Star.
London, England, 1819-10-22 00:00:00

COURr OF COMMON aikwat.

t,"

EE'

Fk
k~

•

~.
i .e

,
••

A Court of Common.Conacil was held yesterday,
at the Guildhall, for the dispatch of the ordinary
business. The Aldermen present were, Sir CHARLII
FINSWIR, Sir WILLIAM CURTIS, Tnoar, C. SitITIT,
Cox, HEYOATE, and WitivnuAN ; Mr. Alderman
ROTHWELL was also present, AnsLoccupied the seat
assigned for the senior Sheriff. Mr. Sheriff PARKINS
noting a Member, was not in attendance, nor was
any motion made to allow him to takehis seat in the
Court, as is the usual compliment paid to Sheriffs
who are not of the Common Council.
The LORD MAYOR took the Chair at twelve o'clock.
THE PRINCE REGENT'S ANSWER TO THE CITY

ADDRESS
The Minutes of the last Court having been read,
his Lordship rose, and reported that the Address
voted at the last Court had been presented to the
Prince Regent, who had been pleased to return a
most gracious Answer, which would be read by the
Town Clerk.—The Royal Answer was then read..
Mr. FAVELL rose immediately, and moved that
his Royal Highness's Answer be entered on the Jour-
nals. He was happy to learn that the Court had
voted an Address so consonant with the principles
and opinions he had been brought up in, and which
be trusted he should always maintain and uphold to
the latest period of his life. Of the Reply he was
not disposed to say much, but would leave it to the
country to judge how far it was consonant to the
melancholy occasion for the Address, or such as was
to have been expected, under all the circumstances
which had taken place, and which had made it al-
most a question, whether we were living in Turkey
under the sabres of the Janissaries, or under the
laws of a free Constitution in a Christian country ?1
He agreed in the manly and constitutional sentiments
expressed in the Address, and thought it highly
worthy of that Court to call for inquiry into the
shocking transactions which had taken place at Man-
chester, and deprecated as unjust, the insinuation
implied in the Answer, of mixing up that Court with
the seditious and disaffected. He had been absent
on his duty in the Sister _Kingdom, where he had
been drinking " the glorious and immortal memory,"
and was sorry, on his return, to find the traces of
that great and glorious Revolution almost obliterated,
and the great Constitutional principles which our an-
cestors so nobly fought to obtain, openly and most
daringly violated ; and he trusted Ministers would
yet be called upon to answer to the Nation.
Mr. JACKS said, it was always usual, in recording
Answers from the Throne, to designate them as the
King's or Prince Regent's 'host gracious Answer ;
and he saw no reason why they should deviate from
that respectful mode of describing the Answer in
the present instance.
Mr. DIXON insinuated, that the Honourable Mover's
intention was merely to address a speech to the in-
dividuals below the Bar, as heinust have known that
it was usual on all occasions, to make use of the
words " most gracious Answer," and he called on the
Clerk to say, whether that was not, invariably, the
practice observed ?
The CLERK said it was certainly customary to use
the words " most gracious Answer," but the custom
had not, in all cases, been invariably adhered to.

Mr. BROWN doubted the recollection of the Offi-
cer, and called for the production of a precedent in
which the words " most gracious" had been omitted.
Mr. F.tVELL referred to proceedings of that Court
on the 20th of December, 1816. in which, on a Mo-
tion for the Entry of the Prince Regent's most gra-
cious Answer to an Address of that Court, an
Amendment was moved and carried to le.tve out the
words " most gracious."
Mr. Bnowx said, if the Honourable Mover had
omitted the customary words by accident or inatten-
tion, the question would not be worth contending
for ; but as his object was apparent by his having
gone into the question, so fully discussed at the last
Court, he (Mr. Brown) must declare, that in his opi-
nion, the Address went to prejudge the case, and
that the Answer of his Royal Highness was most
Constitutional. He should therefore move as an
Amendment to Mr. Favell's Motion, the insertion of
the words " most gracious."
Mr. JACKS, in a short speech, seconded the Amend.
merit of Mr. Brown.

