THE DUDLEY NEW UNION WORKHOUSE.
1859. This long wanted and extensive Poor Law Establishment, was occupied early this year. The cost of the New Union House and Land, was upwards of £26,000; which had to be provided for by the four large Parishes, Dudley, Sedgley, Tipton, and Rowley Regis. The population of these four Parishes was estimated to be 130,000 souls; and the in-door paupers connected with each Parish had, up to this very necessary change, been confined in four wretched habitations, called Poor Houses, which were a thorough disgrace to the Union. The absence of all sanitary provisions and the immorality attending the benighted system of management and control, became a burning shame, and a stain upon our then local authorities. This was all happily removed when the old dens were pulled down, and a modern and more enlightened system of management was inaugurated at the New Union Workhouse. The Poor Rate at that date was two shillings in the pound; now we have to luxuriate on paying four shillings and sixpence in the pound, with our rateable assessment value increased upwards of £50,000. “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for they shall see the Workhouse.” The New House was built to contain six hundred inmates, but it has been enlarged since then, and now contains seven hundred and sixty-eight souls. Mr. Thomas Shorthouse was then the Clerk to the Dudley Union, and Mr. and Mrs. Stillard were elected the first Master and Matron in the New House.
TO THE INDEPENDENT ELECTORS OF THE EASTERN DIVISION OF THE COUNTY OF WORCESTER.
Gentlemen,
A vacancy having occurred in your Parliamentary Representation, I have acceded to the request of many influential friends that I would allow myself to be placed in Nomination.
I cannot but share, as a Worcestershire man, the feelings that have been expressed to me on all sides, that the successor of Colonel Rushout ought to be, not only connected with, but a resident in the County.
Whatever my private principles may be, I cannot, under the circumstances of the moment, resist this appeal. I therefore venture to ask your confidence and your support.
To many of you I am personally known, and I shall take the earliest opportunity of endeavouring to become acquainted with you all.
While my Political Principles are Conservative, no man can be more sincerely desirous than myself to promote Progressive Improvement, both Social and Political; and as I believe these to be the sentiments of the present Ministry, I should, as your Representative, give to the Government of Lord Derby a general but independent support.
I am firmly attached to the Protestant Church of England, and anxious for the proper maintenance of her venerable fabrics, but, at the same time I am opposed to the compulsory exaction of Church Rates from those who conscientiously object to them, and I would support this principle in any measure which may be brought forward with the hope of settling this long-disputed question.
In the same spirit I would be willing to give my support to any measure which, having for its object the Improvement of our Representative system, will combine a just desire to extend popular rights with due regard to the maintenance of the Constitution.
I also attach great importance to the amendment of our Laws, and would promote any well considered attempt to effect that purpose.
I shall be ready to avail myself of every occasion to give you that explanation of my opinions upon the leading questions of the day, to which you are entitled from a Candidate for your Suffrages; and in the meantime I confidently anticipate a successful issue to the struggle in which I feel myself thus compelled to engage.
I have the honor to be, Gentlemen,
Your faithful friend and obedient servant,
JOHN SLANEY PAKINGTON.
Westwood Park, Droitwich, January 28th, 1859.
Committee Room at Dudley, Swan Hotel.
TO THE ELECTORS OF THE EASTERN DIVISION OF THE COUNTY OF WORCESTER.
Gentlemen,
During a most successful canvass, I have so frequently been requested to express my views upon the leading Topics of the day, that I believe it will be satisfactory to state more fully my opinions, which it is impossible to do personally to each Elector of so extensive a Constituency.
I unhesitatingly pledge myself to Vote for the Total Abolition of Church Rates, the only practical solution of this irritating Question.
I attach great importance to the Amendment of our Laws, but do not hesitate to say, that “Consolidation must precede Amendment.”
I am disposed to Vote for a thorough Reform in the Assessment of the Income Tax, believing it to press severely upon Industry, and to be unjust in its mode of application.
As a friend of Education, I am most anxious that every facility should be given for its more general advancement, and most assuredly will vote for the Repeal of the Duty on Paper, a Duty most obnoxious, and the greatest impediment to the diffusion of learning.
Unshackled by Party ties, and entirely independent of any individual influence, I earnestly solicit your Suffrages, and though confident of the result of this Contest, I trust the friends of the Liberal cause will not relax their exertions.
I shall continue my endeavours to become personally acquainted with each of you.
I have the honor to remain,
Your obedient Servant,
FREDERICK H. W. G. CALTHORPE.
Perry Hall, January 31st, 1859.
