A tradesman complains about being forced to vote against his wishes or face the consequences by Lord Exeter ‘s henchman. Such was the situation before the secret ballot was introduced in 1872.
The late MUNICIPAL ELECTION in STAMFORD.
“To the EDITOR of the MERCURY. Stamford Nov. 3.
Sir,
The result of the election for town Councillors on Monday last will probably elicit from your pen some remarks relative to the pusillanimity of those who wished for the success of the candidates whom they opposed; but it would be as well for you to take into consideration, and for the public to know, the circumstances in which such persons were placed. Writing anonymously (except that I entrust you with my name in confidence), I may say in print that which I dare not proclaim viva voce. Very likely you will pause at the expression dare; but such is the fact, – and it is better to admit the truth, than to attempt to gloss over a false position by an unavailing excuse. Take my own case. I am a tradesman occupying one of the Marquis of Exeter’s houses, and am doing a very good business: if I were to be turned out, the probability is that I should lose a portion of my custom, – a loss which I cannot well risk. Originally it was my intention to have voted for Mr. Hatfield, and the other gentlemen whose names were associatied with him as candidates, but from conversation with my neighbours who knew more of the confidential doings at Burghley than I did, I thought it prudent to decline voting at all, and had made up my mind to be neutral. I was, however, soon given to understand that neutrality is, in the eyes of Lord Exeter, as bad as opposition: I was informed that I must vote for all the ‘Reds,’ or a black mark would be place against my name in the tenant ledger. And so indeed I found it; as a few days before the elecction I was waited upon by a person from the Steward’s office, and canvassed for my votes. I stated plainly that I did not intend to vote at all; to which a rejoinder was given, ‘Very well, do as you please: I am commissioned to ask you for your vote, and if you refuse, you may guess the consequences from what took place after the last Parliamentary election.’ I felt the sting which this mandate conveyed, but remonstrance was out of the question; and though I refused at the time to yield, I subsequently deemed it prudent to comply. My case I know to be that of many others; hence I ask for a favourable consideration of the position in which we are placed. The misfortune is that there is no chance of ensuring unanimity among the tenants of the Marquis of Exeter: if all would agree to act independently, all would be safe from the tyranny which is exercised over us; but there are, I regret to say, in Stamford a number of undividuals who do not hesitate to perform the most grovelling acts, and lend themselves to purposed which are debasing to the character of Englishmen, in order to curry favour with their iron-willed landlord.
To what degree of subjugation we shall eventually come, it is difficult to opine. Lord Exeter is as orthodox in religion as he is enthusiastic in horse-racing; if he compels us to violate our consciences in one matter, we may expect that he will do so in another. ‘The Church and the Turf’ will probably be set up as our moral creed; and if we do not shout for the infallibility of the one, and the virtue of the other, – if we are ever caught in dissenting places of worship, or are found wanting at Stamford races, – we may expect that the threats with which we have just been terrified will be periodically renewed, and that disregard of them will be punished with loss of houses and withdrawal of custom. ‘Church’ and ‘Turf’ may be alike estimated by some people – if indeed the latter has not the preference; but I do hope that, however nimble a few individuals may be in leaping from the tight-laced bed of Methodism or Calvinism into the vagaries of the Turf, a united stand will ere long be made against the anti-tolerant spirit which at present crushes us and makes us feel we are not ‘men and brothers,’ but skulking abject slaves.
Your’s,
A DEPENDENT TRADESMAN.”
The Stamford Mercury, 5th November, 1847.