Mr. WILLIAMS said, he also was absent on his
duty in the Sister Country when the Address alluded
to had been carried in that Court. He agreed fully
in the constitutional principles asserted in that Ad-
dress, aid joined most heartily in the opinions ex-
pressed on the transactions which occurred on that
bloody day at Mancliestet—a day which would ever
remain to the latest posterity a disgrace on the Bri-
tish annals. But they were told that they were pre-
judging the case. Had not the Ministers prejudged
the case ? Had they not, without hearing any per-
sons on the subject but those who were actually im-
plicated in the transactions, and before there could
have been time for any fair inquiry, advised the
Prince Regent to thank the authors and actors of
these illegal and bloody proceedings ? The Monarch
was at all times surrounded with parasites, who pre-
vented him from hearing the truth ; and were they to
sit still while absolute murder was committing? He
held it the duty of that Court to address his Royal
Highness on such a subject, and strictly constitu-
tional to call upon him to institute such an inquiry.
He would not say precisely what he thought of the
Answer ; but considering it, as he did, to deserve any
other name but gracious, he should vote against the
Amendment.

Mr. HURCOMBE said, the charge of prejudging the
question rested wholly with Ministers, who had in
such haste advised the Prince Regent to give his
thanks to the actors on that bloody day, for murder-
ing their unoffending fellow-citizens. The same Mi-
nisters who had advised these thanks also advised
the Regent's Answer—as such, it was a fair subject
of animadversion, and would they commit so great
a libel upon that Answer as to call it gracious?"
The people at large would judge, and he was sure
they would never be brought to concur in any such
opinion of it.
Mr. T. N. WILLIAMS said he had as strong an opi-
nion upon this Answer as any Gentleman in the
Court; he considered, however, that the words were
merely words of form and courtesy. We witnessed
sometimes humble and dutiful Addresses to th•
Throne, which exhibited neither humility nor duty.
and at others profess to appreheud a " loving sab-

