|Former Borough constituency |
for the House of Commons
East Retford was a parliamentary constituency in Nottinghamshire, which elected two Members of Parliament (MPs) to the House of Commons for the first time in 1316, and continuously from 1571 until 1885, when the constituency was abolished. Although East Retford was technically a parliamentary borough for the whole of its existence, in 1830 its franchise had been widened and its boundaries had been extended to include the whole Wapentake of Bassetlaw as a remedy for corruption among the voters, and from that point onward it resembled a county constituency in most respects.
East Retford first sent members to Parliament in 1316, but thereafter the privilege lapsed until the borough was once more summoned to do so in 1571, probably at the instigation of the Earl of Rutland. Certainly, he considered himself entitled to influence its choice of members, and 1586 wrote to the borough asking for the nomination of one or both of the representatives; the borough authorities replied respectfully that "Having considered the matter" they felt themselves "bound to satisfy you in that and any other much weightier thing. May it please you, therefore, to make choice and nominate and we will ratify it." However, they went on to note that they would be particularly happy to oblige if the Earl were to renominate the sitting member, Denzil Holles (who may well have been his nominee at the previous election), and since Rutland proved happy to do so, the proprieties were observed without any hardship. The Earls of Rutland retained their influence in Retford for several decades, often holding the municipal post of High Steward.[ citation needed ]
The borough consisted initially of the parish of East Retford, a market town which by 1830 had a population of around 2,500. By the end of the 17th century, the right to vote was restricted to the resident freemen of the town, but there was some dispute over who had a right to claim the freedom. (The House of Commons debated the borough's franchise seven times in a few years following 1700, coming to a different resolution each time, and never definitively settling all the details.) East Retford was not subject to the abuses common in many other freeman boroughs, where non-resident freemen could often vote and outnumbered the residents, but as elsewhere the town corporation was able to exert considerable control by deciding whom to admit as freemen. In the second half of the 18th century, the qualified electorate amounted to about 150.[ citation needed ]
However, the borough was no more independent than it had been in Elizabethan times, and by 1800 had been under the influence of the main local landowner, the Duke of Newcastle, for well over a century. Although it was not quite an entirely safe pocket borough, the Duke could generally be confident of seeing his chosen candidates returned. This influence was strongest in the second half of the 18th century when the borough was managed for the Duke by one of the sitting MPs, John White: there were no contested elections between 1741 and 1796. But even then it was necessary to work to maintain the Duke's popularity among the freemen, and after 1765 the then Duke (who had been Prime Minister until 1761) found his hold on Retford challenged by his nephew, the Earl of Lincoln. As Lincoln was also Newcastle's heir, it might have seemed that the dispute could not permanently weaken the family's control: but in the event the voters had been so stirred up, by the time Lincoln inherited the Dukedom in 1768, that they were unwilling to renounce their independence. Henceforth the Dukes of Newcastle could only count on one of the two seats. When the Corporation candidate was beaten by the Duke's two choices in 1796, the bailiffs and aldermen of the Corporation created 38 honorary freemen to ensure they had a majority once more at the next election; but the Court of King's Bench ruled the manoeuvre illegal (though it was common practice in many other boroughs).[ citation needed ]
With the election results in Retford no longer a foregone conclusion, it became worthwhile for candidates to take some pains to secure victory, and Retford's voters began to exploit the commercial value of their votes. The Newcastle influence became very limited while that of Earl Fitzwilliam waxed (though he himself and his Whig allies were apparently unconvinced of their own power), and the borough eventually became notorious for bribery. Retford's corruption took an unusual form: unlike the voters in most corrupt boroughs, the freemen tried to prevent contested elections, demanding instead that hopeful candidates should buy enough votes to secure a safe majority and avoid the need for a poll. At the elections of 1818 and 1820, the going tariff was 20 guineas for a vote, and the freemen (having two votes each) received 40 guineas for votes they never needed to cast.[ citation needed ]
