee determined that persons receiving Sir William Harper's, (a native of this county, who, in temp. Elizabeth, founded a free school of charity), are not thereby disqualified. This point was in favour of the petitioners Whitbread and Howard. A question next arose of similar importance respecting inhabitants coming to reside within the several parishes in the town of Bedford, with certificates from other parishes, having a right to vote. These, by agreement of counsel were admitted not to come under the description of paupers, and were consequently added to the roll of the petitioners. The counsel for the petitioners then endeavoured to support, and the counsel for the sitting members

to oppose, on the same grounds--1. Persons having received a charity called Hawe's charity.-2. Welborn's charity.-3. The masters and brethren of St. John's Hospital. -4. Freemen who have received parish relief within a year before the election.-5. Freemen who had an incohate right to their freedom, but were admitted contrary to the accustomed mode of admission, and within a year before the election. On the above question, the committee determined that such as had received Hawe's charity and were masters and brethren of St. John's Hospital, were not thereby disqualified-but that such as had received Welborn's charity, and had received alms, meaning thereby parochial relief, within twelve months prior to the election, were disqualified; and lastly, that they would not reject any person's vote for receiving alms within the said y ear preceding the election. In consequence of these decisions, Sir Wm. Wake, one of the sitting members, and Samuel Whitbread, one of the petitioners, were declared duly elected. J. of H. of C., Vol. 35.

A contested election. Whitbread, 673; Wake, 421; J. Kenrick, 304.

A contested election, in which John Payne, Esq. was the unsuccessful candidate. He presented a petition in 1791, which he renewed again in 1792, February 1, setting forth, that at the election many unwarrantable practices were made use of by Mr. Whitbread and his friends, to procure a colourable majority for that gentleman, among which were bribery, the admission on the part of the mayor of illegal votes and the rejection of legal ones tendered for the petitioner. Petition rejected.-Journ. of H. of C., Vols. 46 & 47. Whitbread, 515; Polhill, 491; Lord John Russell, 490; Mr. Whitbread and Lord John voted for themselves.

Election contested.

§ A contested election. Whitbread, 599; Crawley, 486; Capt. F. Polhill, 483. 1833, February 8. A petition of certain electors read, praying the return of Capt. Polhill in the room of Samuel Crawley, on the grounds that many persons' names were entered on the register of voters who were not entitled to vote, and that Mr. Crawley was guilty of bribery, &c.-Ordered, "That the sitting member is duly elected, and that 42 names should be struck off the list of voters.-Journ. of H. of C., Vol. 88. A contested election; Polhill 490, Crawley 403, W. Whitbread 383. Election contested. Polhill, 467; Stuart, 419; Samuel Crawley, 412. VOTES, Polhill and Stuart, 391; Polhill and Crawley, 70; Stuart and Crawley, 22; Registered electors, 1192, voted 815.

SPLIT

1837, December 4. A petition of certain electors of the borough read, praying the return of Samuel Crawley, Esq. in the room of Henry Stuart, Esq., on the grounds that several persons' names were admitted on the register of voters who were not legally entitled to vote, and that Mr. Stuart and his agents were guilty of bribery, &c. The return ordered to be amended in favour of Mr. Crawley, by striking off the names of 35 persons, who were not qualified to vote at the election.-Journ. of H. of C. vol. 92. **Election contested. Polhill, 433; Stuart, 421; W. H. Whitbread, 410. SPLIT VOTES, Polhill and Stuart, 393; Polhill and Whitbread, 37; Stuart and Whitbread, 22; Registered electors 873.

A contested election.

Registered electors 1136.

Sir Harry Verney, 453; Stuart, 432; Capt. Polhill, 392

14

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS,

GENEALOGICALLY AND BIOGRAPHICALLY ANNOTATED.

ALFORD, VISCOUNT, has sat for the county since 1835. His Lordship, the eldest son of John Cust, Earl of Brownlow, whose family has been seated nearly five hundred years at Pinchbeck, in LINCOLNSHIRE, (which see) was born 15 Oct. 1812, graduated at Magdalen College, Cambridge, where he was 3rd class in classics in 1833, and married 10 Feb. 1841, the Lady Marianne, daughter of the 2nd Marquis of Northampton. The Viscount's grand uncle bequeathed him a large fortune on condition that he obtained a marquesate or dukedom. He is Lieut.-Col. of the South Lincoln Militia. His Lordship's uncle, the Hon. and Rev. Henry Cockayne Cust, is lord of the manor of Cockayne-Hatley, in this county. Of conservative principles, his Lordship supported, in 1846, the cause of agricultural protection, and is opposed to the endowment of the Roman Catholic clergy.

The Custs have generally been returned for places in Lincolnshire, as also in Cornwall, Devonshire, and Lancashire.

