Star.
London, England, 1822-03-22 00:00:00

subject of the present motion, tomitained
and most unfounded aspersions drat banger be.
uttered, and were wholly destitute .of tooth.. 'rimy
were but a repetition of the aspr,rsions contained in
some of the Papers at the time of the Committee
making their report. He could not .coneeive brow a
man could dare to stand Up in the House of Com-
mons, and assert that which was substantially untrue.
He asserted it, too, in a place where he knew the
Committee could not refute hiM. Alter practising!
his trickeries and cajoleries for thirty-six Yeats--after
having taken him (AlJemmy Waldman) by the atm
and attempted to cajole him—the Hon. Baronet now,
told the Corporation that they were half knaves and
fools: that they were composed of factious men, and.ap-
plied to them the epithets of demagogues and Jesuits.
SirW.Cu errs.— I used them figuratively.(A lertgA).
Mr. Alderman WA ITHMAY continued.—Would the
Corporation allow itself to be reflected upon in this!
way, and have their acts stigmatized as folly ? How
came the lion. Baronet to assume to himself all the
transcendent wisdom of the City ? Had he AIM*
wisdom than the rest of the CorpoYation together?
or had he as much as any one Member of this Court?
Had he more political knowledge,' more learning, or
more virtue ? With all the truth, and honour, and
wisdom, of which he talked, how was it that all his
talents were confined to the House of Commons?--
How was it that those factions men of whom be spoke,
could discuss public questions in this Court, and he
could not face them and put them down?—(Hear).
He (Alderman Waithrnan) would not attribute bad
motives to any man ; but he always suspected a man
who proclaimed his own good qualities. One would
suppose that the thirty-six years during which he
had been a Member of the Corporation, were suffi-
cient to make those of the Hon. Baronet apparent,
without' rendeiing it necessary for himself to tell
them. With respect to the Report of the Committee,
it was rather extraordinary that the evidence of 34
witnesses should go for nothing. Tim Hon. Baronet
had also stated, in the House of Commons, that one
Sheriff could not act. The worthy Alderman com-
bated this opinion, and said it affo-deal another proof
of the extraordinary wisdom of the Hun. Baronet.—
He then alluded to the circumstance of Mr. Ex-Sheriff
Williams-having giVen a private letter of his to Mr.
Butterworth, to make use of it in opposing the City
Petition. This conduct was most reprehensible. He
never had any altercation with his worthy colleague;
heknewlintto be a man of sulky habits, but he had
kept that to himself. He had therefore drone nothing
to justify this conduct. The statement, too, which
Mr. Butterworth had fuended upon it was wholly
false. The worthy Alderman then proceeded to point
out the inaccuracies of Mr. Butterworth's statement.
Mr. OLDHAM rose to older. The introduction of
this subject was unfair in the absence of Mr:Williams.
Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN said, it was.not unfair,
kW he .had written several letters to Mr. Williams,
apprising him of his intention to bring for ward the
subject, and he had not thought proper to send an
answer to any of them.
Mr.JAMEs rose to order on another ground, namely,
that the subject had nothing to do with the question
before the Court.
Mr. Alderman Wa mtM AN contended, that he was
not out of c: der ; and if he even were, he thought
some indulgence ought to be shewn to him, when
his personal feelings were concerned. He then recur-
red to the former subject of discussion ; condemned
the conduct of Sir William Curtis as unfair, in se-
conding a motion for the purpose of depreciating it :
and concluded by stating that for 14 or 13 years he
had struggled in this Court against a large majority,
and had never thrown a reflection upon the motives
of those to whom his opinions had been opposed.
Sir W. CURTIS made a few observations in support
of his opinion that it was illegal for one Sheriff to have
acted without his colleague upon that occasion.
Mr. JANIES contended, that some of the evidencel
antlered to the Report was absurd and irrelevant;—
' and justified the'allegation of Sir William Curtis, of
evidence having been selected by the Committee, in
which there was no impropriety. It was the prac-
tice of every day: and it would be absurd to suppose
dint a party would bring forward evidence to deny
what it was intended to prove. He was sure that in
the heat of debate the Hon. Bart.had applied stronger
objections to the Committee than he intended.
Mr. OLDHAM could not help going the length of
saying, that the lion. Baronet deserved censure for
impugning the conduct of the Committee in a place
where they could not defend themselves. He had
taken as an extract from the Report, that part of the
evidence which was its only main vulnerable part.—
However, he was prepared to acquiesce in part of
what the Hon. Baronet had said respecting the con-
duct of the Common Council ; for lie could not ap-
prove of their first voting thanks to the worthy SheriC
and then instituting an inquiry. He then reverted to
Sir William Curtis s speech, and expressed his regret
at the Address which had been voted to the King.
He was not sorry, however, that this inquiry had
been instituted. With respect to the Hon. Baronet
calling them a learned Council, he dared say he did
' not mean to use that tem ironically, since it was
partly composed of Aldermen. In looking over
book the other day, which treated of the origin of!
Aldermen, he saw it stated, that an Alderman was!
created non propter senectatem, sed propter 3apientiam.l
The Hon. Baronet was an exemplification of this-
-I.(Laugkter).—But when the Hon. Baronet accused
I,the Committee of taking evidence in a slovenly Man-
! ner, he would beg leave to ask him if he knew of no
other Assembly whose Committees took evidence in
' a slovenly nianner?-(fieer.)—Had he never been
present at a Committee, where he had seen the Mem-
' bets of it, when a certain bell rang, rush out, leaving
the Chairman by himself, to vote upon a question
which they knew nothing about?—(Hear.)—He (Mr.
Oldham) had with his own eyes witnessed such a
scene, when the Hon. Barbnet himself was left alone
in the chair !—(Clear, hear). He should have blushed
to belong to such. an Assembly. He was not afraid,
therefore, to compare this to another—an august As-
;useably. They could here produce four, men who
possessed as much wisdom, learning, and talent, as
Any four men that the august Assembly could pro-
dnee... He had much personal respect for'Sir Wil-
liams Curtis, but he felt himself -obliged to support
the vote of censure. •
Sir CLturnos lluerze imputed the expre>sions of
SirWilliainCuhis to the warmth of debate; and nib-
miued, that the ntilster would be the more dignified
course for the Court to pursue upon this occasion.—