EAST WORCESTERSHIRE ELECTION.
MR. PAKINGTON AND PUSEYISM.
The father of Joey Grimaldi, the famous clown, was an Italian, who bore the name Delpini and followed the avocation of a dentist, in London, where it was his lot to reside in 1780, the year of Lord George Gordon’s “No Popery” riots. All foreigners then fell under suspicion as Papists and cut-throats, and the harmless tooth-drawer, when the infuriated mob were firing the dwellings of known or suspected Romanists on all sides of him, followed a custom which obtained in those days of terror, of labelling your house with an inscription signifying either devotion to Protestantism or hatred of Popery. So Delpini chalked upon his door, in the best English he could command, “Good people all take notice, dis house is a true Protestant.”
Mr. Pakington hoists the same signal, and makes proclamation, “Good people all, Electors of East Worcestershire, take notice, dis house”—videlicet, the Pakington house—“is a true Protestant, and don’t believe any insinuations to the contrary.” Delpini’s label, it is related, saved his premises from conflagration; Mr. Pakington’s will not, I imagine save him from defeat. I propose to offer a few remarks in illustration of what Mr. Pakington’s true Protestantism means, and what it has led to in his instance.
Mr. Pakington says, “Having reason to esteem the excellent private character and charitable exertions of Mr. Liddell, and consequently disapproving the abuse of which he has been the object, I could not do otherwise than vote against Mr. Westerton’s election.” I esteem the excellent private character and the charitable exertions of Mr. Pakington for the promotion of education and morality, but I shall certainly do otherwise than vote for him at the coming Election. The Pope of Rome bears an excellent private character, and is well reputed for charitable exertions. He has also been, I dare say, improperly and undeservedly abused. Recognising all this, does it furnish any reason why I should tender my adhesion to the Pope, or any excuse for my adhering to him, or favouring his religion? Mr. Westerton was put forward as Churchwarden by the party in the Church who were adverse to Mr. Liddell’s Romanising practices. As a candidate he represented the true and wholesome Protestant element in religion, as opposed to the representative of the doctrines of Auricular Confession and a Semi-Popish form of worship, just as Mr. Calthorpe represents the Liberal element in politics—the principle of progress; and Mr. Pakington the Conservative, or rather the Tory element—the principle of keeping in office by being the “humble servants to command” of the House of Commons. The contest between Mr. Westerton and Mr. Davidson was a contest between Protestantism and the Romanistic party. It was watched throughout Great Britain with the deepest interest, for it was felt that the result would be to ensure the victory of religious truth, or give a disastrous triumph to the defiled and adulterated pseudo-Protestantism—the “mongrel church,” as the Hon. and Rev. F. Baring truly called it—of Mr. Liddell and his backers. At that election the fate of the Protestant Church in England was weighed in the scales against the false doctrine, heresy, and schism of the Tractarians. Most happily for the country, most fortunately for the interests of mankind, the good cause preponderated. Tractarians kicked the beam, and all of us felt that a great mercy had been vouchsafed to the afflicted Church. But no thanks to Mr. Pakington. He flung his weight into the scale along with auricular confession, crosses, flowers, candles, images, and other play-things of Puseyism, and so far as by his voice he could, comforted and favoured the partisans of Romish observance as opposed to the purity and simplicity of Protestant Worship.
In that day—the day when Mr. Westerton was doing battle for Protestant interests with spirit and resolution worthy of a martyr—where was Mr. Pakington? Every one felt that a great crisis was impending in the history of the Church, and never was the Scriptural adage, “He that is not with me is against me,” brought more closely home to Protestant breasts than at that moment. But where was Mr. Pakington? Not merely was he not with us; he was arrayed openly against us, and it might have been his vote, for aught he knew,—for the numerical difference between the candidates was trifling—that would have given a heavy blow and serious discouragement to Protestantism, by placing in the ascendent that party in the Church, whose sole end and aim is to bring back England to the bosom of the Roman fold, from which, as they conceive, she has ignorantly and perversely strayed.
And what is the excuse Mr. Packington offers—for he feels bound to make some apology—for having thus turned his back upon Protestantism? By alleging Mr. Liddell’s excellent private character, his charitable exertions, and the abuse of which he has been the object. In the same way any good and charitable and abused individual, though of Red Republican principles, might obtain Mr. Pakington’s vote, the consideration with him being, not whether he agrees or differs with a man’s principles, but that a man—to entitle him to support—should be of excellent private character, and equally distinguished for charitable exertions and immense obloquy. When the vital interests of Protestantism are at stake, it is not the time to allow minor considerations to influence the mind and to sacrifice them to the private character of any individual, however excellent or however improperly abused. When the enemy is in front and the battle joined, it would be base to slink out of the ranks from consideration for a private friend engaged with the opposite party.
