Jump to content

User:MinorProphet/Draft subpages/Double return (UK election)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A double return is the term given to cases in general elections or bye-elections where a disputed or abnormal election result cannot be resolved locally at the count, and is forwarded by the returning officer or county sheriff to parliament for debate.

Often a double return is made when more candidates are returned to Parliament than the number of seats allocated. They were made either by the returning officer for a particular constituency where the result was too close to call: or by the County Sheriff, where two separate constituencies in their county were successfully contested by the same candidate.

Double returns were a feature of elections in the United Kingdom and its constituent countries including Scotland and Ireland from at least the late 16th century up to the end of the 19th, and in other countries with a similar form of government such as Canada and Australia.[1] This article concentrates on the practice in the United Kingdom, where the House of Commons debated the result, either in the chamber or by a Committee of Elections and Privileges set up at the beginning of each new parliamentary session.


Double returns could be made for various reasons, including:

  • A single candidate is returned for a seat in two separate constituencies. This is sometimes termed a double election. See Edward I and Wilfrid Laurier.
  • Two or more candidates are returned for the same seat (eg exactly the same number of votes were cast for both candidates, even after a recount.) This seems to have been the case many years ago, especially when the franchise extended to only a few tens or hundreds of voters in a seat.
  • Two candidates for two seats in a single borough or constituency (often from the same political party or faction) are returned, but another pair of candidates (from another party) is also returned.

Double returns may be due to genuine confusion on the part of the returning officer; or the returning officer is somehow persuaded to return more than one indenture to the writ, possibly lacking an official seal; or through mischievious or malicious intent of a third party (cf. Tregony); or in general because the Sheriff felt they were not competent to decide the issue.

These instances of double returns were debated in the House of Commons. If the Commons couldn't decide upon the issue, an election petition could ordered, which was often expensive for all concerned.

See also: List of UK parliamentary election petitions

"My third reason [for reversing a judgement in an election case] is because a double return is a lawful means for the sheriff to perform his duty in doubtful cases. If this be so, then all aggravations of ‘falsely, maliciously, and knowingly’ will not make the thing actionable; for whatever a man may do for his safety cannot be the ground of an action. ... Suppose the election is void for force; suppose the sheriff doubts upon the validity of some voices: shall be transmit his doubts especially to parliament? Was there ever such a thing done? Was there ever any other way but to make a double return, and leave it fairly to the decision of parliament? ..." North, CJ (1689) 

Sources of English legal history : public law to 1750 
Chapter 5 - The High Court of Parliament.
Baker, John H. 
2024 
Oxford University Press
ISBN: 0-19-265986-3
p. 142

History

[edit]

Early history

[edit]

The concept of a double return has been applied to elections for knights as early as the time of Edward I:

"The second evident abnormality [in election returns] is in the return of one knight to represent more than one county at a particular parliament. Hugh le Blount, for example, successfully claimed expenses as the representative of both Essex and Berkshire at the Westminster parliament of 1300." ... "Similarly John de Acton, knight of the shire for Herefordshire in 1300, was returned in 1301 for both Gloucestershire and Herefordshire." ... "Acton and Blount may thus have been twice elected to represent two counties, albeit to parliaments which were intended to be identical in composition." ... "The double return of Blount is evident only from expenses writs, the original returns being defective." 

Essex Knights and the Parliaments of Edward I    ©J.S. Illsley (1971)
Ch. VI-ii The election of Essex Knights to the Parliaments of Edward Ist
https://the-orb.arlima.net/wales/esknights/genfr6b.htm
https://the-orb.arlima.net/wales/esknights/genframe.htm

In chronological order, perhaps too many examples:

