HC Deb 22 June 1842 vol 64 cc428-9

On the question, that the report of the Sudbury Disfranchisement Bill be brought up,

Mr. Blackstone

said, that in a measure of this description, inflicting pains and penalties, the House ought to proceed with great caution. He would ask the House to re-commit the bill, in order to give the borough an opportunity to appear by counsel at the Bar of the House. He grounded his motion upon the justice of the case. It was a bill of pains and penalties, and everything should be done according to law. The notice to the late returning officer was clearly irregular; he would therefore move that the bill should be re-committed.

Mr. Redington

was placed in a very awkward situation. The bill passed through committee in a very full House, at a time when the Leaders and Members of note of both parties were present; and it passed unopposed. Yet now, at that late period of the Session, he was asked upon a mere technicality to begin again, as it were. As to the informality said to have been committed, he was not aware of it till after the bill had gone through committee, and it was to be borne in mind, that there was no regulation or enactment which required that any notice whatever should be served. The objection ought to have been taken in time; of course he must bow to the decision of the House, but he saw no reason for acceding to the request made by the hon. Member.

Mr. M. J. O'Connell

would not impute any motives to the hon. Member for Wallingford, but if his intention was to throw the bill overboad he could not take a better course than the one he now pursued. Instead of re-committing the bill, why not allow the report to be brought up now, and the clauses he had to propose might be moved on the third reading, when the House could give them as fair a consideration as in committee.

Mr. Hodgson

supported the recommittal of the bill, as in justice his hon. Friend, the Member for Wallingford, ought to have an opportunity of proposing the amendment of which he had given notice; but he gave his hon. Friend fair notice that he should feel it his duty to oppose it.

Mr. Bailey,

jun., thought the hon. Member for Wallingford had made out a case in favour of his motion. He knew from experience that the elections at Sudbury could be and were pure when temptation was not thrown in their way.

The House divided on the question, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question:—Ayes 48; Noes 19;—Majority 29.

List of the AYES.
Barnard, E. G. Busfeild, W.
Baskerville, T. B. M. Christie, W. D.
Bernard, Visct. Colebrooke, Sir T. E.
Blake, ML J. Courtenay, Lord
Bowring, Dr. Cripps, W.
Brodie, W. B. Dennistoun, J.
Brotherton, J. Dickinson, F. H.
Burroughs, H. N. Eastnor, Visct.
Eliot, Lord O'Connell, M. J.
Escott, B. O'Ferrall, R. M.
Evans, W. Plumridge, Capt.
Ferguson, Sir R. A. Plumptre, J. P.
Gill, T. Protheroe, E.
Greene, T. Seale, Sir J. H.
Hodgson, R. Stock, Serjt.
Howard, P. H. Thornely, J.
Lambton, H. Villiers, hon. C.
Lefroy, A. Wawn, J. T.
Lincoln, Earl of Whitmore, T. C.
Maclean, D. Wood, B.
Mainwaring, T. Wyse, T.
Marsland, H. Yorke, H. R.
Miles, P. W. S.
Miles, W. TELLERS.
Norreys, Sir D. J. Redington, T. N.
O'Brien, W. S. Ward, H. G.
List of the NOES.
Allix, J. P Hervey, Lord A.
Arbuthnott, hon. H. Jackson, J. D.
Bailey, J. jun. Lawson, A.
Baird, W. Mackenzie, T.
Bradshaw, J. Master, T. W. C.
Broadley, H. Munday, E. M.
Darby, G. Pringle, A.
Forbes, W. Vere, Sir C. B.
Fuller, A. E. TELLERS.
Grimsditch, T. Blackstone, W. S.
Henley, J. W. Rushbrooke, Col.

Report received. Bill to be read a third time.