The vote for or against Mr. Westerton I am disposed to make a touchstone of sincerity, as regards attachment to Protestantism, or the reverse. Mr. Pakington may write up and call out as much as he pleases, “Good people all, take notice dis house is a true Protestant;” but he must excuse my saying that, after his vote against Mr. Westerton for the churchwardenship of Knightsbridge, I can attach no confidence to his professions. True Protestantism may have his lip-service, but false Protestantism, with its depraved doctrines and soul-sinking mummeries, had his countenance and his vote.
On the other hand, Lord Calthorpe—the father of the Liberal candidate—has uniformly and signally distinguished himself by his zeal on behalf of evangelical religion, and his steadfast resistance to the insidious aggressions of the Tractarian faction. His son—early trained in the same principles—is animated with the same feelings and convictions, which will produce the same fruit; and, when such a man invites my suffrage, as a candidate for the Legislature, I cannot doubt—even without regard to politics—that I ought unhesitatingly to prefer him to Mr. Pakington, or I feel that I should have small claim to subscribe myself
A PROTESTANT.
February 4th, 1859.
EAST WORCESTERSHIRE ELECTION!
Mr. CALTHORPE has much pleasure in tendering his best thanks to the Electors of Dudley for their very decided and flattering support. He regrets the impossibility of personally canvassing all the Electors, and respectfully invites them to meet him at the LANCASTERIAN SCHOOL ROOM, DUDLEY, on MONDAY Evening next, the 7th day of February, at seven o’clock.
Mr. Calthorpe’s Committee Room, Old Bush Inn, 5th February, 1859.
EAST WORCESTERSHIRE ELECTION.
Brother Electors,
Mr. PAKINGTON asks who is Mr. CALTHORPE, and how dare he presume to intrude himself upon the Electors of East Worcestershire? I would reply by asking what claims of pre-eminence Mr. PAKINGTON possesses in thus questioning your right to select for yourselves that person you consider most fitted to represent you, and upon what ground does he base his expectations of obtaining your support? Certainly not upon the exhibition he made at the Lancasterian School on Monday Evening, when he either had no principles to explain, or they were so antiquated that he lacked the power or ability to make them understandable to his audience! Can it be upon his desire to dole out to you the very smallest modicum of Reform which may be possible, or that you must be pleased to wait a little longer, until you are more capable of appreciating it? I am quite willing to give Mr. PAKINGTON all the credit he so eloquently pleaded for on Monday Evening, to which his efforts on behalf of education fairly entitle him; but I cannot understand how it is that he should deny to the people a fair participation in those rights and privileges which that education so properly qualifies them to exercise. Is it that he would continue that animosity and those heart-burnings which the exaction of Church Rates has so long occasioned, or does he still desire the dominance of an Ecclesiastical authority which, since the reformation, the Protestant spirit of the people of England has declared shall not exist in this country? Does he think that you will support him on account of the resistance of himself and his party to the establishment of those great commercial principles which have tended so largely to develop the prosperity of this Country, and so materially to increase your own happiness and comforts? How dare Mr. PAKINGTON sneer at Staffordshire men representing you, when all so well recollect the insidious attempt of Sir John to transfer you to that County, and which, had not your timely and generally expressed indignation prevented, Mr. PAKINGTON would not now have had the honour of soliciting your suffrages; Mr. CALTHORPE is a progressive, consistent Liberal—one whose principles are adapted to the spirit of the times in which we live; he comes fairly before this great County constituency with stated opinions, and soliciting from it a Seat in Parliament. He does not attempt to get there by the exercise of an influence Mr. PAKINGTON so magniloquently talked about, and which we all know is so kindly exercised in a Borough with which he is connected. Is it not that Mr. JUNIOR PAKINGTON is put forth as a feeler against the time when, very probably, that Borough may find itself in Schedule A of a New Reform Bill, and your votes may then be asked for a Senior member of the family? I will venture to answer that as Free and Independent Electors of East Worcestershire you will not thus be dictated to, but will return Mr. CALTHORPE TRIUMPHANTLY AT THE HEAD OF THE POLL!
I am,
Yours respectfully,
A FREEHOLDER.
ELECTORS BEWARE OF TORY TRICKS!