16th century

[edit]
  • Method (1558–1603) (Hist. Parl.) - The term double return doesn't appear, so maybe they didn't exist back then.
    • Not a double return:: Knollys, Henry II, of Downton, Hants. (Hist. Parl.) "Henry Knollys’s Membership is known only from the list of Members revised for the last session of the Parliament of 1547. At first sight he and the Member for Grampound would appear to be one and the same, the list thus recording a double return, but the revision of the list either late in 1551 or early in 1552 rules out this possibility. There is also the possibility that he was a replacement for a man returned in 1547 but who for some reason or other had ceased to be a Member by the last session."
Apparently not a double return: "Of Fletcher’s three appearances in the Commons the first is attended by some obscurity. That he and John Holmes I attended the Parliament of March 1553 is clear from the payment to them on 11 Apr. of wages for 32 and 31 days respectively, at 2s. a day, the Parliament having sat from the first to the last day of the month: Fletcher was also reimbursed 5s. which he had given to the Speaker. Yet on the day preceding this payment two other men, Robert Wood and Alexander Welles, had received the substantial sum of £3 ‘for the riding up and down to the Parliament’: it is, moreover, their names which appear for Rye on the list of Members for the Cinque Ports derived from the Dering manuscripts of the early 17th century. [Dering was Lieutenant of Dover Castle.] The explanation of what appears to be a double return almost certainly lies in an intervention by the warden of the Cinque Ports, Sir Thomas Cheyne, who is known to have interfered on this occasion at both New Romney and Sandwich. At Rye it was not until 11 Feb., more than two weeks after the receipt of the writ, that the return was made, and then only after the arrival on the previous day of a letter from the warden ‘for the election of the burgesses to the Parliament’. What probably happened was that during this interval the port elected Wood and Welles, only to have them rejected by Cheyne, who demanded the return of Fletcher and Holmes; that Rye nevertheless despatched the first pair to Westminster, where the warden’s return naming the other two was accepted and Wood and Welles turned away; and that Rye found itself obliged to compensate them as well as to pay Fletcher and Holmes."
  • Norfolk (Hist. Parl.): 26 Sept. 1586. Thomas Farmer, William Gresham, Christopher Heydon (1596 election - Elizabeth I) New election ordered soon after 8 Oct. 1586 Double return. Farmer and Gresham seated by order of the House 11 Nov. 1586
  • Weymouth and Melcombe Regis "The 1597 election (Elizabeth I) is of interest in parliamentary history as an early example of a practice that was later to become common—the sending in by the sheriff of a double return, leaving the House of Commons to determine which Members were to be seated."

17th century

[edit]
  • Method (1604–1629) (Hist. Parl.) "Where more than one return was accepted by the sheriff and the clerk of the Crown (a ‘double return’), all names appearing on those indentures are capitalized, and the order of names preserved."
"Occasionally the praeses could also determine the outcome in a five-burgh district."
"...and in 1713 in Anstruther Easter Burghs Sir John Anstruther, 1st Bt.*, although not praeses himself, [The official Scots title of the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament is Preses o the Scots Pairlament.] was able to exploit the fact that the election was being held in his family’s borough of Anstruther Wester to secure the disqualification of one of the commissions from Pittenweem, a decision which furnished him with a majority at the poll. In each of these instances the presumption of the praeses was challenged by the defeated candidates, but the Commons did not establish a ruling. No report was made on the Perth Burghs petition; Anstruther’s election was confirmed on a hearing; and although Scott was eventually unseated in favour of William Livingston*, whose petition had argued forcefully that the praeses did not have ‘a power to judge the right of electors’, the case was not decided on this point. A similar issue had arisen in a previous election in Anstruther Easter district, in 1710, but had been complicated by the fact that the burgh whose commission was disputed, Pittenweem again, was the presiding burgh. This time both claimants voted. Although technically the election was tied, with the disputed commission for the presiding burgh precluding the operation of a casting vote, Sir John Anstruther was declared elected, the town clerk refusing to make out a double return, a decision subsequently confirmed by the sheriff, the Earl of Rothes, who, by no coincidence, was Sir John’s patron." Blimey, this is the WP entry which sparked my interest in double returns, and it's very complicated, neh?
" A double return was made involving three gentlemen, none of them strangers to the town. John Grey was already known as a member, and had family connexions with the Earl of Rutland. (fn. 26) Sir William Hartopp was a well-established county landowner, living at Rotherby. (fn. 27) The third, Sir John Pretyman, was lord of the manor and patron of the living of Loddington. (fn. 28) Hartopp's name was in both returns, so that the issue lay between Grey and Pretyman.
"For whatever reason, the House of Commons determined in favour of Pretyman, (fn. 29) and against the corporation who claimed that the franchise (on which Grey had been elected) was restricted to themselves, excluding the commonalty of the borough. Their testimony on Grey's behalf availed them nothing. (fn. 30) Perhaps it was a sign of their displeasure that Pretyman seems never to have been made a freeman."

