GARDNER, Richard (1813-1856), of 130 Piccadilly, London and Chaseley Hall, nr. Manchester, Lancs.

Gardner, who according to Dod held ‘radical opinions’, was the son of a prominent Anglican Manchester merchant, supported political reform, disestablishment, and free trade, but was a staunch opponent of the regulation of industry.1Dod’s parliamentary companion: new parliament (1847), 170. His father, Robert Gardner (c.1780-1866), was born in London but moved to Manchester in the 1810s, where he co-founded the firm of Gardner, Atkinson and co.2Gent. Mag. (1866) ccxxi. 273; Manchester Times, 30 June 1866. While his father was a Conservative, Gardner, who made his political debut in the struggle for free trade, was strongly committed to the economic liberalism of the Manchester School.3A. Howe, The cotton masters, 1830-1860 (1984), 212n., 226n. Robert Gardner nominated Conservative candidates at Manchester at the 1835 general election and the by-election of the same year: Manchester Times, 10 Jan. 1835, 2 May 1835.

In 1847 Gardner was invited by Leicester’s Reformers to contest the constituency at the general election and was returned in second place behind another radical.4VCH Leics., iv. 215. In his maiden speech giving reluctant support to a new Irish coercion bill, 6 Dec. 1847, Gardner contended that ‘religious animosities’, and the presence of an established Church, were at the root of that country’s ‘misgovernment’.5Hansard, 6 Dec. 1847, vol. 95, cc. 745-46. In a similar vein, he later argued that state churches were ‘incompatible with religious liberty and political equality’.6Hansard, 3 Apr. 1848, vol. 97, c.1219. He supported the removal of Jewish disabilities, not least because it would strike against the ‘quasi ecclesiastical character of the government of this country ’, and for similar reasons endorsed the Roman Catholic relief bill.7Ibid., c.1220; House of Commons Division Lists, 1847-48 session, 8, 17 Dec. 1847, 11 Feb. 1848, 4 May 1848. Although generally hostile to legislative interference in industry, at this time Gardner was open-minded about proposals to ameliorate the distressed framework knitters of the East Midlands.8He supported Sir Henry Halford’s unsuccessful motion for a select committee to investigate the issue, saying that there could be no objection as both masters and men sought a parliamentary inquiry: Hansard, 30 Mar. 1848, vol. 97, c.1112. His parliamentary career was interrupted by a Conservative petition against his return, which resulted in him being unseated after the election committee found evidence of bribery, whilst clearing him of any personal involvement, 1 June 1848.9CJ, ciii. 53-54, 584; PP 1847-48 (381), xiii. 397. Barred from standing again in the ensuing by-election, the Leicester Reformers replaced the late members with two aged businessmen to act as stop-gaps.10Morn. Chro., 2 Sept. 1848; VCH Leics., iv. 217. Standing on a platform including the ballot and household suffrage, Gardner was re-elected at the 1852 election with exactly the same number of votes as his radical colleague, comfortably ahead of two moderate Liberals.11Daily News, 1 July 1852; VCH Leics., iv. 219.

Back in Parliament Gardner supported the extension of free trade and Gladstone’s financial policy, and favoured the repeal of the last of the ‘taxes on knowledge’, namely the duties on advertisements, paper and newspapers.12House of Commons Division Lists, 1852-53 session, 27 Nov. 1852, 3 Mar. 1853, 14 Apr. 1853, 2 May 1853; ibid., 1854-55 session, 26 Mar. 1855. His belief in a free trade in religion, without any state endowments or privileges, was reflected in his continued criticism of the Irish church, his opposition to the Maynooth grant and church rates, which he contended were ‘unknown in every other country’.13Hansard, 31 May 1853, vol. 127, c.899; ibid., 23 May 1854, vol. 133, cc. 817-18; ibid., 3 July 1854, vol. 134, c.1052; House of Commons Division Lists, 1852-53 session, 26 May 1853; ibid., 1854 session, 23 May 1854, 13 June 1854; ibid., 1854-55 session, 29 Mar. 1855, 16 May 1855; ibid., 1856 session, 5 Mar. 1856. He again cast votes in favour of Jewish emancipation.14Ibid., 1852-53 session, 24 Feb. 1853, 11 Mar. 1853, 15 Apr. 1853.

Much of his remaining time in Parliament was spent fighting the bills brought forward by Sir Henry Halford to regulate the hosiery industry.15Halford’s bills of 1847, 1853, 1854 and 1855 had two main aims: to abolish frame-rents and other charges which framework knitters paid hosiery manufacturers for the use of the frames; and to replace truck payment (that is the custom whereby the workers were paid partly in goods, which the employers deemed to be of a certain value, but were often poor quality) with cash payments. Making an increasingly rigid defence of laissez-faire principles and admitting their unpopularity with many of his constituents, he contended that the proposals were based upon a ‘false principle’, and that the problems of the framework knitters ‘could not be remedied by Acts of Parliament’.16Hansard, 4 May 1853, vol. 126, c.1113; ibid., 22 Mar. 1854, vol. 131, c.1228. An attentive member of the parliamentary inquiry on the issue, he opposed Halford’s 1855 report, producing an alternative version which argued that framework knitters needed to leave an overstocked labour market for skilled, machine-based, and better-paid jobs in expanding parts of the sector.17PP 1854 (382), xvi. 4-11, 19, 20, 25, 125; PP 1854-55 (421), xiv. 13-15. Halford’s report was accepted, however, leaving Gardner to fight a rearguard action.18Ibid., 15-23. He concluded that the experience had ‘removed any doubts’ he had about his stance and promised resolute opposition to any future bills, although supporters of the measure contended that his hostility was based on misunderstandings.19Gardner believed that it was a fallacy to believe that wages could be raised by an Act of Parliament, and that attempts to do so could only fail, and therefore discredit and diminish the legislature in the eyes of the people. However, those who were sympathetic to the measure, such as William Johnson Fox and Gardner’s Leicester colleague Sir Joshua Walmsley, argued that the measure was not intended to raise or fix wages but monetise them, and added that the truck system and frame rents were anomalies which had long since disappeared from other sectors. Hansard, 8 Mar. 1855, vol. 137, cc. 254-57.

Believed to be suffering from ‘a slight and passing indisposition’, the seriousness of Gardner’s illness was not realised until it was too late and he died on 4 June 1856.20Manchester Courier, 7 June 1856. He left no heirs, but his father, whom he predeceased, ensured that his two daughters and widow were amply provided for.21Gardner Trust Papers, Manchester Central Library, M72/24/1 cited by Howe, Cotton masters, 79n. His elder daughter, Ellen (d. 1921), married Lord Charles Beresford, admiral and Conservative MP for County Waterford 1874-80, Woolwich 1902-03, and Portsmouth, 1910-16.22Gardner Trust Papers, MCL, M72/24/3; M. Stenton and S. Lees (eds.), Who’s who of British Members of Parliament (1978), ii. 30-31. His brother, William Atkinson Gardner (1815-55), emigrated to Van Dieman’s Land, where he became a member of the Legislative Council.23Charterhouse register (1974), 152; Gent. Mag. (1855), xliv. 552; Hobarton Mercury, 6 July 1855.