PETERSFIELD ELECTION PETITION.

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16

    From the evidence produced before the Committee, it appears that for some years the family of the Jolliffe's have possessed considerable interest in the borough of Petersfield, where the elective franchise is exercised by the freeholders, and of them there are a number of small ones.

    Since the year 1818, great efforts have been made at the different elections by the opposing party to disqualify some of these, on the grounds that at these elections they had been allowed by the returning officer to give their votes without any satisfactory accounts as to their possession of those freeholds. At these elections Mr Harrison has attended, and on the voters appearing at the poll, he closely cross-examined them; of this cross-examination shorthand minutes were taken by Mr Gurney, and this gentleman was on the present occasion examined as a witness, and produced his notes of what occurred at the late and previous elections, by which it appeared that the returning officer allowed them to poll by their stating they had done so at a previous election. The mayor was examined, and said he had acted by the advice of his assessor. To try this point was one object in coming before the committee, and in two separate attempts to remove parties thus situated from the poll, and after hearing very elaborate arguments on both sides, the committee decided against their removal.

    The petitioner is then entered into the other branch of the case, which was an endeavour to place on the poll a mass of freeholders who at the election had been rejected, and who had been lately created by a scheme of forming a society for the promotion of the improvement of the town of Petersfield. There were to be 1,500 shares, of 5l. per share, and the sum of 7,500l. was to be raised from the month of April last. Of these, a number had been taken; amongst others Sir James M'Donald had subscribed 100l. A piece of ground had been bought of Mr Hector, called the cricket field, about 5 acres. This and another were the votes on which the case was tried; evidence was produced and on that evidence long argument took place; the one contending that the society had been in formation for some time previous; the other, that this deed was not completed at the death of the King, and that it was a cloak for electioneering purposes. These also were decided by the committee against the petitioners.

    They this day declared the sitting members duly elected, and that the petition was neither frivolous no vexatious.