The names first given refer to the disputants, while Sir H---- in all probability is one of the University’s parliamentary representatives, Sir Heneage Finch, son of Finch, Lord Keeper and Chancellor. He was returned in 1678, 1688, 1695, and also in 1701 and 1702. The important dispute in question, which is not without interest, as it bears a special reference to election practices which were at one time prevalent, arose between the Lords and Commons on the occasion of the Aylesbury returns, and the case came before parliament in 1703-4. It seems to have been the tactics of those persons whose party held a majority in the House, to decide all disputed elections so as to strengthen their own side. “The majority,” meaning the government, legislated thus partially, conveniently ignoring the energetic protests against such flagrant injustice--the condonation of direct bribery and downright perjury, according to the allegations of the minority; who, it is said, when the turn of the wheel came which raised them to power, invariably endorsed the policy of their predecessors by repeating the same evil practices. The investigation brought to light the illegitimate nature of election returns, proving that it had long been the habit of constables and similar officials to secure for such candidates as would pay them sufficiently, their return for parliament by obtaining a majority of votes for the person who purchased their connivance: thus, after the seat was, in advance, put up to the highest bidder, pains were taken to ascertain in whose favour each vote was likely to be given; those burgesses who were not to be cajoled or bribed into voting for the candidate adopted by the constables were prevented from voting otherwise, under various pretexts by which they were disabled or disfranchised,--an oppression which reduced representative government to a mere pretence. Yet, although these glaring illegalities were patent, they had offered such temptations as to have been condoned successively by either party in power.