STATE OF THE REPRESENTATION (part 5)
On the 24th of June, Mr. Calvert moved for leave to bring in a Bill to disqualify certain voters of this Borough from voting in future for members to serve in parliament. On the question being put the House divided
|
For the motion, |
74 |
|
Against it, |
26 |
|
Majority, |
48 |
On the 26th, Mr. Calver brought in the bill, which was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on the 11th of July. A copy of the Bill, and notice of the intention to read it a second time was ordered to be served upon the Individuals whom it proposed to disfranchise.
On the 27th of June, Mr. Calvert moved the order of the day for the further consideration of the report, and in the discussion which followed, considerable warmth of temper was displayed on both sides of the House; several divisions were created by Mr. Tennyson and his friends, tending to defeat the measure, and, if possible, the ministry. The numbers on the respective divisions were as follows,—
First Division.—On Mr. Tennyson’s motion to postpone the measure until the next session:
|
For the motion, |
42 |
|
Against it, |
72 |
|
Majority against it, |
30 |
Second Division.— Lord Howick’s motion, that it be an instruction to the committtee to give, the two members to Yorkshire; each Riding to return two members:—
|
Ayes, |
17 |
|
Noes, |
95 |
|
Majority against, |
78 |
Third Division.— Mr. Alderman Wood’s motion, in committee, to put an end to the Bill altogether:—
|
Ayes, |
45 |
|
Noes, |
25 |
|
Majority, |
30 |
Fourth Division.—On Lord John Russell’s motion, for the absolute disfranchisement of East Retford;—
|
For the motion, |
43 |
|
Against it, |
108 |
|
Majority, |
66 |
On the 11th of July, the order of the day being read, for receiving the report of the committee, Mr. Calvert moved that it be deferred to that day se’nnight; and should the House be then sitting, he would move a further postponement so as to carry the Bill over the session.
The order of the day was also read for the second reading of the Freemen’s disqualification Bill; Mr. Calvert, desiring that the two Bills should keep pace with each other, moved that it be read that day three months, which was agreed to. He likewise gave notice of his intention to move that the issuing of a writ for this Borough be deferred till next session.
On the 25th of July, Mr. Tennyson gave notice that he would, early in the next sessions, move for leave to bring in two Bills, one for the absolute disfranchisement of East. Retford, and the other for transferring the franchise to Birmingham. On the 28th, the House adjourned.
Thus this question, which has been the fertile source of so many angry contentions during this session, is still left undecided, to embroil the discussions of the next. It is, however, generally understood that ministers have come to a determination to extend the franchise to the Hundred of Bassetlaw. Indeed the statement of Mr. Peel, in the house of Commons, appears to be decisive on this particular head; speaking of the discussions which took place on the 19th of May, he observes, "On that night I came down to the House with the full impression that it was fully agreed amongst my colleagues, that the resolution proposed by the The Hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. N. Calvert,) should be by all of them strictly adhered to." This declaration may be considered as definitely deciding the fate of the Borough; although if we look at some administrations lately constituted, we certainly possess no "guarantee"for their existence from one session to another.
[<<Previous] [Next>>]
© A P NICHOLSON | PAGE LAST UPDATED: 29 MAY 2003