1802—JULY—(General Election.)—Charles Thelluson, Esq., the former member, Patrick Crawford Bruce, Esq., a London merchant, and Humphrey Howorth, Esq., for many years a physician in India, were the candidates. After five days’ poll the latter retired from the contest, the number of votes then being—Thelluson, 261; Bruce, 249; Howorth, 183. A petition was afterwards presented against the return, on the score of alleged bribery, but the committee report that the sitting members were duly returned, though the petition was not frivolous. 1806—NOVEMBER—(General Election.)—Mr. Howorth and W. Manning, Esq., a West India merchant, returned without opposition, neither of the former members standing again. 1807—MAY—(General Election.)—Sir Masseh Manasseh Lopez, Bart., entered the field at this election against the former members, and after six days’ poll, the numbers of votes recorded stood thus—Manning, 494; Lopez, 334; Howorth, 320. This result was obtained by the returning officer admitting 122 freeholders to the poll, contrary to former decisions, which had determined that freemen and paymasters alone had the right to vote. “A most gratifying interchange of compliments passed,” says the reporter of the period, “during the closing of the poll books, between the candidates, the mayor (W. Soley, Esq.), the assessor, and the professional gentlemen employed; and though perhaps there never was a severer contest, yet never was the conduct observed more honourable to all parties.” It seems to have been altogether, and undisguisedly, a matter of money. In a few days after the election an address was presented to Mr. Howorth, by E. Rudge, Esq., and 189 burgesses, complimenting him upon his conduct in the House of Commons, and begging him “to bring their joint cause before a committee of the House,” assured that “their insulted rights will be henceforward fixed on such a basis as will baffle the attempts of those who will dare to violate them.” A petition was accordingly presented, and in 1808, February 22nd, the report of the committee was brought up, and Sir M. M. Lopez, Bart., was declared to have been unduly elected, and Mr. Howorth ought to have been returned; opposition to petition not frivolous. Mr. Howorth, in his published address after this result, declares that he was ousted at the election by the votes of “a class of persons having no common interest or common feeling with the freemen and inhabitants of the borough.” He had “vindicated their rights, and triumphed over this foreign influence.” Mr. Howorth’s constituents afterwards presented him with a piece of plate. 1812—OCTOBER—(General Election.)—W. Manning and H. Howorth, Esqs., reëlected without opposition.