WHIG INTIMIDATION OF VOTERS.
"Tory intimidation!"
All the Ministerial Joon:als, passim,
IF a Tory punishes a Liberal tradesman by withdrawing his cus- tom, or a refractory tenant by a notice to quit, loud and long is the howl raised in the Whig quarters. This week the conduct of Lord HUNTINCTOW::R, who has served discharges on thirty-seven of his Grantham tenants for their votes at the late election, and the intimidation exercised by Earl BROWNLOW on his tenantry, have been the subject of much harsh commentary by the Downing Street journalists. But it would be well for these gentlemen to look at home. Nothing that they can pro- duce in the shape of " intimidation" will surpass the deeds of one of their own party, Mr. PAUL METHUEN, in that line. In 1832, Mr. METHUEN, it seems, caused his tradesmen and tenants to be informed that "if they voted for him he should be grateful for the favour conferred—if against him, he should respect them for their independence; and pledged himself never to resent their pre- ference of others." But what does Mr. METHUEN in 1837? He has a tenant, Mr. JOHN Lurrte, who both voted and canvassed for him at the last Wiltshire election ; but because Mr. LITTLE'S father and brothers voted on the other side, Mr. Merxt:ex has ordered a notice to quit his farm to be served on LITTLE. These facts are stated in a letter to the Devizes Gazette, signed " Verax ;" and of their truth we doubt not, because they are confirmed by Mr. METHUEN'S agent, Mr. KELSEY, who was indiscreet enough to attempt a vindication of Mr. METHUEN'S conduct in the same newspaper. Mr. KELSEY'S defensive statement is this- " Mr. Little senior, after a long connexion with Mr. Methuen, as tenant— after also experiencing, himself and family, continual acts of kindness and friendship, indeed far beyond what I am at liberty to detail—handed over his farm to his son, Mr. John Little, excepting a small part still occupied either by himself or younger sons, as arranged between thetnselves. Mr. Little, on all former occasions of election, has been a stanch supporter of Mr. Methuen ; acting with a zeal that was quite natural and consistent with his professions of attachment towards him, and the obligations under which he lay. It was therefore with astonishment that Mr. Methuen learnt, that Mr. Little had not only forsaken him, but that both he and his younger sons had exerted themselves with the most virulent opposition against hint, coercing their poorer neigh- bours to vote for Sir Francis Burdett, and even extending their feeling to ab solute abuse. Under these circumstances, Mr. Methuen considered that with such an extraordinary change of feeling towards hint, any further connexion with the family would only be unpleasant to both parties, and desired me to make that communication to Mr. John Little, which I accordingly did by letter ; a copy of which, as Yerax ' has only thought proper to avail himself of a short extract, I beg to send you."
Then follows the letter to the tenant, Mr. JOHN LITTLE- '. 'Lanham CHM Sarum, 27th September 1537.
"Dear Sir—As you may possibly suppose there is some misunderstanding or especial cause for your receiving a notice to quit your farm, and which I have this day forwarded to Mr. Wachter to he served by him as soon as he receives it, I write thia to say, that although Mr. Methuen is aware that you did not tote or act against him at the election, he considers that, under the circum- stances of your father and brothers having taken the extraordinary active and decisive part they did on the occasion, it must be unpleasant to all parties that any connexion should any longer continue between himself and any part of your family. lam sorry to have to make this communication, but I cannot say that I am at all surprised at Mr. Methuen's determination, upon the most singular and unfriendly conduct of your father and brothers towards him, after the very long connexion that hail subsisted between them as landlord and tenant, and with the most kindly feeling on the part of Mr. Methuen at all times, and an earnest desire to promote the intermit of your family.
" I am, dear Sir, your obedient servant,
"Mr. John Little. " F. J. KELSEY." Reading this correspondence, one would suppose that neither Mr. METHUEN nor his agent bad the slightest notion that a tenant-at-will could have political rights—that his vote was his own, or belonged to anybody but his landlord. Nay more, Mr. METHUEN carries his notion of a landlord's supremacy so far, that Ito considers it an offence—" most singular and unfriendly con- duct"—in the relatives of one of his tenants to vote against him. The case of METHUEN and LITTLE had a sufficiently ugly ap- pearance against the former on the bare facts, but the arguments used in its support render it far worse : they will be found to rest upon the tyrannical assumption, that not only is it an injury and eflront in a tenant to vote against his landlord, but that the un- happy man ought to be surety for the subserviency of all his kith and kin, and pay in his own person the penalty for their con- scientious exercise of the elective franchise. Knowing nothing of the parties ourselves, but observing that the father and younger sons are represented as acting in the late election " with virulent oPeosition " against Mr. METHUEN, we presume they were under the influence of strong political feelings of the Conservative kind. It appears that their presumption in voting according to those feelings—that is, in having a will of their own—was their crime. Had Lerne senior and the others become tenants of a Tory land- lord, Mr. METHUEN, on the prin'ciple laid down by his agent would not have been surprised or offended by their desertion Os his colours.
There is another fact stated in the Devizes Gazette, which proves that the ease of LITTLE is not a peculiar one. A Mr. J. THOMPSON voted for METHUEN, but also for BURDETT; and he has received notice to quit; for Mr. Metreuesr, it seems, not only requires from his tenants one vote, but wishes to control their second vote also. This is a stretch beyond the old practice of land- lords. The rule used to be that one vote belonged to the landlord, the second to the elector himself, to sell or give conscientiously as the case might be : but Mr. METHUEN, who in 1832 declared that he would not resent his tenants' preference of others to himself, now claims the right of punishing his dependents for giving even their second votes conscientiously. Such is the downward pro- gress of Whiggery and "Reform" in 1837. With these facts proved, Whigs should speak softly when they murmur of "Tory intimidation ;" and the Duke of NEWCASTLE'S " doing what he will with his own," must, in election morals, be recognized as one of the just aristocratical uses of property.
Previous page
