"Another Observer" has thought proper to intrude some remarks
upon your notice. To this there could be no objection, so long
as _truth_ was adhered to; unfortunately, the truthfulness as
well as the reason of his remarks are about "as two grains of
wheat in two bushels of chaff, you shall search all day ere you
find them, and when you have, they shall not prove worth the
search!" Let me take his observations then _seriatim_--that
Owners' Proxies have been procured, and this to some extent by
misrepresentation, if not something worse, is beyond doubt, and
that they will in very many instances be used contrary to the
wishes and intentions of the Owners, is a fact which admits
also of as little doubt. No person with any discrimination
can suppose that if unscrupulously obtained they will not as
unscrupulously be employed. Does "Another Observer" wish you
to believe falsehood by proxy, or does he wish to propagate
untruth by insinuation? He knows that with regard to the
Board of Health proxies were not and could not be used,--and
he is defied to prove that either "misrepresentation or
cajolery" was employed by his opponents to gain that election.
Notwithstanding the number of _paid_ agents employed by himself
and others to disseminate that "misrepresentation and cajolery"
of which he speaks so much, the good sense and independent
judgment of the Ratepayers emphatically decided against them;
and so also, if left to their own free and unbiassed opinions,
will they do in the present election for the Guardians.
In regard to the Workhouse question, the _facts_ stated by "A
Ratepayer" are a sufficient answer; but "Another Observer" here
again knows that _his statements are a gross exaggeration,
and wilfully intended to mislead_. So also are his statements
in regard to the salaries paid to some of the Officers of
the Board of Health. Will he, however, assert that he or his
friends would or could have procured proper and intelligent
persons, qualified to carry out the important works which
will be required of them, for less amounts than are now paid?
I trow not. But why wish you to believe that these are extra
burdens imposed upon you? _Why not tell you of the sums paid,_
IN THE GOOD OLD TIMES OF HIS FRIENDS, _to the late Clerk to
the Town Act Commissioners,--to the Collectors of the Town
Rate and Highway Rate,--the Inspector of Nuisances under the
Diseases' Prevention Act,--the Surveyor of the Highways and
other Officers?_ and I am much mistaken if you will not find
MORE MONEY PAID FOR LESS WORK DONE! It was either because he
considered "discretion the better part of valour," or, "where
ignorance is bliss, 'twas folly to be wise." Why, too, did not
this "other Observer" tell you what either _himself_ or _his
friend_ (?), a THRICE-REJECTED-ASPIRING-WOULD-BE-GUARDIAN!!!
has received of the Parish money for some years before he
pretended to pass judgment on others.
As to the Rates made by your Local Board of Health, what are
they? Why a _Shilling_ Town Rate instead of an _Eighteen-penny_
one as it was last year, and _Two Shillings_ a year or two
ago; and a tenpenny Highway Rate which has been its amount for
many years--thus actually shewing that you are paying from
Sixpence to One Shilling in the pound _less_ than when under
the old rulers. As to the expenses of Survey, Plans, Drainage,
and other improvements, what has necessitated their adoption
but the neglect of those who held the power in your parish
years ago. Will this "Observer" assert that there is no need of
them? Will he assert that there are many places in this kingdom
worse off than Dudley in these respects? Can he controvert the
fact that the average duration of life in Dudley is almost the
shortest, if not quite so, of any place in England? or, in
other words, that whilst in some places of all the people born,
the average duration of their lives is 40 years, in Dudley it
is only about 19--or that during this past year there have been
more deaths in this parish, from fevers and other preventable
causes, than during the years of the Cholera--and these, too,
principally, if not entirely, caused by bad drainage, imperfect
ventilation, and improper sanitary regulations. _Your present
high Poor Rates are only a portion of the short-comings left by
those to whom you entrusted your interests in past times. Your
payments now are but a legacy of that mismanagement which this
"Observer" would desire you to perpetuate._
What does he mean by his allusions to the projected Model
Lodging Houses, Public Hall, School of Design, Mechanics'
Institute, &c.? as being provided for out of the Public
Rates--insinuations as utterly false and groundless as they are
base and malicious, and which could only originate in a mind
incapable of a good action in itself, and therefore suspicious
of others. "Have your payments been less during the past
year?" he asks. I would answer there is the undeniable fact,
that in the past year the cost of out-door relief to your poor
has been less by nearly £500 than in previous ones. Why, I
would retort, was not this diminution observable during former
years, when trade was quite as good as during the past one?
Then he enquires, why were the Overseers required to borrow
£500 in order to provide the necessary means to meet parochial
expenses? Why! Because they were compelled to wait the granting
of another rate, whilst hundreds of our poor were summoned
to appear before the Magistrates in order that they might be
legally excused, or payment enforced, before another rate could
be made; because such as this "Observer" would not compound for
the payment of their rates, and, without the introduction of
the Rating-of-Tenements' Act, this must have been done at the
close of every rate,--a fact alone sufficient to counterbalance
any disadvantages which from its introduction may arise, and
which will ultimately be as great a benefit to the Landlord as
to the poor Tenants themselves.
"Another Observer" says "Improvements we want!!" Out upon
such cant! why have we not had them before? why have they not
been projected long ago? why, when anything has been proposed
for the good and prosperity of the town, have not our men of
influence, and those having a "stake" in the Parish been the
first to support them? why has every thing been left to be done
by the insulted "shopkeepers?" "Talk of spending your money
carefully!" Who were the parties _who objected to let you know
how your money was spent_? who were the parties _who opposed
the admission of the Press_ to your Board Room? why, the very
friends of this "Another Observer;" and when there are those
who would not that Dudley should be second to Stourbridge,
Bilston, or even Wolverhampton, such as this "Another Observer"
are found to deride and revile their "private enterprize" and
impute interested motives.
Finally, "Another Observer" says "Vote for those who have a
stake in the Parish," and "who would not seek office to gratify
personal vanity." I ask you Ratepayers, to inspect the List
proposed by Messrs. DIXON & LESTER, and that advocated by this
accurate "Another Observer," and I venture to affirm, that on
examination it will be found they pay a much greater amount
of Rates, and that THEY ALSO REPRESENT BY FAR A MUCH LARGER
AMOUNT OF INTEREST in this Parish. In regard to experience
in parochial affairs, in regard to a knowledge of the
administration of the Poor Laws, in regard to business habits
and general intelligence, in regard to their attention to your
interests, without wishing to utter one word in disparagement
of their opponents, I fearlessly challenge a comparison. Talk
of a "Stake" in the Parish, indeed! Pray, how much Rates does
this "Another Observer" pay? Be not deceived by falsehood.--Be
not misled by misrepresentation.--Judge by facts and not by the
words of such "Another Observer." Exercise your own impartial
and independent opinions. Weigh all the circumstances calmly
and impartially, and the undoubted result will be, that your
confidence will again be placed in those who have not yet
deceived you, and that the gentlemen nominated by Messrs. DIXON
and LESTER will be your Guardians for the ensuing year.
With all respect, I am, Fellow Ratepayers, yours still,
"THE QUIET OBSERVER OF FACTS."
_Dudley, March 31st, 1854._
* * * * *