Ossian Collection > Gentleman's magazine, and historical chronicle > Volume 66, Part 2

1 796.] Hijlory ofEleSllons of Kn'tgh'ts of the Wire for Surrey. 575
prove its ruin^inflead of alking for-
givenefs for his paft condu6l, and pro-
mifing; a change in futuie — the Hon.
Gentleman gloried in the mifchief he
had helped to create, and pronufcd to
go on in the fame line of conduft in
future! \i the Noble Lord's conduft
had been right, the Baronet's had
been wrong; the freeholders could not
approve of both ! He would, therefore,
name another candidate, by propofing
a worthy friend of his, whofe princi-
ples he much approved, and who, he
was perfuaded, would defcrve thtir
confidence. He aiked his worthy
friend's pardon for bringing his name
forwards altogether unknown to him,
and without himfelf having thought of
fuch a meafure a minute btfore ;" and
Sir Jofeph concluded by propofing, as
a fit perfon to be chofeti, James Tre-
coihick, efq. of Addington ; and, be-
ing feconded by Henry Rowed, efq.
his name was put up for the fenfe of
the meeting, and the fliow of hands
was believed to he equal in number to
thofe for Sir John Frederick.
Mr. Trecothick immediaftly decli-
ned all pretenfions; and it was in con-
fequence contended, that the freehold-
ers had no right to chooi'e him again ft
his own 'iking. But Sir Jofeph Maw-
bey fdid the freeholders had fucli right,
and any two of them might demand a
poll in his favour: — he demanded a
poll, and infilled that the freeholders
had a lii^ht to choofe any qualified
man they liked, even though he him-
felf did not dcfire it. Mr. Onflow, in
fpeaking on this fubjei^,!, called it a
Jacobioical meafure j wh'ch induced
Sir Jofeph Mawbey to reply, and to
fay, •' he wondered much at fuch an
infinuation 5 that he had publifhed his
political opinions on a variety of occa-
fions ; that he himfelf was a fincere
friend to a government of King, Lords,
and Commons, as it was fettled and
eftabliflied at the glorious Revolution
in 16SS. He loved old England, its
laws and iibeities, in contradiliinftion
to the Te^>3 England of modern times ;
and his principles led him to be a true
fupporter of the Bill of Rights." At
Ungth, however, he complied with the
wiOies of Sir Robert Clayton and Mr.
Trecothick, by not petfifting in his
moticin ; and, in confequente, Lord
William RufTell and Sir John Frede-
rick were elefted without farther op-
p fition.
it may be ufeful to record, that, du-
ring all the time that the prefent Lord
Onflow and Sir Francis Vincent re-
prefented the county in parliament,
the freeholders always, at the nomina-
tion, dined at a public ordinary. Mr.
Norton, in 17S4, publicly treated the
freeholders, and Lord William Ruffell
and Captain Fjnch, in the year 1790,
engaged each one of the inns atEp(om,
and treated the freeholders in the mofl
open manner, and h'd flags with their
names fixed over the door of the houfes
inviting their friends to dinner. Sir Jo-
feph Mawbey, on the contrary, on the
days of his nomination, neither treated
the freeholders, nor hired horfes oi:
carriages to bring them to Epfom.
Such entertainments mnft certainly are
againft the letter and fpirit of the aft
of parliament; and moft probably, if
repeated, may, on fome future occao
fion, vitiate the cle£\ion.
Sir Jofeph Mawbev never employed
ccunfel at any of the feven eleftions at
which he ftood candidate, vix. at two
for the borough of Sourhwark, and at
five forthe county. When Mr. Hume,
Mr. Hammond, and himfelf, were
candidates in the year 1761, and he
was for the fiiil time defied for South-
wsrk, Mr. Wedderburn (the prefent
Lord Loughborough) attended as Mr.
Hume's counfel ; but, there being none
employed by his opponents, Mr. Wed-
derburn during the three days poll had
nothing to do. If each had had a
counfel, they might have difputed
about a vote for hours together whilfr
the tap was running, and the expence
by fuch means muft have been confi-
derably increafed. He always conli-
dered the fheriif as a miniflerial officer,
who was bound to receive the vote o€
the man who would fwear he had one,
though it might fometimes be ufeful to
ho!d out a caution to the freeholder.
Mr. Finch was the only gentleman, in
modern times at Icaft, that employed
counfel at the Surrey eleflion.
In a note at the bottom of page 975
of your LVIlIth volume, Ifaid, I hadt
not been able to tiifcover where Wil-
liam Fenvvick, efq. lived, who was a
candidate to reprefent the county in
1701. I have fince found out that he
owned Betchworth caftle, as heir to
the family of Brown.
I fhall be obliged if any of your cor-
refpondents will inform me where
Gofeford caftie was fituated, which
Speed mentions as being in Surrey ?
Yours, &c. SuRRiENsrs.
iQ8. Ak