We are happy to find that our strictures a fortnight ago, on
the subject of the Dudley Court Leet, have met with the general
approval of this district. Nor could it well be otherwise.
To say nothing of the principles of common justice, an error
in tactics so glaring as that perpetrated in connexion with
the late Court Leet meeting could not but meet with general
condemnation.
It will be seen, however, from a letter under the heading
of "Our Open Platform," that a gentleman who signs himself
"Investigator" has undertaken to investigate the facts
connected with the invitations to the Court Leet, and to
present himself as the champion of its proceedings.
This letter is couched in the best possible spirit; and though
our correspondent takes strong exception to many of our views,
we shall always bid him and others welcome to the use of
our pages, so long as they can express their differences of
opinion from us or from each other with so much freedom from
acrimonius feeling. Had the argument of "Investigator" been as
sound as the tone of his letter is satisfactory, we should have
passed it over without a single observation. We shall have no
difficulty in proving, however, that his remarks are open to
that very charge of misleading the public which he attempts to
fasten upon ourselves.
He says he has the list of invitations to the Court Leet
before him, and on that ground he claims to be regarded as the
champion of those by whom it was supplied. Of course we have no
objection to accept the gauntlet. He then says that there were
82 gentlemen invited to the late Court Leet, and that of this
number 38 have attended former meetings, and the remaining 44
were townsmen of various opinions.
Now, the only inference which any man of ordinary powers of
mind can draw from these figures, is that 44 out of the number
of persons accustomed to attend former Courts Leet have this
year been rejected, and that 38 of that number have been
retained. But why reject the 44 and retain the 38? Simply
because the political preferences of the former at the last
election happened to differ from those of the parties who
issued the invitations. To any other answer than this, the
voice of public conscience would at once demur.
But "Investigator" has made a discovery which completely
falsifies our own statement of this matter. He has discovered
that many of Mr. Sheridan's supporters were amongst the
persons attending the late Court Leet. How many do our readers
think? One half.--Guess again. One quarter.--Guess again. A
half quarter.--Guess again.--You give it up. Then, thoughtful
reader, let us tell thee there was the astounding number of
four. One of these was the late mayor, who was known to have
long before abandoned Mr. Sheridan's cause;--two others were
gentlemen connected with the press, and who were supposed to
be changing sides before the meeting took place--and the fourth
was a kind and amiable man, whose presence in such company has
not yet been accounted for.
So far, then, from our correspondent disproving our statement
respecting the invitations to the Court Leet, we find that his
statements confirm substantially every word that we have spoken
upon that subject.
We may, however, here state once for all, that it is not a
question between Mr. Sheridan and his political opponents,
but between those opponents and such of the inhabitants of
this district as think proper to vote for a candidate of
their own selection. That Mr. Sheridan happens to be that
candidate is the mere accident of the hour. The question is
simply this:--Shall the electors of Dudley vote for whom they
will?--or are they to be subject to pains and penalties for the
free and independent exercise of their electoral rights?
Nor is "Investigator" more successful in his attempt to
vindicate the right of the Lord of the Manor to do what he
likes with his own. He says the Barony of Ward is a private
institution, and that therefore Lord Ward has a right to invite
whom he likes to transact his own business. As well might he
say that the Borough of Dudley and the Monarchy of England are
private institutions, and that, therefore, the Mayor of the one
and the Monarch of the other have a right to employ and discard
whom they will. We deny that the Barony of Ward is, in the
sense spoken of by "Investigator," a private institution; and,
of course, we deny the possession of the right he claims.
We are actuated by no feeling of hostility to Lord Ward, but as
public Journalists it is our duty to watch over the interests
of the public, and to see that Senator and Plebeian are alike
protected in the exercise of the privileges they enjoy. As an
evidence of our desire for the most perfect fairness in the
discussion of questions such as this, to which we have now for
the third time been compelled to advert, we may state that in
an article on "A Royal Charter for Dudley," in our last issue,
the word "charge" instead of the word "complaint," is used
either by our mistake or by that of our printer. As, however,
it has been represented to us by one of our friends, that some
readers may possibly suppose, from the construction of the
sentence in which this word occurs, that we impute bribery and
coercion to Lord Ward, or to his agents, or both, we feel it
to be due to ourselves, to Lord Ward, to his agents, and to
our readers generally, to state that nothing could possibly
have been further from our intention. What we meant to have
said, and what we think our words clearly convey, is this--that
the right of the Lord of the Manor to invite whom he would to
his Court Leet had been so exercised, as that, by inviting a
great many gentlemen to his annual dinner who were known to
have supported Mr. Sandars, but who had not been accustomed to
be invited, it was liable to be construed into a species of
bribery to one class, and to operate as a kind of punishment to
the other, and so we have reason to believe it is popularly
regarded. But any intention or idea of imputing bribery to Lord
Ward or his agents, either expressly or by implication, we
distinctly and absolutely disavow. And this disavowal we make
as spontaneously and promptly as we can. It is as painful to
us as it is contrary to our inclination to have to discuss the
public conduct of public men. When, however, duty impels us
to the task, we trust that we shall never be found wanting in
those proprieties towards those from whom we differ, which the
commonest courtesy requires at our hands.
To the most amusing part of our correspondent's letter we
have, however, yet to come. After having occupied nearly
half a column of our space in endeavouring to prove that the
agents of Lord Ward have not acted with partiality in the late
Court Leet affair, he goes on to show that they have always
acted with partiality; that they have done on the present
occasion--only to another set of parties--what they have always
been accustomed to do--to one side or the other;--that those
who have now been rejected ought not to have given utterance
to a single murmur, on the simple principle that they had now
received a Roland for an Oliver.
He speaks of "respectable and sensible men, who have never
hitherto been favoured with his Lordship's smile," of the
chagrin and personal insult experienced by many of our worthy
townsmen, and of the bygone bigotry, political domination and
petty clique of the last thirty years. The agents of Lord Ward
may truly say, "Save us from our friends."
If one-half of what "Investigator" says be true, it is high
time that the management of Dudley Court Leet be reformed. But
it is a curious incident in this controversy, and one which
strikingly illustrates the narrowness of men's minds, and their
ignorance of the very first principles of genuine liberty,
and there should be men of professed education in the town of
Dudley who can look upon the mere transfer of an exclusive
privilege from the hands of one set of men to those of another,
as an evidence of real progress. If there exists anywhere
powers such as those to which our correspondent refers, and
which can be used for purposes of oppression or intimidation,
it is manifest that these powers ought not to exist; and
however much their transfer from the hands of one political
party to another may gratify men's vanity and assist in the
advancement of their personal purposes, the only evidence
of real progress will be found in such powers being taken
altogether from the hands of those who hold them, and being
vested in others who cannot employ them for purposes of their
own.--_The Dudley and Midland Counties Express._
December 1st, 1857. This present period was one of great distress and
misery in the town and neighbourhood, occasioned by the suspension
and failure of many Iron Masters hereabouts. The serious commercial
consequence was, that fifty-seven Blast Furnaces were stopped, and
upwards of 10,000 men were thereby thrown out of employment. This
depression of our local trade had a most serious effect upon the
tradesmen of the town, and many lamentable bankruptcies amongst us was
the result.
Died, December 17th, 1857, Mr. Joseph Morris, of the Miner's Arms; Mr.
Morris had gone through a great diversity of trials in life, and was
deservedly much respected by all parties. Aged 73 years.
Died, December 17th, 1857, at Westbromwich, Mr. Richard Bond, formerly
Parish Clerk of St. Edmund's Church; he was a close-fisted old
gentleman, and died very rich.