ELECTION OF GUARDIANS.
TO THE RATEPAYERS OF THE PARISH OF DUDLEY.
“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.”