About this Item
1st Edition 1705. All the proceedings in relation to the Aylesbury-Men : Committed by the House of Commons: And the Report of the Lords Journal, and Reports of the Conferences, and of The Free Conference. Together with what stands upon the Journal of the House of Commons, in the Reign of King James I. in the Case between Sir Francis Goodwin and Sir John Fortescue. London 1705 James I The 1703?4 session saw the culmination of the celebrated Ashby v. White case. Its origins lay in Whig attempts to neutralize Pakington?s control of the constables at Aylesbury. As Steele later acknowledged, the suit was carried on at Wharton?s expense and direction. At the election of January 1701, Matthew Ashby had been refused the right to vote by the constables on the grounds that he was a ?poor indigent person?, whom the overseers of the poor were trying to have removed from the parish (he having been similarly refused in 1698). Ashby sued the constables for damages at the assizes and won £5, although he had claimed £200. This was an attempt by Wharton to intimidate future constables by threatening them with financial penalties if they failed to do his bidding. The constables appealed to Queen?s bench on the grounds that the matter lay outside the jurisdiction of the courts, being a matter for the House of Commons. In Michaelmas term 1703, the Queen?s bench judges overturned the assizes verdict by 3?1 (with the Whig lord chief justice, Sir John Holt?, in the minority), ruling that ?no such action did by law lie against the defendants?. Ashby thereupon applied for a writ of error on 17 Nov., taking the matter before the House of Lords, where the Whigs had their main strength and where Wharton had previously proved himself adept at manipulating legal causes, particularly over the possession of lead mines in Yorkshire (see Squire, Robert). On 14 Jan. 1704 the Lords found for Ashby, voting that: by the known laws of this kingdom, every freeholder, or other persons having a right to give his vote at the election of Members, to serve in Parliament, and being wilfully denied, or hindered to do so, by the officer, who ought to receive the same, may maintain an action in the Queen?s court against such officers, to assert his right and receive damages for the injury. The Commons responded to this threat to their privileges by appointing a committee on 17 Jan. to search the Lords? Journals for their proceedings on this case and that of Soames v. Barnardiston, and on the following day to inspect the Queen?s bench judgment. At this point Sir Charles Hedges* wrote that ?the judgment in the Aylesbury cause has a little inflamed matters?, a considerable understatement considering the tone of the debate in the committee of the whole on the 25th. Both John Brewer and Sir Edward Seymour, 4th Bt.*, commented on Wharton?s involvement, and the committee came to a series of resolutions endorsed by the House on the following day. important, they voted that: according to the known laws and usage of Parliament, it is the sole right of the Commons of England, in Parliament assembled, except in cases otherwise provided for by Act of Parliament, to examine and determine all matters relating to the right of election of their own Members. This applied to ?the qualification or right of any elector, or any person elected?; otherwise the returning officers would be exposed ?to multiplicity of actions, vexations suits and unsupportable expenses and will subject them to different and independent jurisdictions, and inconsistent determinations in the same cause, without relief?. Ashby was voted guilty of a breach of the privilege of the House, but was not ordered into custody. However, the lawyers acting for him were warned that to pursue the case further would be a breach of the privileges of the Commons. The Lords took their time in preparing their response; a long report produced on 27 Mar. reasserted the right of electors to sue for damages should they be wrongly deprived.
Seller Inventory # 020176
Contact seller
Report this item