MR. CALTHORPE is against opening the Crystal Palace, Theatres, and such other Places of Amusement on Sunday.
EAST WORCESTERSHIRE ELECTION.
To the Electors and Non-Electors of East Worcester.
Gentlemen,
I regret that the friends of Mr. Pakington have thought it to their interest to resort to open misrepresentation, and in the vain hope of injuring me in your good opinion are industriously circulating a report that I am “in favor of opening the Crystal Palace and Theatres on Sunday.”
This is wholly untrue. I never made or approved of such a statement.
I am not in favor of opening the Crystal Palace, or Theatres, or any such places of Amusement on Sunday.
I am Gentlemen,
Your faithful Servant,
FREDERICK H. W. G. CALTHORPE.
Central Committee Room, February 11th, 1859.
MR. PAKINGTON’S LAST.
“Nothing extenuate, nor
Aught set down in malice.”—Shakespeare.
Brother Electors and Friends of the eastern division of the county of Worcester, my kind friend Lord Ingestre could not do me a greater kindness than that which he has now done me, namely, that of addressing you in his usual eloquent, terse, and pointed style, to introduce to you my humble self, the present candidate on the Conservative interest, and of expressing as he has so forcibly done the political views which I entertain in common with him. I am engaged, gentlemen, as you are all of you well aware, in a most vigorous, a most determined, and, from what I hear on all sides of the county, anything but a desperate contest. I am carrying it through with vigour, and I will win if I can. Gentlemen, as you must be well aware, labour of all kinds, whether of the body or the mind, involves considerable fatigue. That is the case in regard to every kind of labour, but when you find a crisis like the present at a time when from accidental circumstances I had to undergo on other grounds and for other purposes a most severe week of mental labour, and when at the end of that week I had to commence this battle, which, from certain reasons to which I will not now further allude, required in my particular instance a tremendously oppressive amount of energy and exertion both of body and of mind, under these circumstances it is a great kindness on the part of my friend Lord Ingestre that he should take one half my duties himself, in stating as he has done what are my personal qualifications and my political views. You all know what my father’s political views are, and if you want to know mine, gentlemen, they are contained in my address, which has been circulated throughout the county. But I tell you that, important as I consider political matters to be, at this present crisis and in this present battle, politics with me are as nothing. I, however, know all electioneering dodges very well; I know where I am and whom I am now addressing; I am going to win. But politics, as I said, are now second with me. I am not fighting a political battle so much as one of high-minded independence as a Worcestershire country gentleman. God forbid that I should boast of anything like an ancient family. The Pakington family have been for three hundred years residing near here, and in the very centre of the county. They have been Worcestershire people to the backbone. I am now residing near Worcester, where I am endeavouring to do my duty in that station of life to which I am called. I am trying in various ways to exert around me that kind of homely influence which kind and homely thoughts and actions will always produce by whomsoever exercised. I, for my own part, have no ambition for Parliamentary life. If I wanted a seat in Parliament for its own sake I know where to get one. I have been asked over and over again, by gentlemen of the highest influence, to stand for this or that place, to go here and to go there, in different parts of the country, and have been regarded as a likely candidate for a seat in Parliament. But I have said “No, I don’t want to be a Parliament man, I have no desire to go to Parliament myself, but if ever I represent a place it shall be, not a town in the north or south of England, but some town or division of a county that has some claim upon me, and where I have as a country gentleman some kindly feeling entertained towards me and my family.” These, gentlemen, are my private feelings. You will see that in the address I have published I have made use of the expression “Whatever my private preferences may be.” These are the circumstances to which I allude. But now I am ready to state briefly what are my principles. I need hardly repeat that I am a true Conservative, because I believe true Conservatism to consist in aiding social progress and the reparation, when necessary, of those institutions of our country to which England owes its present greatness. As your representative, it will be my duty to support that Government which is to give the greatest stability to the nation at large, and the greatest amount of happiness to the community. So far as I am able to judge, the Government of Lord Derby fulfils these requirements, and I believe they will not waver. I am fighting in three different capacities. Firstly, as the son of a Worcestershire man, I won’t have two Staffordshire members; secondly, I am a Conservative, not one of the stiff old Tories of the old school. I am a Conservative of the present day, of this very hour. I am unpledged by any past political measures. As a Conservative and as a politician I should object to having another gentleman of strong Liberal opinions to