Legal Opinion regarding Christchurch Borough
given by J Darnall, 1st September 1727

[transcribed from HCRO 19M56/L4]

Christchurch in County Southampton

This borough is at present without a Mayor, judgment of Easter being entered against Edward Bourne the last Mayor in Hilary Term last.

The Sheriff of the said County heretofore (when this writ for electing burgesses to serve in Parliament came to his hands) directed his precept to the Mayor and Burgesses of the said Borough to elect.

But when the last writ came to the hands of the Undersheriff (contrary to the express direction of the High Sheriff) directed the precept to the senior burgess only who declared before the election he would return Hinxman and Withers two of the candidates if they had but one vote.

The 18th of August 1727 was the day of election when Hinxman had 6 votes, Withers 7, Banks 8 and Hooper 9. Notwithstanding which Mr Imber who took upon him to preside at such election as senior burgess and as such to be returning officer returned the two former as duly elected in which return 5 other burgesses joined. So the Indenture was executed by 6 burgesses.

Eight other burgesses of the said borough them being themselves well entitled to be returning officers as Mr Imber returned Mr Banks and Mr Hooper and all 8 of them executed an Indenture for that purpose.

The High Sheriff of the County is inclined (as in justice he ought) to accept of the Indenture executed by the said 8 burgesses. And the undersheriff who has the writ in his custody and will return it with all the Indentures of the County into the C___ of the Crown will accept of the Indenture executed by the 6 burgesses.

Question: Will it be most advisable for Mr Banks and Mr Hooper to endeavour to get the High Sheriff of the said County to return the Indenture executed by the said 8 burgesses to the C___ of the Crown. And if that can be obtained will that be looked on as a double return so as to hinder Hinxman and Withers from sitting in Parliament ‘til that is determined? Or will it be most advisable to petition?

I think it advisable to take the return of the High Sheriff if he will make it, and in this case it seems just he should, and I apprehend this will be esteemed a double return to be proceeded upon first, but that should not be wholly trusted to without a petition.

Question: Will it be proper or is it consistent with the usage of the House to go on the double return and to lodge a petition likewise, and if the House will proceed on the double return may they not by leave of the House withdraw their petition?

I think when the House are possessed of those returned, they may proceed on the double return if they please, and the petitioners will in all probability be permitted to withdraw if there be______. But I think it advisable for the 8 to sign and request the undersheriff first to accept and make that return.

J Darnall, 1 September 1727