You are in: Places > Piercy (1828) > STATE OF THE REPRESENTATION (part 3)

STATE OF THE REPRESENTATION (part 3)

THE ELECTION OF 1828.

Since the contest of 1802, interference of parliament ‘has never been called for, until the year 1826. For several months previous to, and during the election, party-spirit was greatly excited against those burgesses who had promised their votes to Sir R. L. Dundas, and W. B. Wrightson, Esq. (who were opposed by Sir H. Wilson) so much so, that all civil authority was completely set at defiance, and the town overawed by a lawless and infuriated mob, whose zeal for the success of their favorite, prompted them to commit the most unjustifiable acts of outrage against all those who favoured, or were ‘suspected’ of favouring the opposite party. On the day of election it was considered necessary by the municipal authorities, in order to secure the peace of the town, to call in the assistance of the military (who had previously been stationed at Gamston and Barnby Moor,) which had the effect contemplated by those who authorized the measure, and prevented the mob from putting their threats into actual execution.

The election took place on Friday, the 9th of June, 1826, and was adjourned at four o’clock to the following day; but when the court opened, in consequence of the military having been called in, on the previous evening, after the close of the poll, and being then stationed in the immediate neighbourhood, Sir H. W. Wilson protested against the whole of the proceedings, and declared it to be his determination to bring the matter before a committee of the House of Commons as soon as an opportunity presented itself. The state of the poll at its close was as follows.—

Thus matters rested until the beginning of February, 1827, when Parliament assembled; Sir H. W. Wilson having entered into the recognizances usual upon such occasions, a committee was appointed to decide the question and report to the House. On the 4th of April they commenced with the examination of witnesses, and continued during the 5th, 6th, 7th, 11th, 10th, 11th, and 12th, when the case closed, and the chairman (C. C. Western, Esq.) reported on the 1st of May, that the committee had determined that the sitting members were not duly elected; that the election was void; bat that the allegation contained in the petition, against the returning officer was frivolous and vexatious. The chairman also stated "That the committee considered it their duty to direct the serious attention of the House to the corrupt state of the borough of East Retford. It appeared also to the committee, from the evidence of several witnesses, that, at elections of burgesses to serve in Parliament for this Borough, that it had been a notorious, long-continued, and general practice for the electors who voted for the successful candidates, to receive the sum of twenty guineas from each of them, so that those burgesses who voted for both the members have customarily received forty guineas for such exercise of their elective franchise, and that an expectation prevailed in the Borough that this custom would be acted upon at the last election, although they had not sufficient proof that such expectation was encouraged by the candidates then returned." He also requested to move "That the report, with the evidence taken before the committee, be printed; and that the Speaker do not issue his writ for the return of two burgesses to serve in Parliament for this Borough until the same shall have been taken into the consideration of the House."

On the 11th of June, 1827, the order of the day for the consideration of the above report being read,–Mr. Tennyson moved, and, after considerable discussion, the House of Commons resolved,—"That the corrupt state of the Borough of East Retford required the serious attention of the House." On the same’ day Mr Tennyson obtained leave to bring in a Bill "for excluding the Borough of East Retford from electing burgesses to serve in Parliament, and to enable the town of Birmingham to return two representatives in lieu thereof."

On the 22nd of the same month, this Bill was read a second time, but in consequence of the approaching prorogation (which took place on the 9th of July,) the subject was postponed to. the next session; and on the 29th of June, the issue of the writ to East Retford was suspended accordingly.

On the 31st of January, 1828, the Bill was again introduced by Mr. Tennyson, and on the 25th of February was read a second time, and ordered to be committed; several witnesses, were also summoned to attend the committee on the 3rd of March.

On the 3rd, 4th, and 7th of March, the committee examined evidence in support of the Bill, and heard counsel against it; and on the 10th the committee went through the Bill, pro forma, and reported it to the House.

[<<Previous] [Next>>]