“the king’s menial servants, not having proper houses of their own within the city of Westminster, gave voices in the said election, contrary to an express resolution of the House; that peers and lords unduly interfered and tampered with the voters; that during the election, after the _teste_ and issuing out of the writ, Lord Percy and Lord Thomas Pelham Clinton, by themselves or agents, were guilty of bribing, corrupting, and entertaining the voters, (who must have made a fairly good thing of the contest); and that they allowed to the electors, and several persons who had or claimed a right to vote, money, meat, drink, entertainment, or provision; and that by those, and other undue means, a majority of votes was procured for Lord Percy and Lord T. P. Clinton, so that they were returned, and the petitioners prayed such relief as upon examination should appear just.” As bribery commissions were then constituted, the party in power generally managed to make disputed returns a means of strengthening their own majority, so that although the House took the pains to examine the several allegations, it was decided that the sitting members were duly elected. On the respective counts it was found that there was no general determination as to the right of election in Westminster, but it seemed agreed that the suffrages were vested “in the inhabitants, householders, paying scot and lot;” that the king’s menial servants, not having proper houses of their own within the city of Westminster, were not entitled to vote--as they had done, on the pretence of being residents in the royal palaces of St. James and elsewhere. It was admitted that the following resolution, providing against the interposition of peers in elections for the Commons, had been renewed on the opening of the House, from session to session, since the Act was made, January 3, 1701:-- “Resolved that it is a high infringement of the liberties and privileges of the Commons of Great Britain for any lord of parliament or any lord-lieutenant of any county to concern themselves in the elections of members to serve for the Commons in parliament.” The petitioners set forth that it would appear, by different allegations, that the rights of the election had been invaded in a manner highly alarming, so as to call for the interposition and censure of the House; but the report of the committee disposed of these objections by finding the petitioners were not able to prove any direct solicitation of the peers.