You are in: Places > Piercy (1828) > STATE OF THE REPRESENTATION (part 4)

STATE OF THE REPRESENTATION (part 4)

Mr. Tennyson on the 21st of March, moved the recommittal of the Bill, on the ground that the case against the Borough had been established, to which motion the House agreed; but on the question—that the Speaker should leave the chair, Mr. Nicholson Calvert moved—"That it be an instruction to the committee, that they have power to make provision for the prevention of bribery and corruption in the election of members to serve in Parliament for the Borough of East Retford, by extending the right of voting to the forty shilling freeholders of the Hundred of Bassetlaw."

After debate, the House agreed to the instruction:

Mr. Tennyson afterwards moved the postponement of the committee from time to time, on the ground that,—as several members had appeared to agree to the instruction voted on the 26th of March, because it was proposed by the Bill for the disfranchisement of the Borough of Penryn, to transfer the elective franchise from that Borough to Manchester, it was expected to delay the East Retford Bill until it could be ascertained whether the House of Lords would agree with that transfer.

On the 14th of May. the Earl of Carnarvon, who had the management, in the House of Lords, of the Bill for disfranchising Penryn, stated in his place, after evidence had been heard in support of it, that the nature of that evidence was not such as would justify him in proposing to transfer the elective franchise from Penryn to Manchester, but that he should probably propose to open the right of voting to the freeholders of the adjacent Hundreds.

Accordingly, on the 19th of May, Mr. Tennyson moved the recommittal of the East Retford Bill in the House of Commons. Thereupon the House resolved itself into a committee, and Mr. N. Calvert, with the view of giving effect to the instruction of the 26th of March, moved, in the first place, to omit that portion of the preamble which recited the expediency of entirely excluding East Retford from returning representatives, and of substituting the town of Birmingham.

After a debate, in which Mr. N. Calvert, Mr. Tennyson, Mr. Lumley, Mr. Alderman Waithman, Lord Rancliffe, Sir George Phillips, Mr. Secretary Peel, Mr. Littleton, Mr. Stanley, Mr. Sturges Bourne, Lord Viscount Sandon, Mr. Secretary Huskisson. Lord William Pewlett, and Mr Williams Wynn, took part, the committee divided, when the numbers were:—

After this division, Mr. Calvert proposed to substitute for the words omitted in the preamble the words following:— "And whereas such bribery and corruption is likely to continue to be practised in the said Borough in future, unless some means are taken to prevent the same; in order, therefore to prevent such unlawful practices for the future, and that the said borough may henceforth be duly represented in parliament, &c." whereupon Mr. Secretary Huskisson moved, that all the words of the proposed amendment, after the word "‘future," be omitted.

Upon which it was moved and agreed, that the chairman should report progress, and ask leave to sit again on Monday the 2nd of June.

During the protracted debate which took place this evening, it was quite evident that either a misunderstanding, or a division, existed amongst the members of his Majesty’s government, which in the sequel proved to be correct. Mr. Huskisson, on leaving the House of Commons, and in the heat of the moment, wrote to the Duke of Wellington, resigning (though in terms somewhat ambiguous) his situation as Secretary of State for the Colonial Department; this letter, the Duke thought proper to lay before his Majesty, and thus, as a late writer justly remarks, "before he knew where he was, he was out of office."

The resignation of Mr. Huskisson, was followed by the secession of some of his colleagues, consequently when the House assembled on the 2nd of June, long explanations were entered into (a recapitulation of which is unnecessary in this place) and the House afterwards went into a committee on the Bill, when Mr. Huskisson again moved as an amendment that all the words after the word "future" be left out, on this the committee divided,

In another division, on the question of adjournment. the numbers were,

After this division a desultory conversation took place, in which Sir John Sebright, Lord Nugent, Mr. Baring, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Tennyson, Mr. Spring Rice, Mr. Secretary Peel, and Lord Normanby, took part: Mr. Tennyson moved that the Bill he read that day six months, in Opposition to that day se’nnight, when the Speaker stated that the honourable member was out of order, as the reading of the Bill that day six months would be tantamount to defeating it altogether.

[<<Previous] [Next>>]