The counsel for the petitioners further said they would give evidence of the bribery, and several offers made, also of the _treats_ given to influence the voters. The ministerial influence seems to have been paramount on this occasion; as the committee determined, in the face of the absolute documentary evidence, and other proofs of bribery, treating, illegal voting, and refusal to register legitimate votes on behalf of the petitioners, that the gentleman who had sold the seat in the borough to Lord North was--with the second ministerial nominee, brought in by his venality--duly elected. This borough of Milborne Port seems to have been a snug haven for nominees: in 1826 the patronage was at the joint disposal of the Marquis of Anglesea and Sir W. Coles Medlycott, and returned the Hon. Berkeley Paget and Lord Graves--proving the utility of “a stake in the country.” The warming-pan constituency was swept away, with similar anomalies, by the Reform Bill carried by Lord Grey. In the general election of 1774 the contest for Westminster was marked by the unblushing exertion of much undue influence. Not only did two ducal houses bring all the weight of their purses and ministerial influence, adding to almost limitless resources such strong inducements as the Duke of Northumberland, with his metropolitan patronage, and the Duke of Newcastle, with his placemen, pensions, and ministerial patronage, could bring to bear for the return of younger scions of the two houses concerned; the royal authority was freely used, and the king’s servants, without, it was shown, any qualifications as voters, were allowed to record their voices for the return of the Court candidates. The famous election of 1784, although stronger in incident, must have been tame by comparison. Not only members of the royal household, but divers peers of the realm and lords of parliament publicly canvassed, and otherwise unduly interfered in the election, contrary to several express resolutions of the House. The candidates stood thus at the close of the poll:--Earl Percy, 4995; Lord Thomas Pelham Clinton, 4744; Lord Mountmorres, 2531; Charles Stanhope, Lord Mahon, 2342; and Humphrey Cotes, 130. A petition was presented by Lord Mountmorres and several electors of the city and liberty of Westminster against the return of Earl Percy and Lord T. P. Clinton, seeing that--