The Sun.
London, England, 1821-05-26 00:00:00

" THE MANCHESTER MEETING.

" The miserable qiiestion arising out of the Manchester
Meeting was revived in the House of Commons, both on Tues-
day and Wednesday last. We regret the revival of this ques-
tion, because it was.tiriginally and evidently intended for no
other purpose but to inflame the public mind ; it was calculat-
ed to excite indignation against those who, in a critical moment,
undertook a hazardous responsibility, and not to bring the
guilty, if guilt there was, to justice. In short, we look upon
the proposition of a new inquiry as nothing more than a feeble
attempt to revive that tone of inflammation and irritation
which for some time disturbed and distracted the country. The
country had been delivered from a state of inflammation by the
firmness of Parliament; that inflammation which at last broke
out into open rebellion. It was delivered, by the wisdom and
firmness of Parliament, from the delusions of another great
question. The same firmness upon the present question will
lead to the same results. We look upon the agitation of it at
this time as nothing more than a feeble attempt to revive that
agitation and those tumults which had fortunately subsided.
And what did the proposition of Sir Francis Burdett elicit ?
Myriads of men had assembled at Manchester on the
16th of August, amounting to 80,000 in number, with
clans or bludgeons in their hands. The Magistrates, who
had the care of the town, had good 4-round for alarm on '
beholding such vast numbers of men. entering the town in mili-
tary movements. They felt that the seizure of the leaders would
be the best means of preventing any tumult. They sent a body
of Yeomanry to take them and their banners. Those men had-
approached, and had been greeted by the people by cheers, as
some call it ; by a shout of defiance, in the opinion of others.
They had been allowed to enter through the crowd to the hust-
ings, and they had seized the leaders arid the bankers, and then
the rush of the people had commenced. Then had the Magistrates
been justly alarmed respecting the Yeomanry, and then had the
military been called upon to come forward, and then those pro-
ceedings of which complaints were made had taken place.—
That those proceedings had been warranted by the illegality of
the meeting, was contended for and maintained ; and was not
disputed, even by the leaders of the debate. The revival of this
thread-bare question, the pertinacious hostility of Mr. Httme„
and the general conduct of the Opposition in Parliament, dis-
pose us ti be convinced that at no period of our history had we
a weaker, a meaner Opposition to the measures of any. Mini-
stry. We speak not of an Opposition power by Members ;
were the present stronger in this point of view, it would be a
plague. But we speak of an Opposition powerful by talent
and efficient by its union. We are of the number of those
who, upon rational grounds, think an Opposition necessary
as a check upon the measures of official men—to serve as an
excitement to vigilance---a .d to form a Constitutional body

for the purpose .of :scrutinizing their actions, their inN
tives, and their objects. But we cannot concede the cha-
racter of usefulness to an Opposition disunited, acting upon
individual prineiples,. and seeking Only personal popularity.--,-
Such an opposition is the present. To say nothing. of the
dearth of talents it exhibits, the want of tact in public affairi, and
the ignorance betrayed by it upon every question it interferes.
with, it is yet weaker from•the too obvious fact which forces- itself
upon every man's attention, that each Member of which it is
composed, with the exception of a very few, holds in view his
own particular interest only, forgetful that when he entered the
ranks of Opposition, he was pledged to a great national party,
who were bound to support the Constitution in all its parts—
Now a pledge to support the Constitution, pre-supposed a
strong, firm, irradicablc attachment to the Throne, with all the
prerogatives and privileges, an attachment as.strong at least, as
any attachment to the people. But the short-sighted Statesmen,
who form the majority of the day,, seem to think that this sort of
attachment to the Throne is directly at was with Parliamentary
Opposition, and, therefore, casting off this great ruling princi-
ple of the Whigs, they have attached themselves to the people
alone, and thus have degraded the character of Constitutional
Patriots into that of advocates for the mob. Such was not the
opposition of a Burke or a Fox. While, with the strength of a
giant, they stood forward at once the champions. and the
bulwarks of the people's rights, they were ever ready to-ex-
tend their arm to repel the wave of the multitude and protect
from invasion the just prerogatives of the Monarch. But be-
sides this error in principles there is yet another source of weak-
ness in the present Opposition, independent of want of talents,
experience, and actual ignorance ; it is disunion. This
is caused by what we have already alluded to, the personal am-
bition of individual popularity. This petty feeling has de-
prived the Opposition of a leader, or what amounts to the same
thing, has rendered his situation nugatory. Does Aor B or
C want to distinguish himself, he must advance out of the ranks
of his party, and move forward singly to the engagement. If
he remained there, it is true, by a combined movement with the
whole body he might do some good, but then he would lose
his darling object, the gratification of his own perional vanity,
and the ambition of being distinguished. We believe the pre- '
sent is the first Opposition whose leader had to stand up in the
House and declare, night after night, that he knew nothing of
motions brought on by persons professing to be of his party,
until he heard them in that place. But the acuteness of a
Tierney, and the'statesman-like mind of a Mackintosh might
discover something very frivolous and puny in those hobby-
horses upon which men of inferior intellect are willing to ride
to—fame, we were about to iv—perhaps the public may read
it shame.' As to the instances of their ignorance, want of
talents, and inexperience, they are too numerous even to insert
a catalogue of them ; suffice it to say, once for all, that they
have considerably strengthened the hands of Ministers, by,
calling upon them to defend themselves in quarters where their
integrity was least questionable, and their honesty most con-
spicuous."

