The CASE of RICHARD HUTCHINSON,
Esq AGAINST Sir ELIAB HARVEY,
Return'd to Serve as Burgess for Malden,
in the County of Essex,
in the Place of Sir Thomas Darcy,
Deceased.
Appointed to be Heard on
the 10th Day of
January.
SIR Eliab, according to the Poll declared by the Bayliffs of the Town, had Voices 159
Richard Hutchinson, Esq 127
Of these, Sir Eliab had Free-Men made contrary to a Known, Unrepealed By-Law 73
The aforesaid Richard Hutchinson Esq of such Men, only 2
So that Sir Eliab had, Legal Voices, but 86
And the said Richard Hutchinson, Esq 125
According to which, the abovesaid Richard Hutchinson Esq had a True Majority of 39
Besides, Sir Eliab had Minors 3
The said Richard Hutchinson Esq had also a greater Majority than as aforesaid, if the 16 Clergy-Men who Voted for Sir Eliab, and the other Free-Men made on purpose to Vote for him, since the Death of Sir Thomas Darcy, (Some of which were made since the Delivery of the Precepts) were set aside.
However, The Foul and Partial Practices of the Bayliffs, in Giving Honorary Freedoms to them that would promise to Vote for Sir Eliab, and denying Freedoms to them who had Right to be Made Free, unless they would make such Promise; And in delaying the Election for near a Month, at Sir Eliab's Desire, in suffering him to appoint the Hour of Proceeding to a Choice, and to govern the Court at the Poll, which was called over according to a List contrived to serve him, in Over-ruling all Just Exceptions, and absolutely denying a Scrutiny, though demanded, and insisted on: Together with the Bribery, Menaces and Force used on that Side, it is conceiv'd, will be sufficient to make void Sir Eliab's Election, if the aforesaid Richard Hutchinson, Esq had not a True Majority, as above.