CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS BILL. (Hansard, 17 August 1848)

§ SIR H. HALFORD

called the attention of the House to a circumstance affecting the purity of election. On the 31st of May last, the two sitting Members for the borough of Leicester, of whom Mr. Gardner was one, were unseated by an Election Committee for acts of bribery committed through their agents. About a month 200 afterwards it was necessary to appoint a Post-office messenger to carry letters between Market Harborough, and the village of Kelworth. The inhabitants of the village unanimously recommended a person named Brent, in whom they had confidence, to the Postmaster General, requesting he would appoint him to the situation. An answer was received from the Postmaster General, stating that the appointment was in the hands of Mr. Gardner, Mr. Brent was superseded in favour of William Newby. The inhabitants of Kelworth addressed the Postmaster General on the subject, and received a reply, which he held in his hand; it was sealed with Lord Clanricarde's seal, had his name in the corner, was dated the 24th of July, and was couched in the following terms:— Lord Clanricarde has directed me to acknowledge the receipt of your letter, dated the 13th inst., and to inform you that the situation to which you refer was placed at the disposal of Mr. Gardner, and filled up by the appointment of William Newby upon his recommendation.—I am your obedient servant, G. E. CORNWELL, Private Secretary. He was informed that Newby was the brother of a freeman of Leicester who voted for Mr. Gardner. Newby was a respectable man; but so was Brent; and no reason was given for displacing the latter, except to make room for Mr. Gardner's nominee. He had been disposed to give the noble Lord credit for being actuated by a sincere desire to put a stop to corrupt practices at elections; but he could not extend the same charitable belief to the Post-office department; and he thought that the answer which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had formerly made on behalf of the Postmaster General was indirect and evasive. He called upon the noble Lord to declare that the Government patronage should not be again disposed of in a similar way.

§ LORD J. RUSSELL

said, that, from the inquiries which his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made, he had reason to believe that the person appointed to the situation was respectable, and had nothing to do with the politics of the borough of Leicester. The hon. Baronet now stated that he was the brother of a freeman of Leicester; and he (Lord J. Russell) was of opinion, that if that fact was known to Lord Clanricarde, his Lordship ought not to have listened to Mr. Gardner's recommendation in his favour. He believed, too, that at the time Lord Clanricarde was ignorant that Mr. 201 Gardner had been unseated, because, in his letter, which was written a month after the report of the Committee, he spoke of that gentleman as the Member for the borough of Leicester. Lord Clanricarde had doubtless pursued the usual course in such cases; and, having received a recommendation from a gentleman whom he believed to be the Member for Leicester, he made inquiry into the fitness of the person recommended for the office, and, being satisfied on that head, appointed him. If the hon. Baronet meant to lay down this rule—that after a gentleman had been unseated on the ground of bribery through his agents, the Post Office, being aware of the circumstance, ought not to attend to his recommendations, he entirely concurred with him. If, on the other hand, the hon. Baronet meant to say that the Postmaster General was not to take the recommendation of any Member for a borough, but must attend only to the recommendations of his political enemies, he begged leave to dissent from that proposition. He was fully convinced that in what had taken place, Lord Clanricarde and the Post-office authorities had no wish to sanction the corrupt proceedings which had occurred at the last election for Leicester.