jett," *rho was perhaps 2CCUIIki of high treason. It
twoasthofoseiniinpoartfnuthoricetyth, aatfisvd
errtheresdeviPlitiawon should
donthe spauchi4
revolution. With these feelings, he was
copinurtrstet and
tod respett, he considered as a sort of step-
,m,
Liutdisfue.,..stedappwliiethd raiouvserydesirrspectiontabol:
character. He repeated,
the opprobrious
it was of importance to re-
tain all these forms of courtesy and respect, and he
should therefore suyport the amended Resolution.
Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN observed, that if the
worthy Gentreman who had just sat down was at
all open to conviction, he did not doubt but that he
should, be able to convince him that he was wrong
in the Conclusion to which he had come. He really
wondered the Gentleman was so ignorant of what
had passed in that Court. The battle had been
fought on the same grounds before, and the word
" gracious" had frequently been left out. All the
danger likely to ensue from this want of courtesy
had been already incurred ; and yet he thinks that
the word should be retained, although he does in
fact acknowledge that he believes it to be most egre-
giously false! 13ut where was the occasion for all
this delicacy and respect? The King, it is acknow-
ledged on all hands, can do no wrong; and the An-
swer is therefore the answer of his Ministers, and was
certainly the fair subject for discussion, when it was
considered what were the cruel and disgraceful trans-
actions into which an inquiry was prayed. The wor-
thy Alderman then took a rapid survey of the pro-
minent circumstances which occurred at Manchester
on the fatal 16th of August ; and contended that the
atrocity of the occurrences called loudly for inquiry,
that the guilty perpetrators might be brought to the
punishment they merited. It was quite clear, how-
ever, he said, by the Answer, that there would not
be any inquiry ; and yet the Court were accused of
prejudging. the question! If to petition for inquiry
was to prejudge, then the right of petitioning was
really worth nothing. Many were the instances where
that Court had petitioned for inquiry, and one in
which the unfortunate Officer, against whose conduct
they had petitioned, had suffered death; but now, it
seems, if you have nothing to complain of, you may
petition—but if you really have good cause for com-
plaint and inquiry, then by petitioning you prejudge
the case! But they were fold in the Answer, that
" the Tribunals were open." Where, then, was the
use or the justice of all your Loyal Declarations,
which charged the People with being seditious and
disaffected ?—Why, if guilty, are they not proved so
and punished? There might, for aught he knew, be
some disloyal persons—even in the strictest religious
communities there were some bad, and those were
generally in appearance the greatest bigots, the bet-
ter to cover their own iniquities. But how were wo-
men and children to apply to these Tribunals? They
had not the means of procuring advice, and if a legal
Gentleman was humane enough to advocate their
cause without being paid for it, that, it should seem,
from what had taken place at the Inquest at Man-
chester, would be deemed a reason why he should
not be heard at all. The People ought to look up to
great public bodies, and they would look up to them
with confidence if they felt protection from them.
They might be ignorant of what was best to be done,
but they could feel their grievance, although they
might not, perhaps, know the proper remedy, and it
is not by Loyal Declarations, insulting the People, that
such feelings can be put down; if, indeed, the dis-
loyalty was so great and extended as these Declara-
tions described, the thing was impossible, and a
whole People would not submit to be so dealt with.
He contended, it was the duty of the Court to ad-
dress the Throne on great public subjects. how else
were Kings to learn the truth? They could only
know it through the voice of the People; and Junius
had said, " it was the misfortune of his present Ma-
jesty never to know the truth but in the complaints
of his subjects."--•
" Princes, like beauties, from their youth
" Are strangers to the voice of truth !"
How then should they learn it? Would their Mi-
nisters inform them of their own misdeeds? No;
they could leant it only from the voice of the People.
The Address cf that Court prayed only for inquiry,
and not for punishment, and was entitled to a dif-
ferent answer. It would be absurdity in the extreme
to call it gracious ; and it had been shewn, that
whenever that Court could not so call it, the word
was always omitted. The worthy Alderman, in con-
clusion, said, he was not insensible to the state of the
country, and recommended to the Court, as the surest
means of preventing the threatened dangers, to treat
the feelings of the People with temper and modera-
tion, and support and encourage inquiry into public
grievances.
Mr. DtxoN contended, that the speech of the worthy
Alderman was not at all to the question. They
were not then discussing the transactions at Man-
chester, but whether, in speaking of the Answer of
the Prince Regent, they should use terms of pro-
priety ? If they lost sight of dignity and decorum,
they would open a door to every sort of insult and
licentiousness.

Mr. BUMSTICAD allowed it was a great evil when
the Constituted Authorities were treated with dis-
respect ; but he could not consent to call this a
gracious Answer; they might call it proper, they
might tall it dignified, or any-thing else, but to call
it gracious, was a ♦iolation of the English language.
Mr.JAMES supported the Amendment, which, after
a few observations in reply from Mr. FAYELL, was
carried in the affirmative.

The LORD MAYOR presented a Letter he had re-
ceived from Mr. Alderman BRIDGES, accepting the
office of Lord Mayor for the year ensuing.
The LORD MAYOR again rose, and said he had a
Statement to lay before the Court respecting the con-
duct of Mr. Sheriff Parkins; the Court would do
with it what they pleased, but be felt it his duty to
present it to them, because he was of opinion that the
State of the City ought to be preserved.
The. Statement was then read, and Mr. BROWN
moved, that the same be entered on the Minutes, and
referred to a Committee of all the Aldermen present,
and a Commoner from each Ward, to examine and
report thereon.

...A long conversation ensued, in which it was sug-
gested, that it would be unfair to enter the charge on
the Minutes without the answer which had been deli-
vered to the Court of Aldermen, and bad also ap-
peared in print: it was at length agreed to suspend
the entry on the Minutes, and the previous motion,
with that omission, was then carried.

I!

Throne, wnicn extuou.ea nenner nunnuty nor duty, I the entry on the Minutes, and-dr 'Previous in—ottr:o-n,-
and at others profess to apprehend a " loving sab-1 with at omission, was then earned. I
1
•
•