Star.
London, England, 1819-09-10 00:00:00

MEETING OF TEE COMMON COUNCIL.

Mr.lfiratvwcAn..—Vis continuation, from the __TARO'
yesterday.)--It had been urged by the supporters and
defenders of the Manchester Magistrates, that strong
symptoms of tumult and disaffection were manifested
by the flags and the mottoes which they bore along
with them. Why, if the bearing of flags was a crime,
was not a troop of Dragoons sent into the City of
London, during the last Election, who might have
swept away him (Mr. Waithman) and the flags which
were borne before him on that occasion ? Why,"
continued the. Worthy Alderman, addressing him-
self particularly to the Chair, ,g Why, my Lord
Mayor, did they not at that period sweep myself and
my flags from the City, and place your Lordship in
the seat which I have now the honour to hold r—
(llis seat as a Member for the City which the Lord
Mayor lost in the Election alluded to.) Why, he
would ask, were not the. Dragoons sent to the Smith-
field Meeting, where there was nearly an equal num-
ber of flags, and many of them with similar inscrip-
tions to those used at Manchester ?' But the Court
were well aware of the cause of this forbearance.
The Law Officers of the City had given it as their
opinion that it would be improper. His Majesty's
Secretary of State, and, indeed, nearly all the Autho-
rities who were consulted, had given it as their opi-
nion, that the Smithfield Meeting was not illegal,
and, as. their advice, that it should net be disturbed,
unless it became tumultuous, and that the peace was
broken. But would it be said that the Manchester
Meeting was not a legal one? Ile contended, with-
out meaning to enter into the opinions of those who
promoted it. that it was as legal a Meeting as that
at Smithfield (which was admitted to be so by some
of the highest Authorities in the land). And taking it
for granted that the Meeting at Manchester was
legal, why, he asked, wete the inhabitants to be pre-
vented from expressing their sentiments ? Were the
inhabitants of London the only persons to whom this
privilege was to be granted ? Were they to be the
only persons allowed to meet to declare their senti-
ments, while their fellow subjects in Manchester (who,
it should be borne in mind, were not directly repre-
sented in Parliament) were to be debarred the ex-
ercise of a:right to which they had equal cairn with
every class of Englishmen? Were they alone to be
slaughtered and sabred for doing that which else-
where could be done in peace and security ? And
was the fact of their having been so sabred to pass,
not only with impunityi but without inquiry, or with-
out having the voices of their fellow-subjects lifted
sp against so flagrant a violation of their common
rights? Some of them could remember the mister-
nation which prevailed, and the importance that was
attached to the circumstance of a single man being
killed in a riot in St. George's-fields; they could all
remember the serious inquiry set afloat by this great
City when a life was lost at the time Sir Francis
Burdett was committed to the Tower. Indeed, on
all occasions it was well and properly considered,
that the Constitution could be as seriously wounded
through the oppression or injury of a single indivi-
dual, as by the loss of numbers, however considera-
ble their extent. He should as much wish as any
man that the people could meet under the general
Magistracy of tke,country, under the Authorities best
calculated to give dignity and importance to their
deliberations. The people of London, for instance,
can meet, or rather he should say, could meet in
Common Hall, under their own Corporation, to ex-
press their opinions--(App/ause, and some laughter at
the allusion to the Lord Mayor's refusal to call a Com-
mon Hall.) But was it not too much to charge the
people, who had not the aid of those who were con-
sidered their superiors, with being tumultuous and
rash in meeting in public, after they had in vain ap-
plied to the Magistrates to convene Assemblies in
the usual manner, and had almost as often as they
so applied met with nothing but abrupt refusals?—
(Hear.) Wherever the people had met, they had
conducted themselves peaceably, though (hear) in
general without the attendance and support of those
who formerly attended their Meetings. So delicate
were some persons of allowing the people to judge
for themselves, that on a subject upon which they
ought to be peculiarly able to judge, namely, the
mode in which a new tax would affect them, they
were not thought by their Chief Magistrate to have
sense or discretion enough to consider such a subject,
or even competent to give instructions to their own'
Representatives. If ever mischief on any occasion
did arise from popular Meetings, on whom, might
he ask, ought the responsibility of such mischief to
f.. 11? On whom else but those who threw the people
on their own resources for the expression of their
grievances? On the Magistrates, who would not, as'
they ought, legally convene the people together ; and
on the-Government, who seemed to encourage those
Magistrates to throw every difficulty in the way of
the people in the expression of their grievances—
(Hear). In the Resolutions which he had prepared
for this occasion, he had taken the most studious,
pains, the utmost care, to avoid every thing extra-
neous to the precise question, every thing which
could in the slightest degree tend to create a violent
or inflammatory feeling in the breast of any honest,
man, whatever might be the bias of his particular
political opinions—(Hear, hear). if grievances did
exist among the people, and if the people, in their
mode of seeking redress, mistook the proper means,
he would submit to the sense and candour of any
honest man, whether it would not be much better to
allay those grievances by the operation of time, and
the intervention of conciliato: y conduct, by the aid
of good feeling towards the people of the country, so
far as it could and ought to be given by the Govern-
ment, the Magistracy, and the persons of rank and
property who wished well to the country, and who
had it in their power to lend assistance, in a period
of general distress. Even if the opinion of this class
of society was, that many of the grievances were ima-
ginary, and that for such as were real the people bad