The CASE of Algernon Sidney Esq as it appeared before the Committee, Novemb. 10 th'.  
AGmondesham is an ancient Borough, but for the space of near 200 years had sent no Burgesses to Parliament until the year 1640.  
Mr. Sidney believing, that of common Right those only aught to have Voices in Elections who pay Scot and Lot, unless there were Prescription to the contrary (which a Usage of Forty years if admitted cannot make) or the Case had been judged by the House, did by his Council desire the Opinion of the Committee thereupon; and the Committee did judge that none ought to have Voices but the Inhabitants paying Scot and Lot.  
This point being determined, it was not necessary for Mr. Sidney to insist upon the Poll taken by Humphrey Gardiner, (who took it by the appointment of Francis Child Constable, and had taken all the Polls that had been within Thirty years' last passed) nor that which was taken by Mr. Henry Danvers perfectly agreeing with it, whereby it did appear, that all the Householders being admitted, he had 74, and Sir William Drake had but 64 Voices; and therefore for the ease of the Committee he did admit of the Poll taken by Sir William's Agents. Whereupon it did appear, that Mr. Sidney had Thirty nine Voices proved to be good; and of those remaining who paid Scot and Lot, there were but Twenty eight to vote for Sir William, though none had been liable to exceptions.  
This being plain, Sir Williams Council accused Mr. Sidney of Bribery, and for proof of it, produced John Clerk, a poor Labourer; who said, that the day before the Election, Mr. Sidney in the presence of many had told him, that at present he could do nothing for him, but after the Election he would give him Satisfaction: That about a Month after, Richard Norwood Overseer of the Poor, who had voted for Mr. Sidney, gave him a Noble, and that others who had also voted for him, said, that Norwood had given a Noble to each of them.  
Clerk and Harwood said, one Luffeman who had voted for Mr. Sidney told them, Norwood had given him a Suit of .  
Harwood and Gillmer said, that about a Month after the Election, Nobles apiece were delivered to divers of the Inhabitants by Rich. Norwood; and all three confessed they heard of no other Moneys given.  
Rich. Bachelor said Leered told him, Mr. Sidney had given him Money after the Election.  
It was also said, that some of those who were for Mr. Sidney had scandalised Sir William, saying, he was a Papist and a Pensioner.  

In Answer to these Calumnies,  
Mr. Tanner and Rich. Norwood, men of Credit, proved, that John Clerk had often desired to speak with them before the Election; which they, knowing him to be a dangerous fellow, refused, unless it were in the presence of three or four Witnesses, and that he did tell them, large Offers were made to him by Sir William if he would Vote for him; that he had a Letter from him to that purpose; that he knew enough to overthrow Sir William's Election, though he had Twenty Votes more than Mr. Sidney; and would make the best of his Market.  
They also say, that since the Election he affirmed, that he had given his Vote for Mr. Sidney freely, and that neither Mr. Sidney nor any other on his behalf had spoken to him for it.  
Coll. Danvers and Mr. Halford Merchant of London, prove, that they were present when Clerk and several others came to offer their Votes to Mr. Sidney, and that he told them he would serve the Town and Country as well as he could, and hoped it would be to their satisfaction; but no mention was made of any Money or Personal Reward.  
They also prove, that the day after the Election, Mr. Sidney being to return to London, many poor People came about his Coach, beging of him; and he being told it was a thing decent and customary to give something to them, did first oppoint Five pounds, and afterwards Five Pounds more to be given to them, which accordingly was put into the hands of Rich. Norwood, Overseer of the Poor, to be distributed amongst them.  
Richard Norwood Overseer, and James his Son say, they did receive Ten Pounds by Mr. Sidney's Order, and did distribute it publicly to such as were Poor men, paying no Scot or Lot, and had voted for the most part for Mr. Sidney; but that they had done it on their own heads, without any Order or Intimation from Coll. Sidney directly or indirectly to dispose of it otherwise than to the Poor of the Burrow.  
Norwood further says, Luffeman had never any  from him in four years before the Election, nor at any time since, nor ever by Order from Mr. Sidney.  
Tho. Petit says, Horwood an Innkeeper desired him not to give Evidence for Mr. Sidney, because they should get Money by a new Election, if his could be made void.  
As to the reproachful Language against Sir. William Drake, Mr. Sidney says, that he cannot rule other men's Tongues; that he no ways approves of the Licence usually taken in such Cases by using ill Language; that Sir William must suffer that, as well as others: And if the Committee had not appeared to be weary, he could have proved such Language was then and still is used of himself every day by Sir William himself and others, his Friends and Agents, which neither he nor they, as he believes, 〈◊〉 undertake to make good.  
Mr. Sidney proved by several witnesses, that Sir William and his Servants had endeavoured to deter Tho. Ley, Charsely, Petit, Tench and others, from voting against him, by threatening to pull down their houses, or vexing them with suits; which having been done before the Election, hath been executed since the Election.  
Hereupon Mr. Sidney desires it may be observed,  
1. That the Ten pounds which he appointed to be given in the presence of many that begged of him, and to be put into the hands of the Overseer of the Poor, cannot be understood otherwise than that he designed it to be distributed unto such Poor only as then begged of him, and were under the care of the said Overseer.  
2. That it was after the Election openly promised, and publicly distributed.  
3. Clerk only pretending a Promise in obscure words, no ways agreeing with the Testimony of Coll. Danvers and Mr. Halford, men of Reputation, nor justified by any others that were then present, though he said there were many; and his undue practices testified by Tanner and Norwood, show that he no way deserves to be credited.  
4. It is not pretended, that any one man paying Scot or Lot, received a Penny, and though Mr. Sidney could not hinder such as did not pay, to give Votes, he did think they ought to have none, and upon his Motion it was so judged by the Committee.  
5. Whatsoever the destribution of that Money was, he is not to answer for it, it having been done not only without but contrary to his Direction, as is confessed by Richard Norwood who was trusted with it.  
And Mr. Sidney doth further affirm as in the presence of God, (as he would have done to the Committee, had he not been told it was unusual for any person to speak there except by his Council) that he never did intent it should be otherwise disposed of than as Alms to the Poor that then begged of him, and such others who took Alms and did not pretend to have Voices; and he never know, heard, or imagined it had been otherwise disposed of, till upon the Evidence before the Committee it did appear to be so. And Mr. Sidney is ready, if it be required, to produce his Servant who gave the 10 l. to the Overseer of the Poor, and several others whom he did not summon before the Committee, because he had no reason to believe any Objection could or would have been made against him for his said Charity, that can and will prove Mr. Sydney's directions for the distribution of the said 10 l. were such as he hath before alleged; and therefore he humbly hopes that the indiscreet or unfaithful disposal of his Charity by the Overseer of the Poor, shall not reflect upon him, or prejudice his Cause.   
FINIS.