MR. WALLACK.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

May 24, 1821.
SIR-It is with regret that I feel compelled to trouble you by
soliciting you to insert in your Paper the inclosed Letters, which
are correct copies of those addressed by me to the Editors of
The Times. An explanation is a duty which I owe to the
world and to myself. I will not trespass on your kindness and
the patience of the public by any further remark upon the con-
duct of The Times. as their want of candour speaks so loudly
for itself. 1 have the honour to be, Sir, _ _ _

Your much obliged and humble Servant,
JAMES WM. WA LLACK.
Theatre-Royal, Drury,Lane.

" Tuesday, May 15, 1821.
" Sin—l feel much astonished to see in your Paper of to-
day my name -introduced in a manner so totally different to
what I could expect from the real nature of the circumstances
of last evening. According to the established rules of Thea-
tres, it is the duty of an Actor to proceed in his performance,
until desired by the Manager to pause, and it is incurring a
very considerable penalty to deviaterfrom that rule. I was in-
duced to address the audience on account of having been more
than once struck with parts of oranges thrown on the Stage; the
precise meaning (and I would almost say the very words) of my
expression were as follows Ladies and Gentlemen, I am
here fulfilling my duty to the best of my ability; lam not
aware of giving offence, and therefore am unconscious of merit-
ing this treatment.' The very different statement in The Times
of to-day, giving a political tendency to the affair, must arise
from some unac:ountable mistake, which I rely upon your can-
dour to correct immediately.
" I have the honour to be, Sir, your humble servant.
" JAMES WILLIAM WALLACK."
" Saturday, May 19, 1821.
" Sin—On Tuesday last I addressed a letter to you, in con-
sequence of a mis-statement concerning me in your Paper of
that day, and have been surprised to find it unnoticed in your
succeeding publications. Hoping that press of matter, and not
want of inclination to do Inc justice, has prevented the insertion
of my letter, I wait until Monday next, in full confidence of
seeing that extraordinary error rectilkd.
" I have the honour.to be,Sir,your, humble servant,
__

" JAMES WILLIAM WALLACK.
" Willow Cottage, North Chergn, Surrey."
" Theatre'Royal, Drury Lane, May 22.
" Sul—l know not to what lam to attribute .the very ex-
traordinary conduct manifested towards me by your publica-
tion. You have permitted an erroneous account of my Ad-
dress to tlie audience, on Monday the 14th, to appear in your
Paper, and totally disregarded .my explanatory letter of the
next day. You have treated, in a similar way, my second
letter, written on Saturday last, again requesting you to rectify
the error. Such neglect of common justice and common feel-
ing I could not have expected from any British publication.
Your mis-statement is calculated to injure me extremely, and
was last night the cause of great annoyance to a very numerous
and respectable audience. The words imputed to me by The
Times, do not bear the slightest resemblance, either in sense or
sound, to those I uttered. I have, Sir, now merely to say, that
unless in your Paper of to-morrow, I perceive that I am justifi-
ed by the insertion of my first letter_ or by some means equally
satisfactory, I shall seek in the pages of some other for that
candour and. liberality which has been denied to me by The
" I remain, .Sir, &c. &c.
" J. W. WALLACK."