represent the agriculturists of the Eastern Division of the county of Worcester, the majority of whom are, I believe, eminently Conservative. I must, therefore, as a Conservative, strongly object to Mr. Calthorpe. Thirdly, I object to Mr. Calthorpe, and this is my strongest point of all, casting aside politics, that which is the strongest objection I feel, and which is now the key to my actions, is that I am an independent man, and I will not see my county represented by a comparative stranger without offering my services to the electors. That is the keystone to my movements. I know whom I have got to deal with. I know where Mr. Calthorpe comes from. It is a matter to me of no consequence who wrote the letter requesting him to come forward as a Candidate, but I know his supporters right and left, every one of them. Gentlemen, I object to Mr. Calthorpe coming here. He may be a Staffordshire man, or a Warwickshire man, but he certainly is not Worcestershire. His father, Lord Calthorpe, is a man whom all persons must respect and justly respect. He is a friend of my own father, and I know him well. Mr. Calthorpe himself was a school-fellow of mine, but, as he tells you himself, he has since been almost round the globe, and I have not seen so much of him as I could have wished. I like him personally very much, but he appears to have picked up some very funny notions. The last time that I spoke to him he was an out-an-out no end of a hog man, and no mistake about it; but he was then just about starting for Timbuctoo, China, or some other distant place, and I have not seen him since. (Laughter). His property is just of that kind that might occasion a mistake. It is situate near the confines of Worcestershire. The bulk of it is away from this county, and neither Lord Calthorpe nor his son have, I verily believe, so much land in the county as you can stick your hat on. (Renewed laughter). Where does he date his address from? Perry Hall. Where is Perry Hall? (A voice, “It is a garden down at the bottom of the town,” and great laughter). I am very glad to hear it, and if the hon. gentleman who gave me the information can tell me of his own knowledge that Mr. Calthorpe was there when he wrote his address, my argument is at an end. We know where Westwood Park is, and we know where Witley Court is, but where is Perry Hall? (A voice, “It is Mr. Calthorpe’s villa.”) But, gentlemen, Mr. Calthorpe’s first address is a puff of smoke; it’s a blind, and he finds it is so. (A voice, “Not he.”) He does. Why does he not attend public meetings? (A voice, “He’s a-coming.”) Let him come; I am ready to meet him anywhere he pleases. I say that Mr. Calthorpe’s first address is a sham; that he finds it so himself, and therefore he is obliged to publish a second, which I now hold in my hand. (A voice, “There’s a third coming out.”) I am glad to hear it; let it come. (Great confusion.) As I was saying, Mr. Calthorpe’s address is all moonshine. His friends got frightened; the views he expressed were not satisfactory, and therefore he has published another, stating stronger views. I am a man of business, and when I write my views in one letter I don’t write a second, still less a third for that purpose. My occupation now as a candidate is a matter of business, and I am not going to write a second address; I don’t need it. Here (pointing to his first address) are my views, my opinions, and all about myself; I don’t require a second address. As I said, I don’t enter now on political differences at all but there is one question to which I must allude. As I have told you, I am playing a deep game; and with me it is a determined one. Those who know me privately, and I am surrounded by kind friends, know that when I make up my mind as I have done in this contest, I carry my object through if possible, so I am going on determined to fight this battle. I am fighting a good fight, and when a move is made in this game of political chess between me and my adversary, be he who he may, I will meet it if I can by a good move of my own. Mr. Pakington then referred to the following attack upon him in the Morning Advertiser:—“Mr. Pakington, his (Mr. Calthorpe’s) opponent, is, on the contrary, a bigoted Puseyite, and one of the most prominent partisans of the Hon. and Rev. Mr. Liddell, in the parish of Knightsbridge.” On which Mr. Pakington, among other things, said—I wish to explain that I merely resided in that parish, subscribing to the schools and attending divine service at the church; but having now ceased to reside there, I have nothing further to do with it, and I indignantly deny the charge made. He concluded by saying—I see that some of you are getting a little fatigued, and I am tired myself. I am very glad to have had this opportunity of meeting you, and I hope to do so many more times. We cannot do so too often. As I said before, I will come again if I am wanted; but I have duties of a like kind elsewhere, for which duties I now go to prepare. I am very much obliged to you for your kind reception.
Note,—The “Printer’s Devil” has exhausted his stock of I’s.
Query—Why is Mr. PAKINGTON like a Peacock?—Because his tale is full of I’s.
EAST WORCESTERSHIRE ELECTION.
To the Electors and Non-Electors of the Eastern Division of the County of Worcester.
Gentlemen,
The friends of Mr. Pakington having failed to injure Mr. Calthorpe, by the false statement that he is the Nominee of Lord Ward, have resorted to another falsehood which has led to the following correspondence.