But the stability of the system depended on the electors being able to reach a consensus over two candidates who could meet their demands, and a balance had developed whereby the Fitzwilliam interest chose one candidate and the leading members of the corporation the other. Late in 1825, the prospective Corporation candidate for the next election withdrew through ill health, and Lord Fitzwilliam provocatively brought forward a second candidate of his own. The Corporation found another candidate and secured the support of the Tory Duke of Newcastle. The election of 1826 was fought with no holds barred. Both sides bought up all the votes they could at the usual rate, and several pubs were kept open for months before the election, serving free beer from six in the morning until midnight. The Tory stood on a "no popery" platform, with his supporters openly boycotting tradesmen who opposed them, and election day ended in a riot. The two Fitzwilliam candidates won, but the loser petitioned against the result and the extent of East Retford's corruption was displayed to the world.[ citation needed ]
Parliament was united in being determined to find a remedy for East Retford's misbehaviour, but less clear as to what the most appropriate remedy would be. In the last years of the 18th century, several other boroughs found guilty of similar offences had been "thrown into the hundred" (had their boundaries extended to include the freeholders from the whole surrounding division of the county, so as to ensure that the corrupt townsmen could no longer sway the vote). But demands for a wider Parliamentary reform and a redistribution of seats to the more populous parts of the country were now widespread, and in the most recent corruption case (that of Grampound), the offending borough had been abolished altogether and its seats transferred elsewhere.[ citation needed ]
There were therefore vigorous debates as to whether Retford's franchise should not be transferred to one of the larger unrepresented towns such as Manchester or Birmingham. But both the Tory government and Whig opposition were split on the issue - the harder-line anti-Reform Tories did not want to set a precedent for establishing new boroughs, while many of the Whigs were reluctant to weaken the case for wholesale Reform by making piecemeal improvements. Further complications affected both sides: the Whigs were embarrassed because a leading Whig had been implicated in vote-buying; the Tories were aware that throwing the borough into the hundred (or in Retford's case, the Wapentake) might well re-establish the lost influence of the Tory Duke of Newcastle over the constituency.[ citation needed ]
The people of Retford themselves were by no means unanimous in wanting to retain the franchise. During the House of Lords debates on the Disfranchisement Bill, it emerged that the town had an active committee, led by a couple of attorneys and meeting at the Turk's Head Inn, trying to make the borough seem even more corrupt than it was and ensure its extinction. One of its members was later seen wearing a handsome gold watch, apparently presented in gratitude by well-wishers in Birmingham![ citation needed ]
The first compromise reached by the House of Commons was to put East Retford into the Wapentake while transferring the seats of another guilty borough, Penryn, to Manchester, but the latter Bill was defeated in the House of Lords. The question dragged on through the whole of the 1826–30 Parliament, and the Whig amendment to transfer Retford's seats to Birmingham was eventually defeated by 126 votes to 99. The Act that was passed in 1830 therefore reverted to the earlier practice, and the borough's boundaries were extended to encompass the Wapentake of Bassetlaw (which included the whole of the northern end of Nottinghamshire, including the town of Worksop): all those within this area who were qualified to vote in the county elections were given votes for East Retford.[ citation needed ]
This punishment saved East Retford's representation, in name at least. Within a year, Parliament was debating the Great Reform Bill, and the old borough's population was so small that it would have lost one of its seats. But the newly extended borough had a population of more than 37,000, and the Reform Act therefore left it untouched. It had 2,312 registered voters at the first reformed election, and around 7,500 after the second extension of the franchise in 1868. It retained its two members until 1885, when the constituency was replaced by an identically delineated single-member county constituency, Bassetlaw.[ citation needed ]