ALSTON. This ancient family, claiming Saxon descent, is mentioned so early as the reign of Edward I. Its estates in this county consisted of the manors of Odell, Pavenham, Carlton, and Steventon-the former it received by purchase from the Chetwodes in the seventeenth century; it is now in the possession of Justinian Alston, Esq.; the parish church contains some fine monuments to the family. Pavenham passed into it from the Tyringhams; Thomas Abbot Green, Esq., is the present lord of the manor. Carlton it held for a considerable time, as also Steventon; the former is now held by the Hon. Rice Trevor, M.P., and the latter by Justinian Alston, Esq. Sir Thomas Alston, Knt. of Odell, who was High-Sheriff of the county in 1641, was created a Baronet by Charles I., 13 June, 1642. His grandson,

SIR THOMAS, sat for the borough in the Parliament of 1698, and, dying unmarried in 1714, was succeeded in the Baronetcy by his brother,—

SIR ROWLAND, who sat for the county in the Parliaments of 1722-27-34. In the first and third of these returns, he stood two severe contests. In 1733, we find the Baronet voting in favour of Sir Robert Walpole's famous plan of revenue reform, which proposed subjecting the duties on wine and tobacco to the laws of excise. The debate which ensued upon the statement of this scheme to the house is one of the warmest on record. After a contest protracted till two o'clock in the morning, an hour at that time considered extremely late, the question was put and carried in the affirmative by 266 voices against 205. In the following year, Sir Rowland's

name again appears among the majority who voted against Mr. Bromley's motion for the Repeal of the Septennial Act, "as a flagrant encroachment upon the rights of the people, having a dangerous tendency to increase the influence of the crown, and being actually productive of the most baneful effects." The Baronet married Elizabeth, only daughter of Capt. Thomas Raynes, and dying 2nd January, 1759, was succeeded by his eldest son,

SIR THOMAS, who had previously sat for the county in the Parliaments of 1747-54. This gentleman, of tory principles, died 18th January, 1774, leaving no issue. He was succeeded by his brother, Sir Rowland, on whose death, in 1790, without legitimate offspring, the Baronetcy became extinct.

ANTONIE, WILLIAM LEE, sat for the borough in the Parliaments of 1802-6-7, and previously for Great Marlow in 1790. This gentleman, the son of Wm. Lee, of Totteridge Park, co. Herts, and grandson of Sir Wm. Lee, formerly Chief Justice of the King's Bench, obtained the elegant mansion of Colworth House, in the parish of Sharnbrook, by bequest from Richard Antonie, Esq., into whose family this property came about the year 1700. Having purchased the manor of Little Marlow from Sir John Borlase Warren, Mr. Antonie obtained a local influence, which occasioned his return for the borough of Great Marlow in 1790. He served the office of High Sheriff of Bedford in 1788. As the colleague of Mr. Whitbread, we find him invariably voting on all questions of importance with that eminent commoner. He died in September, 1825, in the 58th year of his age. Colworth House is now the seat of Hollingworth Magnaic, Esq.

ASTELL, SIR WILLIAM, sut for the county in the Parliament of 1841, and previously for Bridgewater, Somersetshire, from 1807 to 1832. This gentleman, who assumed the surname of Astell (borne by his maternal uncle who died issueless) in 1807, was the second son of Godfrey Thornton, Esq. High Sheriff of the county, whose family estates consisted of the manors of Moggerhanger, Charlton, and South Mills, in the parish of Blunham,-of Thorncote, Hatch, Brookend, and Budner, in Northill parish,–and of Beeston, in Sandy parish; all of which are at present enjoyed by Stephen Thornton, Esq. of Moggerhanger. The county member, who was born 13 October, 1774, was elected a Director of the East India Company on the 29th January, 1800, and was by far the senior member of the Court; he has frequently filled the chair; his other appointments were,-Colonel of the Royal East India Volunteers, Deputy Lieutenant for Bedfordshire, and Chairman of the Russian Company and of the Great Northern Railway. He was also a large shareholder in other commercial undertakings. In 1836, he was presented by his former Bridgewater constituents with two very elegant candelabra as a testimony of their high regard of his public conduct during the twenty-six years that he represented that borough, and his firm attachment to the constitution in the Church and State. In politics, Mr. Astell was a consistent conservative of the old school. He voted against the Reform Bill, the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, and the free-trade measures of Sir Robert Peel. He was also favourably disposed to railways. On the question in 1844, as to the recall of Lord Ellenborough from his post in India, he declared in the house, that although connected for forty-five years with Indian affairs, he would not answer for the line of conduct pursued by the Court of Directors. Mr. Astell, who married in 1800, Sarah, only daughter of John Harvey, Esq. of Ickwellbury, in this county, died March 7, 1847, and was succeeded by