§ Mr. Hawesrose to present a Petition of which he had given notice, from Mr. John Thomas Loader, complaining of undue interference at the last election for Lambeth. The petitioner stated, that prior to that election, he was in the employ of Mr. John Newman, surveyor of the Bridge House Estates of the City of London, who applied to him to vote for Alderman Farebrother. Mr. Newman left his card for the petitioner; and, on one of the days of polling, a coach came for him, and he went in and voted for Mr. Alderman Farebrother. The petitioner did so, in consideration of his wife and three young children; and on the day after he had polled, he was dismissed from his situation by Mr. Newman, and had endured much poverty and inconvenience in consequence. Separate notices had been given by him to the hon. Members for the City of London that he should present this petition, and no doubt some endeavours would be made to explain the circumstances; but he considered it quite unbecoming the Corporation to 1052 support a servant who would so conduct himself. He had taken pains to inquire into the facts of the case, and into the character of the petitioner. He believed the first, and considered the last as deserving full confidence in his veracity. The hon. Member moved that the petition be referred to the Intimidation Committee.
Mr. Alderman Woodthought, when he first saw the petition, that from the language of it, the statements could not be established. He was quite sure he should not be suspected of encouraging intimidation at elections; but he had sent for Mr. Newman a day or two after he had heard of the accusation, and as Mr. Loader had petitioned the Corporation, he (Alderman Wood) was in possession of the whole truth of the case. It appeared that Mr. Loader had been in the service of Mr. Newman for eighteen years, having been taken by him an apprentice for seven years from Christ's Hospital; some time before the election he had received notice to quit Mr. Newman's service. Mr. Newman had employed him as a writer to make out the accounts of the Bridge House Estates, and he had not been in the service of the Corporation. Mr. Newman was surveyor of the Borough, and brother of the City Solicitor. Before the election, Mr. Newman told Mr. Loader, that, having an opportunity of doing so, he would put him into a house where he might reside, but, that in consequence, he should give him 50l. a-year, instead of 60l. Mr. Loader refused the terms; but this was in December, and the election did not take place until January. He was sure that Mr. Newman's word might be taken before that of Mr. Loader; and what made it more unlikely that the election had anything to do with the dismissal of the latter, was the fact that he voted for Mr. Alderman Farebrother, for whom Mr. Newman was interested. When in the counting-house, Mr. Newman asked Mr. Loader if he would not vote for Mr. Alderman Farebrother, who was a "brother Blue,"—meaning that they had both been educated at the Blue Coat School. He afterwards sent his card to Mr. Loader; and on one of the days of polling, some gentlemen who were going into the neighbourhood, called for Mr. Loader, and took him to the hustings. This was the whole of the intimidation. On the Saturday after the election, Mr. Loader called upon 1053 Mr. Newman, told him that he had voted for Mr. Alderman Farebrother, and received the thanks of his employer. The mode in which Mr. Loader was dismissed, received the approbation of Mr. Newman's brother, the City Solicitor, and from that time to the present, Mr. Loader has not been seen by either of them. If the petition were referred to the Committee he was confident that nothing like intimidation would be established; and it certainly was not very creditable in a man, after eighteen years' service, thus to bring the conduct of his employer under public discussion. Mr. Newman assured him (Mr. Alderman Wood) that he had been a school-fellow of the hon. Member who presented this petition, and that, at the first election, he supported him warmly.
§ Mr. Hawessaid, the House would bear in mind, that the hon. Alderman had begun by denying the truth of the petition, and had gone on to admit all the principal facts it contained. It was not disputed that Mr. Newman solicited Mr. Loader's vote; that he sent to him during the election; that he was carried to the hustings in a coach; and which was most remarkable, that he was dismissed from his situation the very day after the election. He would give no opinion upon the comparative credit due to Mr. Newman or Mr. Loader, farther than to mention that he had several times seen the latter, and having sifted the whole case, was satisfied that it was true. He was sure that, after an examination by the Committee, the conduct of Mr. Newman would not stand in quite so favourable a light as the hon. Alderman seemed to imagine.