The Sun.
London, England, 1836-01-19 00:00:00

Tories in protesting against the present meeting being
called without the sanction of the High Bailiff, inasmuch
as they themselves, on a former occasion, professed the
same opinions in respect •to the powers of the High Bai-

tiff, and acted upon 'them.. After which -he proceeded 'to
say, for the last twelve months the Conservative Political
Union had, through the medium of their addresses, en-
deavoured to obtain the assistance of the working classes.
In that they failed, and because the working people would
not assist them ; hence the abuse, calumnies, and false-
hoods issued against the Political Union. It was not be-
cause they disrespected the people ; they abused them,
for they well knew them to be as deserving as themselves ;
but, because they would not lend themselves to their
schemes they became the objects of their vituperations ;
and so long as he or any other man took part with the
working people, so long might they expect to be abused
and vilified. In one of their handbills which they had
lately issued, they
,stated that they were the poor man's
friend—yet this party passed the Corn Laws : did they
then consider the poor man, or evince any friendship for
him 14 No ! they did not ; nor was it to them the people
were indebted for the position in which they at present
stood. It was the unexampled industry, toil, and labour
of. the .people which .enabled them to force their produce
through Europe against an unnatural competition, and
to which they had been driven by these their professed
friends. Again, they had boasted of their charities. Now
he (Mr. Muntz) was not. in the habit of preaching, but
there was one vice condemned in the Gospel, the ne-
cessity of avoiding which he would strongly impress upon
them, and that was ostentatious charity. A man might
give fifty pounds for a charitable purpose, and have it put
in the newspaper ; but without mentioning names, he could
venture to assert, that there were men in Birmingham who
gave more money in private charity, and to relieve the dis-
tress of their fellow-creatures, than any Tory in the town.
Talk of charity ! Pretty men the Tories of Birmingham
were to talk of charity. What would theynot have done
with the Free-school charity, were it not ' for the. people ?
Why, they would have given it exclusively into the hands
of the Aristocracy, and have robbed the poor of all the ad-
vantambes arising from it. The man who, on that occasion
laid doWn his 25/. to prevent them from thus acting, con-
ferred a greater benefit on the town than the- man who gave
his 'fifty pounds in charity, and had it publicly advertised.
Then let them go to the Blue-coat Charity School, and, what
would they there see ? Tory managers—Tory trustees ap-
pointing a Tory treasurer, who had contrived to rob the
charity of fifteen hundred pounds. Why was this man ap-
pointed ? Because he was favourable to their party.
And what did they do with him when he was detected
Whv, they let him go, and he(Mr. Muntz) did not hesitate
to tell those trustees that they ought to make good the
money. They tvere bound -to do so—they allowed his
accounts to go on unexamined—and this was a sample
of Tory charity. He only mentioned these things to show
that these men otylit not to boast of their superior cha-
rity over the liberal part of the community, and that those
who lived in glass-houses ought not to be the first to throw
stones. If ever another protest similar to that now issued
by the Tories came More him, he (Mr. M.) pledged him-
self to analyze it, and call every man by the position in which
he ought to stand. They had also charged the Political
Union with everything that was wrong. Now, what had
the `Political Union men ever destroyed ? Had they ever
sallied out in mobs, . and destroyed the windows of their
neighbours, or injured their property ? Had the country
been saddled at any period with expenses arising from the
rioting ? No, they never had. Could the same be said of
the Tory party ? Let them go back to the year 1791.
(ImMense cheering.) Who made the Birmingham riots ?
I (Renewed cheers.) Who was it that burned the property
of those who worshipped God according to the dictates of
their own conscience ? Was it not the party who now un-
justly charged them, who have never been guilty of a single
outrage ? No ; they could not point to the-county rates, •
and say that they had been enhanced by the riots of the Bir-
mingham Political Union. From these calumnies and slan-
ders good, however, had resulted. There was not thename
of a Whig to be *Para in the protest list. And (Mr. •
Muntz) was glad of it. The Whigs might have had some feel-
that they had
ing against the Political Union, and the Tories, availing them- 4
-veured to get tive Whigs to join them, but was proud to
selves of this unfavourable opinion towards
he
mon, endea.„
The . Tories forgot that
say they had f:alled to join them.
supporters, and that they
private and public ;
tinhsetyiltiel4'd'ln
they to got that they had stigmatized the t Govern-
mentwere using every exertion to turn them out of office.—
andile°a3leudiX2telLintlaieenric,dbtohteh iilgs—
wh6ers.) They fOrgot all this ; but he was proud to find,
of which they were the
t)lat the Whigs Ilad spirit-enough not to forget it, and that
they lied manfully assisted their overtures. The Whigs:
were beginning to find that it did not answer to be too
Whiggish, and here lie was particularly, to be tualerstood.
as not speaking in any terms of reproach or taunt. It
was said that they who cat with the devil should ea t with
a long spoon.—(4aughter.) And the Whigs out
fop 1 t
..•