Page:Notes and Queries - Series 12 - Volume 3.djvu/520

 514

NOTES AND QUERIES. [i2s.m.DEc..i9i7.

Party feeling in Clitheroe still ran high. On Feb. 14, 1693/4, Mainwaring and Gerard were at Clitheroe. They applied to John Lister the In-Bailiff to swear Main- waring as Out-Bailiff. This he refused to do, and Gerard had him arrested on account of his refusal. Gerard's party then broke open the Moot Hall door and swore Main- waring in themselves. They then applied for the keys of the church, and, being refused, they broke open the door and rang -the bells in celebration of Mainwaring's swearing-in. The Tory party for some reason thought it advisable to have a new rival Out-Bailiff, so Christopher Wilkinson resigned, and Bailiff Lister and several Tjurgesses called an assembly and purported to elect Ambrose Pudsay Out-Bailiff in ^Wilkinson's place.

Mainwaring, having again got the precept for the election from the Sheriff, gave notice fixing the time and place of the election ; and Pudsay and John Lister also gave a notice of the election for the same time and place.

There appears to have been an arrange- ment entered into between the parties that a representative of the Sheriff should on this occasion take the poll. Some of the Tories thought this a mistake in tactics.

" Clitheroe hath I doubt taken an imprudent course as to the Election on Friday last. By consenting they should sit in the Moot Hall and take votes there for Mr. Gerrard they seem to me to have spread a covering over all their irregularities and violences, and to have kept the sneaking Sheriff's neck out of a halter. Would they had took no notice of them, but as of paltry Rioters, &c., so would they have been more liable to you." Letter of Thomas Marsden to Roger Kenyon, Feb. 7, 1693/4 (' Kenyon MSS.,' p. 285).

On the day of election all parties assem- bled at the Moot Hall. Bailiff Lister called the Hall, Mr. Shaw (the Sheriff's repre- sentative) read the precept, and the Town Clerk made the proclamation. The Town Clerk then gave Mr. Shaw a copy of the Call Book (containing the names of all burgesses and freemen who had been found by the jury and sworn) ; and one Morris (an agent for Gerard) also gave to Shaw a list of voters made up by himself which, he had taken care, contained the names of the parties who had taken proceedings by mandamus, and of certain other friends of Gerard who claimed to be entitled to vote, although their right to do so had not been found by the jury and they had not been admitted and sworn, and hence were not Included in the Town Clerk's Call Book.

Shaw called the voters, and admitted any person to vote whose name was to be found either in the Call Book or in Morris's list. When any person's right to vote was ob- jected to, his vote, though recorded by Shaw, had a note of the objection marked against it in the poll book. Gerard polled 46 votes, 40 of which were objected to ; Christopher Lister polled 43 votes, 3 of which were objected to. John Lister and Pudsay declared Christopher Lftter elected, as having in their view the majority of legal votes ; and they executed an indenture of election for him, and sealed it with the Borough seal. Mainwaring declared Gerard elected, and executed an indenture of election for him, which, however, was only signed by himself, and not by Bailiff John Lister, and was not sealed with the Borough seal. Shaw accepted both inden- tures, and made a double return.

Both parties lodged petitions claiming the seat. Neither side appears to have made any allegation of bribery or treating, but the rival claims were based on objec- tions to the qualifications of individual voters, the question of who were the Bailiffs, and also on contentions by Gerard that certain of his supporters had been improperly prevented from coming before the Inquiry Jury and being found and sworn as burgesses or freemen.

When the petitions came on to be heard the Committee decided to try the right of election first, and then to inquire into the returns. The parties agreed, as before, as to the classes of persons entitled to vote, and Lister's side objected to 13 of Gerard's voters, viz., to four burgesses and one freeman because they had not been found by the iury and sworn, to one freeman because his landlord had voted for the same tene- ment, to one burgess because he had sold his burgage before the election, to another because he was a Quaker and not sworn, to two others because they were minors, and to three others because they did not pay their burgage rents. On the other hand, Gerard objected to two of Lister's voters on the ground that they were reversioners, and to two others because they were free- men whose landlords voted fffr the same houses ; and evidence was called in support of the allegation that Gerard's five supporters who had not been found by the jury had been prevented by the improper action of Lister's supporters from being found and sworn in. It is curious that while Lister's witnesses swore that Leonard No well, who voted as a burgess for Gerard, was an