« السابقةمتابعة »
Lords, whereby the borough is now represented by one member only.
Nov, 20. Resolved : “ That Robert, Lord Willoughby was duly elected a burgess to serve in Parliament for this borough.
Dec. 7, 1695. A petition of Sir Christopher Greenfield, knt., against the return of Thomas Molineux, esq., by means of corrupt practices.
Jan. 16, 1706. A petition of Henry Fleetwood, esq., against the return of Arthur Mainwaring, esq., by means of many corrupt and illegal practices. Feb. 15. Petition withdrawn.
Dec. 5, 1710. A petition of Francis Annesley, esq., against the return of Sir Henry Houghton, by means of bribery, treats, promises, imprisonment of the voters, and other undue practices.
Dec. 8, 1711. Another petition of Francis Annesley, esq., to the same effect.
Jan. 21, 1712. Petitions withdrawn.
Oct. 25, 1722. A petition of Thomas Molineux, esq., against the return of Thomas Hesketh, esq., by means of bribery and other undue practices.
Jan. 10, 1723. Another petition of the same to the same effect.
At the general election in 1768, Sir Henry Houghton and General Burgoyne opposed Sir Peter Leicester and Sir Frank Standish, who succeeded in getting the return. The former petitioned on the right of the inhabitants at large. The committee found the petitioners duly elected, and ought to have been returned, and Sir Peter Leicester and Sir F. Standish, barts., not duly elected-Nov. 29, 1768.
At the general election in 1774, Sir Henry Houghton, bart., and John Burgoyne, esq., were returned without any contest upon this right of election : but the dispute was renewed at the election following, in 1780, when John Fenton, esq.,
the interest of the in-burgesses inhabitants petitioned against the return of John Burgoyne, esq., but the committee found the sitting member duly. elected—April 10, 1781.
In 1784, Ralph Clayton, and Michael Angelo Taylor, esqrs., petitioned against the return of the Right Hon. John Burgoyne and Sir Henry Houghton, bart.
The petition of the candidates alleged, that they were duly elected by a majority of persons qualified to vote by the constitution of the borough ; but that the mayor and bailiffs had arbitrarily admitted a great number of persons to vote for the sitting members who had no right to vote,
under colour whereof a pretended majority was obtained for them,
A petition of the electors, being in-burgesses inhabitants within the borough, contained the same allegation, and added, that by the constitution of the borough no person had any right of voting upon the election of its burgesses to parliament but in-burgesses of the said borough, inhabiting within the same; and that the return was made in violation of the rights of the petitioners and others the legal electors.
On the 22nd of April, 1785, the chairman of the committee appointed to try the merits of this contested election reported to the house that they found the sitting members duly elected.
RIGHT OF ELECTION.
December 18, 1661. All the inhabitants have voices in the election.
November 29, 1768. Not to admit counsel to produce evidence, in order to shew that the right of election for the said borough was in all the inhabitants, according to the last determination of the house, or that the words, “ all the inhabitants,” mentioned in the said determination of the house, mean only, “ such in-burgesses of the last
guild, or those admitted since by copy of court-roll, as are inhabitants of the place,” but all the inhabitants at
It was determined that the words all the inhabitants did not only mean the in-burgesses of the last guild, or those admitted since by copy of court-roll, as are inhabitants of the said place, but all the inhabitants at large-29th November 1770.
NUMBER OF VOTERS--2,200.
and bailiffs. Patrons the earl of Derby and Mr. Horrocks.
This borough had always been under the influence of the earls of Derby till the year 1802, when, by the increase of manufacture and population, occasioned by the introduction of the cotton-mills into this town by the late John Horrocks, esq., who, in the short space of twenty years, had risen from obscurity to great opulence, he succeeded to a share in the political influence.
He opposed the interest of the earl of Derby in 1796, and was supported by the late earl of Liverpool, then chancellor of the Duchy Court of Lancaster ; and by the whole weight of the Church and King Club at Manchester,
a party better known in 1745 by the name of the Manchester Jacobites, but was at that time unsuccessful, the numbers on the poll beingFor Lord Stanley
772 Sir H. P. Houghton
756 John Horrocks, esq.
742 The numbers being so nearly equal, and the interest of Mr. Horrocks increasing, the parties formed a coalition at the next election, in 1802, and agreed each to return one member.
These united interests were opposed in 1807 by the late Edward Hanson, esq., of Manchester, with every prospect of success; and again in 1812, when they had gathered such strength as to leave Mr. Hanson in a great minority, the numbers on the poll beingFor Samuel Horrocks, esq.
1,371 Edmund Hornby, esq.
1,368 Edward Hanson, esq.
727 Many attempts have been made to limit the right of election in this town by petition, and to obtain the determination of a committee, that “ all the inhabitants," meant only a select number, as was the case in the Truro question, when the word “ populace” was determined to mean a corporation of twenty-five persons ; and in all the