436 Constitutional History. [chap.
CJontested
elections.
Shaftes-
bury,
returned two knights of the shire without the consent of the
county, whereas they ought to have been elected by the county ;
he had also levied twenty pounds for their wages, although the
county could have found two men who would have gone to
parliament for ten marks or ten pounds ; his predecessor, Henry
de Malton, had done the same1. In 1362 the county of Lan-
cashire was again in trouble : the king wrote to tell /he sheriff
that there was a great altercation concerning the last election,
and directed him to hold an examination in full county court
as to the point whether the two persons named in the return
were duly elected ; and, if they were, to pay them their wages ;
if not, to send in the names of the persons who had been so
elected. On examination it was found that the two knights
whose names had been returned were themselves the lieutenants
of the sheriff; they had kept the writ, returned themselves
without election, and levied the wages to their own use : the
king, puzzled apparently at so impudent a pretension, had to
apply to the justices of the peace to ascertain the facts and stop
the proceedings of the sheriff2. In 1384 the burghers of
Shaftesbury petitioned the king, lords and commons, in respect
of their election ; the sheriff of Dorset had substituted the name
of Thomas Camel for that of Thomas Seward, whom, with
Walter Henley, they had elected, and whom the sheriff believed
io be too much devoted to the king ; and they prayed a
remedy 3. In 1385 the bailiffs of Barnstable refused to pay the
wages of John Henrys, one of their members, alleging that he
was not a native or landowner in their county, and that without
their assent or knowledge he had been returned by the sheriff,
at the pressure of his friends and for the sake of gain4. In 1404
the county of Butland elected John Pensax and ThomasThorpe;
the sheriff returned John Pensax and IVilliam Ondeby; on a
representation made by the house of commons to the king, the
lords were directed to examine the parties ; Thorpe was declared
duly elected ; the sheriff was ordered to amend the return and
1 Part. Writs, II. pt. i. p. 315.
2 Pryiine, Reg. iv. p. 259; Hallam, Middle Ages, iii. 109.
3 Return of Members, p. 220; Prynne, Reg. iv. p. 1114; Carew, on
Elections, p. 118. 4 Return of Members, p. 225.
XX]
Contested Elections.
437
removed from office1. In 1429 it is recorded that Nicolas
Styvecle and Boger Hunt were elected for Huntingdonshire by
the ‘ homines generosi ’ of the county, Robert Stoneham and
William Wauton having been previously improperly elected by
non-residents of the county and their election being consequently
void2. The case however which is most closely parallel to more
modern usage is that which has been already noticed as illus-
trating the proceedings at elections. In 1450, in Huntingdon- Hunting-
shire, the sheriff returned two knights, Robert Stoneham and
John Styvecle; but annexed to the indenture of return was a Precautions
memorial from 124 freeholders, who declared that they, with more false ret∣nn.
than 300 good commoners of the shire, had voted for Stoneham
and Styvecle, whilst seventy others had voted for one Henry
Gimber, a man not of ‘gentill birth’ as the royal writ prescribed;
their right was clear, but, the under-sheriff having attempted to
hold an examination on oath, Gimber’s friends had threatened a
riot ; not knowing how the sheriff would act, the memorialists
had determined to make the matter sure; fortunately for Iiimself
the sheriff had macle the right returns. No doubt the sheriff
frequently had hazardous work; in 1439 no return was made Caseofno
for Cambridgeshire ; the sheriff was called up and ordered to
publish the writ with a prohibition against the appearance of
armed men at the election ; it may be fairly inferred that the
former election had been prevented by force4.
These few instances serve to illustrate the more general com-
plaints against the sheriffs which are from time to time made
the basis of legislation on this point. They further show that R⅛lkt °f
. deteɪmjmng
the house of commons had not yet thought of asserting any disputed
claim to determine the validity of elections. Until the act of
1406 the sheriffhad to return the writ in full parliament; and
1 Rot. Parl. iii. 530; Hallam, Middle Ages, iii. no: the other ease
noticed by Hallam, the election of Camoys a baron and banneret as member
for Surrey, and that of Berners, who was elected for Surrey when he was
already knight of the sliɪre for Kent, are not cases of disputed election but
of the choice of disqualified persons ; Prynne, Reg. ii. 1 ɪ 8, 119.
2 Return ofMembers, p. 316.
3 Prynne, Reg. iii. 157.
4 Prynne, Reg. ii. 139; Hallam, Middle Ages, iii. no. In 1453 the
king had to write to the chancellor of the University not to allow the
scholars to impede the election ; Cooper, Annals, i. 206.