TO RICHARD SMITH, ESQ. (MINERAL AGENT TO LORD WARD),
PRIORY, DUDLEY.
_Tipton, February, 2nd, 1854._
Sir,
You will, I trust, pardon me, for presuming to address you upon
a matter touching the present contested Election for South
Staffordshire. I refer to the _public_ part which you are
taking with regard to it. You cannot, I think, complain that
your proceedings should be criticised, or that they should be
brought to the bar of public opinion.
It is due to the Conservative party which you have
abandoned--and to those servants and others who are under your
influence and control--that you should publicly state the
reasons why you have changed your _colours_.
It is due to the first, because they believe that the change
involves political _apostasy_, and an undue regard to political
_morality_. An opportunity is now afforded you of justifying
the change if you can. You may give us a new chapter on
_Ethics_, headed thus:--"a change of principles proved to be
morally wrong, but politically right."
It is due to those who are under your influence and control.
You may be enabled to give a reason for them, inasmuch as they
cannot give one for themselves.
But you, doubtless, had your instructions from a certain Lord,
who it is said, has subscribed a large sum to the fund to
defray the expenses of the Radical Candidate.
Were your instructions _imperative_? If so, did you remonstrate
with his Lordship? Did you not urge _one plea_ in behalf of
yourself, and another for those who _must_ act upon your
bidding. Had you not sufficient independence to tell the Lord
that you _had been, and that you were, a Conservative_; that
all the influence which your office gives you had previously
been thrown into the Conservative scale; that you had taught
those over whom you had been placed, and those with whom
you were connected, _Conservative Politics_; that you could
not stoop so low as to undo all that you had done; that you
could not ask them to act contrary to their antecedents and
convictions; and that your situation was at his Lordship's
disposal. If, Sir, you had done this, you would have been
honoured in your last days, and you would have been spared the
reproach that has now, I regret to say, fallen upon you.
But you may say my Lord is a Peer of the Realm, that his
Lordship could not act so unconstitutionally, and that you
ALONE are responsible. Be it so. Then it will make your case
so much the worse. You may add that you took it upon yourself
to canvass his Lordship's Agents and Tenants, and that his
Lordship did not wish to INFLUENCE them in giving their
Votes, then the conclusion must be that you have EXCEEDED HIS
LORDSHIP'S WISHES AND INTENTIONS.
Can you deny the part you have taken in this matter? Can you
gainsay the charge that those who do not CHANGE WITH YOU MERIT
YOUR HIGH DISPLEASURE; and that in one instance you have shewn
it so unmistakeably that one of his Lordship's Agents, who has
held his situation for a period of 16 years, with a character
unsullied, has thought it due to his honour and self-respect to
give up his situation rather than lick the dust?
_The names of those Clergymen who are under his Lordship's
patronage_, and those Gentlemen connected with his Lordship's
Estates, _who have boldly stood forth and declared their
principles, notwithstanding your solicitations, will be ever
mentioned with regard, respect, and esteem. The reproach will
not fall upon them that in an hour of temptation they fell_
away _from those principles which they had professed, and to_
which _they do honour_.
Waiting the favour of your public reply,
I am, Sir,
Your obedient Servant,
A NON-ELECTOR.
* * * * *