Dudley, November 6th, 1857.
THE DUDLEY COURT LEET AGAIN.
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.