This list is incomplete; you can help by adding missing items. (August 2008)
|Parliament||First member||Second member|
|1571||Henry Draycot||Thomas Broxholme |
|1572||Job Throckmorton||George Delves |
|1584 (Nov) – 1587||Denzil Holles||Thomas Waad |
|1586||Denzil Holles||John Conyers |
|1588||George Chaworth||Alexander Radcliffe |
|1593||Roger Portington||Anthony Cooke |
|1597||Roger Portington||John Roos |
|1601||Roger Manners||Robert Kydman |
|1604||Sir John Thornhagh||Sir Thomas Darrel|
|1614||Sir William Cavendish||Sir Walter Chute|
|1621||Sir Nathaniel Rich||Edward Wortley|
|1624||John Holles ||Sir Francis Wortley|
|1625||John, Lord Haughton||Sir Francis Wortley|
|1626||John, Lord Haughton||Sir Francis Wortley|
|1628||Sir Edward Osborne||Henry Stanhope, Lord Stanhope|
|1629–1639||No Parliaments convened|
|Year||First member||First party||Second member||Second party|
|April 1640||Sir Gervase Clifton ||Francis Pierrepont |
|November 1640||Charles Cavendish ||Royalist||Sir Gervase Clifton ||Royalist|
|1644||Mansfield and Clifton disabled from sitting - both seats vacant|
|1646||Francis Thornhagh||Parliamentarian||Sir William Lister|
|November 1648||Thornhaugh killed at Battle of Preston - seat vacant|
|December 1648||Edward Neville||Lister excluded in Pride's Purge - seat vacant|
|1653||East Retford was unrepresented in the Barebones Parliament and the First and Second Parliaments of the Protectorate|
|January 1659||Clifford Clifton||William Cartwright|
|May 1659||Edward Neville|
|1660||Sir William Hickman||Wentworth Fitzgerald|
|1670||Sir Edward Dering|
|1679||Sir Edward Nevill|
|1689||Hon. Evelyn Pierrepont||John Thornhagh|
|1698||Sir Willoughby Hickman|
|January 1701||Thomas White|
|April 1701||Sir Willoughby Hickman|
|December 1701||Thomas White|
|1702||Sir Willoughby Hickman||William Levinz|
|1706||Sir Hardolph Wastneys||Robert Molesworth|
|1708||William Levinz||Thomas White|
|1710 ||Thomas Westby|
|1711||Willoughby Hickman||Tory||Bryan Cooke|
|April 1713||Francis Lewis|
|August 1713||John Digby|
|1727||Sir Robert Clifton|
|1768||Sir Cecil Wray||Whig||John Offley|
|1774||Lord Thomas Pelham-Clinton |
|1778||Lord John Pelham-Clinton|
|1790||Sir John Ingilby|
|1794||Lt Colonel William Henry Clinton|
|1796||William Petrie||Sir Wharton Amcotts|
|1802||Lt Colonel Robert Craufurd||John Jaffray|
|1806||Major General Charles Craufurd||Thomas Hughan|
|1812||George Osbaldeston||Charles Marsh|
|1818||William Evans||Samuel Crompton|
|1826 ||William Battie-Wrightson||Whig ||Sir Robert Dundas||Whig |
|1830||Charles Pierrepont||Whig ||Arthur Duncombe||Tory |
|1831||Granville Harcourt-Vernon||Whig |
|1835||Arthur Duncombe||Conservative |
|1852||Hon. William Duncombe||Conservative|
|1857||Francis Foljambe||Whig |
|1876 by-election||William Beckett-Denison||Conservative|
|Registered electors||c. 2,000|
|Tory gain from Whig||Swing|
|Turnout||1,493||c. 74.7||c. +10.5|
|Registered electors||c. 2,000|
|Whig gain from Tory||Swing||+2.2|
|Conservative gain from Whig||Swing||+19.1|
|Conservative gain from Whig|
Duncombe was appointed a Groom in Waiting to Queen Victoria, causing a by-election.
Duncombe resigned to contest the 1852 by-election in East Riding of Yorkshire, causing a by-election.
Monckton-Arundell was appointed a Lord in Waiting to Queen Victoria, requiring a by-election.
|Whig gain from Conservative|
Monckton-Arundell's death caused a by-election.
|Liberal||Henry Fox Bristowe ||3,351||48.6||N/A|
|Conservative||Henry Eyre ||2,776||19.5||N/A|
|Turnout||7,132 (est.)||86.2 (est.)||N/A|
|Liberal gain from Conservative||Swing||N/A|
This list is incomplete; you can help by adding missing items. (August 2008)
The Representation of the People Act 1832 was an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom that introduced major changes to the electoral system of England and Wales. It abolished tiny districts, gave representation to cities, gave the vote to small landowners, tenant farmers, shopkeepers, householders who paid a yearly rental of £10 or more, and some lodgers. Only qualifying men were able to vote; the Act introduced the first explicit statutory bar to women voting by defining a voter as a male person.
Bassetlaw is a local government district in Nottinghamshire, England. The district has four towns: Worksop, Tuxford, Harworth Bircotes and Retford. It is bounded to the north by the Metropolitan Boroughs of Doncaster and Rotherham, the east by West Lindsey, the west by both the Borough of Chesterfield and North East Derbyshire and the south by Mansfield District and Newark and Sherwood. The district is along with Bolsover District, North East Derbyshire and Borough of Chesterfield is a non-constituent member of the Sheffield City Region.