18th century

[edit]
" In 1686, however, Thomas Pitt I had taken a lease of Mawarden Court, which conveyed the right to appoint the bailiff of the manor, traditionally the returning officer, and in the election to the Convention he had mounted a challenge ‘according to the ancient law and custom of the borough’. This meant, among other things, that the bailiff should make the return, but when Pitt and a friend were returned on an indenture signed by the bailiff, the House set it aside, determining that the right of election was in the burgage holders, and at the by-election Mompesson and Harvey’s son William were returned on an indenture signed by six ‘burgators’." ...
"The concordat did not quite last to the next general election, in 1705. According to Robert Pitt, Mompesson, at the instigation of Harvey, let it be known that he would oppose Pitt’s ‘right of bailiwick’, and in retaliation Robert ‘set up’ his brother-in-law Lord Grandison. While Robert Pitt’s election was ‘unanimous’ and undisputed, Mompesson and Grandison tied for second place and so the bailiff, who had managed to get hold of the precept after all, made a double return. Rival petitions were presented to the House, and Mompesson’s counsel pressed their objection to the participation of the bailiff when the two cross-petitions were heard in committee. On the other side, Grandison’s counsel admitted that the return should be made by the ‘burgators’ but insisted that the precept ought rightly to go to the bailiff as ‘the computer of the votes’, and this seems to have been the interpretation that both the committee and the House endorsed. Although Mompesson was declared elected, ‘through superior party influence’, the judgment was given on the grounds of individual voting qualifications, and Robert Pitt was able to claim that the ‘bailiwick, by means of the contest, is now settled by the House of Commons’. Robert had achieved his own ‘unanimous’ election at a cost which outraged his father. ‘When I hear in what manner you went down to Old Sarum against the election’, he fumed, ‘sent a man cook sometime before, coach and six, five or six in liveries, open house for three or four months, and put me to about £500 charge. Where was the need of this? It never cost me above £10, which was for a dinner the day of the election.’ "
" The 1705 election was fiercely contested and was the first in which the dissenting community of Cirencester voted en masse for the Whig candidates. Allen Bathurst put forward his candidature following the death of his father the year before, and was partnered by Coxe. They were opposed by the Whigs Ireton and Thomas Onslow. Bathurst topped the poll, but Ireton and Coxe gained an equal number of votes and upon the bailiff’s refusal to return Ireton, violence erupted. As a compromise, a double return was made of Ireton and Coxe. Both petitioned Parliament accusing the other of bribery, but Coxe withdrew his petition, leaving Ireton to be selected with Bathurst."
"In some cases, of course, no amount of careful negotiation could prevent a poll being called for. The fiercely fought Oxfordshire election of 1754 was as much about national as local circumstances. Here, while previously the Tories had been able to hold sway over the county seats, and subsequently a deal was arranged whereby representation was shared by one Whig and one Tory, the ‘new Whig’ interest proved determined to challenge the incumbent Tories. Just how chaotic the poll was, was reflected in the fact that all four candidates: Viscount Wenman and Sir James Dashwood for the Tories and Viscount Parker and Sir Edward Turner for the Whigs, were returned. (This was somewhat unfortunate, given that one example of election-ware produced around the time declared the maker’s support for Wenman and Dashwood, proclaiming ‘Old Interest for Ever no Double Return’.) It was not until April 1755 – 'a full year after the poll – that Parker and Turner were confirmed in their seats, even though both had polled fewer votes than their rivals. (See feature on Controverted Elections.) What was particularly interesting here, was that neither side cared to repeat the experience and that for the remainder of the period the county seats were shared with one Whig and one Tory each holding one."
From Controverted Elections: "The ultimate arbitrator of disputed elections was the House of Commons. Each new parliament was accompanied by a flurry of petitions, by far the most common way in which defeated candidates challenged election results. In 1705, (1705 English general election) 31 petitions were lodged and read at the bar of the House; this rose to a high point of 99 in 1722, before falling away. Although some petitions were heard at the bar, most were referred to the Committee of Privileges and Elections (which was essentially a ‘Committee of the Whole’)."[2]

19th century

[edit]

