As to the Berkshire lady cottage-owners, we really must protest
against the Westminster classing this case as one of political intimidation. As was noted in the Westminster on Tuesday, the ladies in question seem to have acted out of what we can only describe as foolish fussiness. They appear to have had no political views or intentions, but merely objected to their tenants displaying political emblems on the ground that such action might incite to riot. They prevented a Tory tenant from showing Tory colours, and tried to do the same with the Liberal, who proved, however, of sterner stuff. We
need hardly say that we strongly condemn such nervous intolerance in both cases. On the whole question, we are bound to say that the evidence still points strongly to our conclusion,—the Liberals, strange as it may appear to many people, seem to be worse sinners in the matter of electoral mal- practices than their rivals. We do not of course suppose that in this respect Unionists have in reality less original sin than their opponents. Our own explanation of the fact is that Unionists know that they are very widely accused of such practices, and therefore are very much on their good behaviour. Liberals, on the other hand, are prone to self-righteousness in this respect. Secure in the belief that nobody could dare to accuse a Liberal of intimidation or corrupt action in elections, when they are much tempted by the fervour of political contests they yield to the temptation.
Previous page