“EAST WORCESTERSHIRE ELECTION.”
“Teddesley, February 13th, 1859.
“My Dear Ingestre—
“I take the liberty, to which I am sure you will not object, to publish my letter to you, and your answer.
“I remain yours sincerely,
“HATHERTON.
“The Viscount Ingestre, M.P., &c.”
“Teddesley, February 11th, 1859.
“My Dear Ingestre—
“My attention has been called to a paragraph in the Daily News to the following effect:—
“‘Lord Ingestre, and Mr. Lygon, and Mr. Dowdeswell, formerly M.P. for Tewkesbury, addressed an assembly of farmers from a window opposite the Corn Exchange, Worcester, on Saturday afternoon. In the course of Lord Ingestre’s observations, he said the idea of bringing forward Mr. Calthorpe as a representative for the Eastern Division of Worcestershire was hatched by Lord Hatherton, at his seat at Teddesley, and then communicated to Lord Ward, who gave a ready acquiescence to the suggestion.’”
“What purely accidental conversation I may have had with Lord Ward about East Worcestershire Election, at a visit he paid here—just after Lord Northwick’s death—in pursuance of an engagement made a fortnight before, it is unnecessary for me to relate. But the statement that ‘the idea of bringing forward Mr. Calthorpe as a representative of East Worcestershire was hatched by me at this place,’ or anywhere else, is without a shadow of foundation.
I never was consulted or likely to be about the choice of a candidate: and except one letter from a customary correspondent conveying to me the information that Mr. Calthorpe’s friends had resolved to bring him forward, of which I then heard for the first time, I never had with any one any kind of communication respecting his election.
“I am sure that after this statement, you will pardon my enquiry whether you have been correctly reported in the above paragraph—and if so—on what authority you have made such a statement?
“I remain yours sincerely,
“HATHERTON.
“The Viscount Ingestre, M.P.”
“Ingestre, Stafford, February 12th, 1859.
“Dear Lord Hatherton,
“The report of what I said at Worcester is substantially correct with this exception:—
“What I said was ‘the scheme was hatched at Lord Hatherton’s, at Teddesley,’ &c. Not by Lord Hatherton. You ask me on what ground I made that statement.
“I reply, I knew Lord Ward had been at Teddesley, I believed that Mr. Calthorpe met him there, and knowing the interest you take in political matters as evinced during the last Stafford election, I thought it probable that the idea of starting Mr. Calthorpe for East Worcestershire was hatched at your house. If I have made any mis-statement in this matter, I much regret it, but I believe the probabilities were sufficient to bear me out in the assertion that I made at Worcester.
“Believe me, dear Lord Hatherton, sincerely yours,
“INGESTRE.”
The reply of Lord Ingestre reduced to plain language, says a writer in the Daily Post, amounts to this, “I knew that Lord Ward had been at Teddesley, therefore I imagined the rest, and what were suspicions only I affirmed as facts.”
Notwithstanding Mr. Calthorpe’s repeated denial of his ever having expressed a wish that Theatres, the Crystal Palace, and such like places of amusement should be opened on Sundays, Mr. Pakington’s friends have repeated the calumny,—Mr. Calthorpe’s Central Committee beg to inform the Electors of the Public Meeting held at Stourbridge, on Monday last, that Mr. Calthorpe not only contradicted this false and calumnious statement, but emphatically declared that he is OPPOSED to the opening of Places of Amusement of any kind on Sundays.
Central Committee Rooms, Stourbridge, February 15th, 1859.
EAST WORCESTERSHIRE ELECTION!
THE INCOME TAX!
At PERSHORE, on Monday last (see Times report), Mr. CALTHORPE stated, “that he would not pledge himself to vote for a repeal of the INCOME TAX!”
After this, what do you think of the would-be Liberal Candidate?
Is Liberal or Illiberal the proper term for such a Candidate?
Think, and judge for yourselves!
DOWN WITH THE INCOME TAX!
EAST WORCESTERSHIRE ELECTION.
Mr. CALTHORPE’S COMMITTEE earnestly request all their friends to refrain from any allusion, much less retort, to the scandalous and malicious production issued by the other side. The party who can thus, for electioneering purposes, malign and insult their neighbours and fellow-townsmen, and what is infinitely worse, their townsmen’s wives and daughters, may be safely left to the contempt of all right-minded men of all parties, which cannot fail to be their natural reward.
Mr. Calthorpe’s Committee Room, Old Bush Inn, Dudley, 17th February, 1859.