Up until 1832 and the passage of the Great Reform Bill into law as the Reform Act 1832, the number of enfranchised voters in many constituencies/boroughs etc. was very small. See Unreformed House of Commons. Political corruption was rife, and many seats were not contested at general elections since they were firmly in the hands of powerful landowners (pocket boroughs). Thus the possibility of tied elections was greater, with only a few voters being able to sway the outcome.[citation needed]

"It was well known that the course of proceeding, in the election of a member of parliament, was this: the writ, in the first place, issues from the Crown-office to the sheriff of the county, and he, in compliance with the order contained in it, again issues what is called a precept[3] to the returning officer of each borough within his county, in which he calls upon that officer to hold the election, and make the return to him by a certain time. When the election has been held in virtue of this precept, the returning officer annexes the indenture [usually with a seal] of the return to the precept, and sends it to the sheriff, who transmits it with such indenture to the clerk of the Crown. This was the ordinary and established course of proceeding, from which, he conceived, they never had departed, and from which no departure could, with any regard to the preservation of their own privileges or the rights of the electors, take place."
Pratt had been elected MP for Bath in 11 February 1828: The local radical newspaper printed a pseudonymous account of how the "worthy young representative assured his 30 constituents [original italics] that he would ‘stick to the present administration as long as he lived’." NB a mere 30 franchisees, apparently.
Corporation boroughs: These 27 boroughs restricted the right to vote to members of the borough corporation. In none of them was the electorate larger than 60, and in most it was much smaller. Apart from Salisbury and Bath, they were mostly small towns. As a result, these boroughs were rarely contested, since the corporation members usually decided among themselves who would be elected. They were usually known as "pocket boroughs" because they were frequently "in the pocket" of a wealthy patron, although they were not as corrupt as the rotten boroughs.
"His new position on the (Council of the Lord High Admiral) necessitated another ministerial by-election at Bath in February 1829, where he was opposed by Palmer, and although expected to win, he only managed to tie. After the election had been declared void, he succeeded in a second turbulent contest. (Pratt, George Charles, earl of Brecknock (1799-1866))
NB This was the government of the Duke of Wellington from January 1828, who strongly opposed the Great Reform Bill. From 1832 the franchise was greatly extended.
  • Commons Chamber Volume 146: debated on Thursday 16 July 1857 (Hansard.) "The case of the [1857] Huntingdon election was a peculiar one. There had been a double return, two of the candidates having polled an equal number of votes; it was likely to be a long inquiry, and it was extremely important that the members of any Committee appointed should be fully qualified to attend from the beginning to the end of the proceedings, in order that the scrutiny might be properly conducted."

20th century

[edit]
  • The Canadian Parliamentary Companion for 1889 stated: "Double Returns – When two members are returned for one place, they may be sworn, but neither should sit or vote until the matter has been finally determined. As under the Rev. Stat. of Can, cap. 8, sec. 61, the returning officer, in case of an inequality of votes, shall give a casting vote, double returns will be of infrequent occurrence. Double Election. – A member returned by two constituencies must, within seven days after the expiration of the time limited for the presentation of petitions against returns, elect for which he will serve."[4]

When were the first and last double returns?

Electoral Corruption and Controverted Elections - jstor

Influence of Irregularities in Contested Elections upon Election ... - jstor

References

[edit]
Notes
Citations
  1. ^ Parker, Henry Walter (24 November 1866). "Legislative Council Election. To The Electors". The South Australian Advertiser. p. 1.
  2. ^ Parliament’s Committees of Privileges (Hist Parl) By Charles Littleton. "...from the early 17th century a separate Committee of Privileges and Elections was established at the beginning of each session to deal with individual complaints of breaches of privilege. As its name suggests, this Committee was concerned primarily with the numerous petitions regarding controverted elections that usually took up a significant amount of the House’s attention."
  3. ^ "Precept". Legal Choices. Retrieved 23 October 2024.
  4. ^ Gemmill, J. A., ed. (1889). Canadian Parliamentary Companion (PDF). Ottawa: Durie and Son. p. 76.

Bibliography

[edit]

Electoral Corruption and Controverted Elections - jstor

Category:Election law in the United Kingdom

Haha! Halkett and Laing, stunning reference work. "The History, Uses, and Dangers of Halkett and Laing - jstor"

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:MinorProphet/Draft_subpages/Double_return_(UK_election)&oldid=1252976172"