Welsh Journals

up at Cardigan upon the account of Mr. Vaughan, but that the petitioner never came to Cardigan, nor polled any there, and that Sir Carbury had polled thirty- seven there. The Committee of Privileges and Elections found in favour of the sheriff's action, but that Sir Carbury was not particularly welcome among some sections of the House may be deduced from the fact that when a division was called for on the two resolutions presented by the Committee, his election was confirmed by the narrowest of majorities.7 The next member of the Gogerddan family to represent Cardiganshire in Parliament was Lewis Pryse, who was first elected on 30 December 1701, when he was but eighteen years old. At the election for the County held on 2 March 1708 he was opposed by Thomas Johnes, of Llanfair Clydogau, who on 24 November petitioned Parlia- ment8 on the grounds 'That by Threats, and other illegal Practices, several electors were prevailed on to vote for Mr. Price, and several others that were not qualified were admitted to poll for him The petitioner argued that Nathan Griffith, the high sheriff of the county of Cardigan, shewed himself very partial in taking the poll, by rejecting many of the petitioner's voters and neglecting to administer the Abjuration Oath to Mr. Pryse's voters. He also accused this officer of declar- ing Lewis Pryse elected without even examining the poll books, and of denying him the right to scrutiny them. The petitioner claimed that he had been duly elected by a majority of legal votes. The House ordered that the merits of the said election and return be examined by the Committee of Privileges and Elections, but the matter was not finally reported back until 18 February 1709. The witnesses for the petitioner were Lewis Vaughan, John Williams, Walter Lloyd, and Lord Lisburne. They asserted that it had been agreed upon between the candidates that the poll should be taken by tens or twenties on each side alternately, and that this procedure was carried out from Wednesday, 2 June 1708, until about six o'clock the following Friday, when a proposal was made to poll twenty more on each side and then adjourn until the following day. The sitting Member having polled twenty votes the petitioner proceeded to do likewise, but there appearing at that time but nineteen (the twentieth person being confined in the county gaol while visiting a friend of his, and therefore unable to put in an appearance), the sheriff, contrary to the agreement, refused to adjourn the poll to the next day, and proceeded to poll the sitting Member's voters, thereby securing him a majority that night. Several freeholders who would have voted for the petitioner, depending upon the poll being adjourned until Saturday, went away from the court, and were therefore lost by him. On being cross-examined on this point, none of the witnesses could name any person who would have voted for Johnes but were not polled before the shutting of the Poll Books, except William John Evans (who gave evidence through an interpreter), the voter who had been inadvert- ently confined in the county gaol. Walter Lloyd said that he was with the petition- er when the sheriff told him he had £ 10,000 security offered him by a Mr. Lewis, to indemnify him, if he returned Mr. Pugh (probably Mr. John Pugh of Mathafarn), who was expected to have been the candidate. According to Lord Lisburne 'the