HC Deb 24 March 1828 vol 18 cc1319-20
Mr. Tennyson

said, that, after the course which the House had thought proper to adopt with respect to this bill, he was rather at a loss to determine what course to pursue. As, however, the Penryn Disfranchisement bill was to come under discussion that evening, and as any ulterior proposition which he might have in view with reference to East Retford would, in a great measure, depend upon the fate of that bill, he would move, "that the Order of the Day for going into a Committee on the East Retford Disfranchisement Bill be read, for the purpose of postponing it to Monday" [cries of no, no !].

Mr. Alderman Waithman

said, it appeared to him, that, after the course which had been pursued with reference to this measure by the right hon. gentleman opposite, the hon. member had better give up his bill altogether. Although the hon. member for Hertfordshire had brought forward the proposition, it could not be considered in any other light than as the proposition of the right hon. gentleman opposite. Of this he was sure, that if it had not been so considered, the House would have come to a very different determination upon it. Now, he must say, that the whole statement of the right hon. gentleman, when the subject was last discussed, rested on an unjust view of the question.

Mr. N. Culvert

said, that whatever might be the merit or demerit of the proposition, he took the responsibility of it upon himself.

Mr. Peel

said, that the proposition for which he had voted had been made and seconded by two hon. members, who were not in the habit of supporting what emanated from the Treasury benches. The hon. member for Hertford did not know what line he (Mr. Peel) meant to take, when he communicated to him his intended instruction to the committee.

Sir Joseph Yorke

said, that if reform did not take place where such positive delinquency was proved, the House would get into the deepest disgrace with the country.

The motion was agreed to.