Mr. Fitzroyrose, pursuant to his notice, to move for a return of the names of persons in the employ of the Post-office against whom complaints had been made for voting at the late elections, and also of those who had been dismissed for that cause. The hon. Member said, that the grounds on which he moved for this return were, that at the late election for the borough of Lewes, which he had the honour to represent, a person in the employ of the Post-office there had voted for him, and had since then been dismissed from his situation. He had been given to understand, that a similar rule had not been applied in other cases where parties in the employment of the Post-office had voted for other candidates. In that he might have been misinformed, but at all events he could form no correct judgment on the subject until the returns for which he moved were laid before the House. If it should appear to be the general practice in all cases, he could not complain; but if it were not, it was a case of hardship to which he should feel it his duty to call the attention of the House. This motion was in effect an act of kindness to the Government, as it would give them an opportunity of correcting, if it were erroneous, the very general impression that had gone abroad, that never had the influence of Government been more strongly used to effect the return, than at the last general elections. The returns for which he now moved would go far to rid the Government of the imputation, if it were unfounded.
Mr. Francis Baringseconded the motion, and said, he was equally as anxious as the hon. Member that the House should have the returns before them. If any dismissals had taken place from the Post-office for voting at elections, it was not the result of a regulation made at the moment. Notice had been given in 1835 under the late Government, in consequence of many persons in the Post-office having voted at the elections, that if in any future election any person so employed should have complaints made against them for having voted at all, no matter how, they would be severely dealt with, which was well understood to mean that they would be dismissed: and wherever any such complaints had been made, and the fact established, the parties were dismissed, without any distinction being made as to the party for whom they voted. He begged to deny the imputation cast by the last speaker, that the Government had used, most strongly used, its influence to affect the returns at the last elections. He was aware that charges of that kind were made in some of the newspapers, but of those he was not disposed to take any notice, but he was disposed to notice charges of a more tangible nature; one of these had been made in a letter from a gentleman con-netted with his (Mr. F. Baring's) own county, in which he had charged the Government with gross oppression, and canting and clamorous hypocrisy, with reference to the late elections. Now, he did think that a gentleman who felt himself warranted in making that charge ought in justice to himself and to the public, and to those charged, to bring it publicly forward and substantiate it by proofs, if he had any, and he would most readily give him the fullest opportunity of so doing.
§ Sir Charles Knightleysaid, that he did not know the individual to whom the hon. Member alluded, but this he could state, that the complaints of the conduct of Government with respect to some of those who had voted against them at the last election were not confined to one individual, or to one county. He would beg to call the attention of the House to a case which had already made its appearance in some of the public papers. The facts were stated on the authority of the Rev. Mr. Charles Gilbee, a gentleman entitled to the highest credit. The hon. Baronet detailed the facts as they appeared in the following extract of a letter, addressed—
§ "TO THE EDITOR OF THE NORTHAMPTON HERALD.
§ "Sir,—A most scandalous act of injustice has been lately inflicted upon a respectable individual in this parish, which deserves to be held up to public execration. About eight months ago I made an application to the Postmaster-General for a penny post-office at Kilsby, the parish having long felt the inconvenience of receiving their letters from Daventry, in the ordinary way of delivery in distant villages. His Lordship was pleased to comply with my request, in a very polite and handsome manner; and in a short time after I was applied to by the office-keeper at Daventry, to recommend a suitable person to keep the office at Kilsby. In accordance with the general wish of my parishioners, I named Mr. and Mrs. Wood, persons of undoubted integrity, and worthy of the most unlimited confidence. They were accordingly appointed, and sworn in before one of the magistrates at Daventry. About three months after this a letter was received by the office-keeper at Daventry, from the Earl of Lichfield, containing the appointment of a Miss Wall to the office at Kilsby, the daughter of a Dissenter, and actually under sixteen years of age. I immediately wrote to the Postmaster-General, to state this circumstance, and to inquire why Mr. and Mrs. Wood should be removed. To this his Lordship replied that he had appointed Miss Wall on the recommendation of the Treasury, and that it was not in his power to revoke the appointment so long as she was competent to discharge the duties of the office. In the course, however, of a few days I received another letter from his Lordship, stating, that in consequence of Miss Wall being under sixteen he had cancelled her appointment, and had written to the Treasury for another name. I immediately sent a petition to the Treasury, signed by forty-five respectable individuals in the parish, in behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Wood. This petition has not been acknowledged in any way; but another person, a Miss Lee, also a Dissenter, has been since appointed. As I could obtain no answer from the Treasury, I determined upon writing to Lord Melbourne himself, feeling assured that he, at least, would not lend the sanction of his name to what appeared to me so wanton an act of injustice; but still I have received no answer. And thus, without any reason being assigned, the office is taken away from Mr. Wood, who has for four months discharged the duties of it to the highest satisfaction of the whole parish.
§ "CHARLES GILBEE."
§ He thought it his duty to bring this case under the notice of the House.
Mr. Francis Baringwas afraid he did not perfectly understand the charge of the hon. Member. The points of his statement, as far as he could collect them, seemed to be, that on the recommendation of a clergyman, a penny post-office was 373 established at Kilsby, and that a man named Wood was appointed as keeper of that office, without any consultation of the proper authorities. In a few months, on the recommendation of the Treasury, Wood was removed, and another person appointed in his place. This appeared to be the whole charge, and he could only say, that as long as certain appointments continue vested in the Government, a repetition of similar occurrences was likely to take place.
§ Motion agreed to.