Newark is a constituency in Nottinghamshire, England. It is currently represented by Robert Jenrick of the Conservative Party who won the seat in a by-election on 5 June 2014, following the resignation of Patrick Mercer in April 2014.
Bassetlaw is a parliamentary constituency in Nottinghamshire, represented in the House of Commons of the UK Parliament since the 2019 general election by Brendan Clarke-Smith, a Conservative. Before that election, the seat had been part of the so-called "red wall", being held by the Labour Party since 1929.
Bedford is a constituency represented in the House of Commons of the UK Parliament since 2017 by Mohammad Yasin of the Labour Party.
Peterborough is a borough constituency represented in the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Its current form is the direct, unbroken successor of a smaller constituency that was created in the mid-16th century and used for the legislatures of England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom (UK). The seat today elects one Member of Parliament (MP) by the first-past-the-post system of election since 1885, before which its earlier form had two-member representation using the similar bloc vote system and both forms had a broadening but restricted franchise until 1918.
"Unreformed House of Commons" is a name given to the House of Commons of Great Britain before it was reformed by the Reform Act 1832, the Irish Reform Act 1832, and the Scottish Reform Act 1832.
The Redistribution of Seats Act 1885 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It was a piece of electoral reform legislation that redistributed the seats in the House of Commons, introducing the concept of equally populated constituencies, a concept in the broader global context termed equal apportionment, in an attempt to equalise representation across the UK. It was associated with, but not part of, the Representation of the People Act 1884.
Maidstone was a parliamentary constituency represented in the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
Forty-shilling freeholders were those who had the parliamentary franchise to vote by virtue of possessing freehold property, or lands held directly of the king, of an annual rent of at least forty shillings, clear of all charges.
Maldon is a constituency in Essex represented in the House of Commons of the UK Parliament since 2010 by Sir John Whittingdale, a Conservative.
Bedfordshire was a United Kingdom Parliamentary constituency, which elected two Members of Parliament from 1295 until 1885, when it was divided into two constituencies under the Redistribution of Seats Act 1885.
Bewdley was the name of a constituency of the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom from 1605 until 1950. Until 1885 it was a parliamentary borough in Worcestershire, represented by one Member of Parliament; the name was then transferred to a county constituency from 1885 until 1950. Its MPs included the former Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin, who represented the seat from 1908 to 1937, and afterwards took the name of the constituency as part of his title when he was raised to the peerage.
The UK parliamentary constituency of Seaford was a Cinque Port constituency, similar to a parliamentary borough, in Seaford, East Sussex. A rotten borough, prone by size to undue influence by a patron, it was disenfranchised in the Reform Act of 1832. It was notable for having returned three Prime Ministers as its members – Henry Pelham, who represented the town from 1717 to 1722, William Pitt the Elder from 1747 to 1754 and George Canning in 1827 – though only Canning was Prime Minister while representing Seaford.
The 1768 British general election returned members to serve in the House of Commons of the 13th Parliament of Great Britain to be held, after the merger of the Parliament of England and the Parliament of Scotland in 1707.
Newcastle-upon-Tyne was a parliamentary borough in the county of Northumberland of the House of Commons of England from 1283 to 1706, then of the House of Commons of Great Britain from 1707 to 1800 and of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom from 1801 to 1918. It returned two Members of Parliament (MPs), elected by the bloc vote system.
Liskeard was a parliamentary borough in Cornwall, which elected two Members of Parliament (MPs) to the House of Commons from 1295 until 1832, and then one member from 1832 until 1885. The constituency was abolished by the Redistribution of Seats Act 1885.
Nottinghamshire was a county constituency of the House of Commons of the Parliament of England then of the Parliament of Great Britain from 1707 to 1800 and of the Parliament of the United Kingdom from 1801 to 1832. It was represented by two Members of Parliament (MPs), traditionally known as Knights of the Shire.
Norfolk was a County constituency of the House of Commons of the Parliament of England then of the Parliament of Great Britain from 1707 to 1800 and of the Parliament of the United Kingdom from 1801 to 1832. It was represented by two Members of Parliament. In 1832 the county was divided for parliamentary purposes into two new two member divisions – East Norfolk and West Norfolk.
John Hodgson-Hinde, known as John Hodgson until 11 August 1836, was a British Conservative and Tory politician.
This article needs additional citations for verification .(May 2020)