Talk:Rees Howell Gronow

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the military biography work group.

Politics of the United Kingdom

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Void election?[edit]

@Opera hat: This is really very confusing. Stenton and the Rush database both give his election as being voided in 1833, and the 1820-32 volume of the History of Parliament seems to agree:

Both Members retired at that year’s general election, when 1,049 polled in a contest between three Liberals. Following an inquiry into the disappearance of the pollbook and allegations of gross bribery, the result was declared void and the writ suspended.

However, contemporary sources don't seem to back this up, though I am hampered a bit by not being able to check the Commons Journals for 1833 or 1834. There was definitely an enquiry into the election at Stafford, and it seems to have been amazingly corrupt - see detailed reporting in the Staffordshire Advertiser, 22 June 1833; 29 June 1833; 6 July 1833; 20 July 1833; and 3 August 1833 (the final report).

The report recommended disenfranchising the borough, and was debated on 6 August 1833. However, they didn't seem to recommend actually voiding the election, for reasons that are not clear to me - possibly the assumption was that disenfranchising the seat would have this effect? When the bill came up on 11 February 1834 and on 5 March, one of the members speaking in opposition was William Chetwynd, the other Stafford MP. This strongly suggests that neither of them were in fact removed from office. (I can't figure out exactly what happened to the Bill and why it didn't get passed, but it may have died in the Lords - in July 1834 it seemed to still be pending dealing with multiple similar bills together.)

Gronow definitely still voted after this, in June, July, and August 1834.

The last definite reference I can find to him as a sitting MP comes right at the point Parliament dissolved for the election - the Staffordshire Advertiser again, for 6 December 1834, had "Captain Chetwynd, one of the present members for the Borough, intends offering himself again in the event of a dissolution. We also understand the other member, Captain Gronow, has the same intention."

So not really sure where we should go from here. I'll check with the History of Parliament people and see if they've got a firm answer, though they may not have got to him yet... Andrew Gray (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

H'm, that is confusing! Edward Divett gave "a short history of the transactions with reference to the borough of Stafford" in the debate on moving a new writ on 13 February 1837. I can only assume that the resolution of the committee in favour of disfranchisement has been wrongly taken by Stenton and Salmon as equivalent to voiding the election. As the bill to give effect to the resolution was never passed, then it would appear that, as you said, Gronow and Chetwynd remained MPs until Parliament was dissolved in December 1834. The reference to Gronow voting in August 1834 seems pretty conclusive. We just need to come up with a way of saying the published sources are wrong without falling foul of WP:NOR. Opera hat (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Opera hat: Good news - I've heard back from HoP and they confirm that the older secondary sources were wrong, presumably as you say because the resolution was misinterpreted. In the draft entry for the 1832-68 volume, which I think we can take as the authoritative current word on the matter, he's listed as holding the seat throughout the term. I'll see if I can write up a suitable wording for this. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! Thank you for looking into this so thoroughly. Opera hat (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]