Star.
London, England, 1819-10-13 00:00:00

iiil

~, : F

t'i
~
1

COURT OF ALDERMEN.

~_,r~.

The LORD MAYOR held a Court of Aldermen yes-
terday, at the Guildhall, at which were present—
Sic WILLIAM CURTIS, Sir RICHARD CARR GLYN,
Sir JOHN EAMER, Sir WILLIAM LEIGHTON, Sir
CHARLES FLOWER, Sir WILLIAM DOMYILLE, Sir
MATTHEW BLOXAM, and the Aldermen. Scnotiv,
BIRCH, WOOD, MAGNAY, BRIDGES, COX, TIIORP:
WAITHMAN, and ROTHWELL.
ACTION AGAINST THE LORD MAYOR.
The LORD MAYOR stated to the Court, that an
action had been brought against him by Mr. :Aline,
fot his Lordship's having caused him to be appre-
hended and held to bail, for publishing libellous and
profane pamphlets ; and he trusted that the Court
would protect him against the consequences of such
a prosecution, for conduct in the due exercise of his
Magisterial capacity as Lord Mayor.
Sir WILLIAM CURTIS said—Certainly, certainly;
the Court ought to bear his Lordship harmless.
Mr. Alderman WOOD thought the Court ought
not hastily to commit themselves upon such a sub-
ject : if his Lordship had done any act which ren-
dered him liable to be proceeded against by law, it
was his ditty to defend himself, and apply to the
Court afterwards, when the question upon the lega-
lity of his conduct was decided. That was the course
he had pursued under similar circumstances, in his
own Mayoralty, and it appeared to him to be the
proper course to be adopted on all such occasions.
The conversation, his Lordship making no reply,
then passed off, and the Minutes of the last Court
were read.

RIOT IN GUILDHALL ON MICHAELMAS DAY.
On the usual motion for confirming the Minutes,
Mr. Alderman WATTIIMAN. rose to object to the
confirmation, not, indeed, on his own account, or to
stop any proceedings against him, but he conceived
the Court ought to proceed upon facts and evidence.
The Minutes, he con:ended, were not true, inasmuch
as they stated that the Resolution to refer the com-
plaint respecting the supposed tumult in the Com-
mon Hall, on Michaelmas Day, to the Committee cf
Privileges, had been come to after the Sheriffs had
been heard thereon. In support of this opinion, the
worthy Alderman reverted to the proceedings of the
Court on Friday last, and took a very lengthened re-
view of the circumstances which were then brought
under disciission. He remarked particularly on the
asfertion ef Sir William Curtis, that he was not pre-
sent at the previous Meeting at the Mansion House;
this he (Mr. iNaitliman) declared was a mere subter-
fuge; for although it was true that the worthy Baro-
net was not present at the Meeting on Saturday,
when this business was first contrived, there had been
another Meeting on the subsequent Wednesday, to
mature and arrange the machinery of this charge,
and at that Meeting the worthy Baronet was present.
How then could he acquit himse:f of being a party
to secretly and previously - contrived accusation ?
Even if that Court had a right to inquire into the
privileges and proceedings of the Livery, which he
again contended they had not, their proceedings
ought to be fair, open, and above-board. The per-
sons who were implicated, ought to have notice ; an
opportunity should be afforded them of hearing the
complaint against them, and of bringing evidence in
justificatim of their conduct. Much of the state-
ments ma.lc by Mr. Sheriff Rothwell and the Com-
mon Serjeant were not founded in fact ; there was no
evidence in support of the averments; it was not
true, as stated in the Minutes, that the Sheriffs had
been heard thereon," for Mr. Sheriff Parkyns had not
been heard at all on the business.

The Loan MAron here interrupted, and said, ter- I
Sheriff Parkyns had been heard.
Heard ! replied Mr. `.Z'atrrt•..tati ; he was heard to
say, that he was entirely taken by surprise, that he
was wholly unprepared to make a correct statement,
but that he would be pi..pared, if time were allowed
to lay his account of the occurrences which took place
before them. Ile, therefore, protested against such
unfair and premature proceedings.
Mr. Alderman Wool) strongly supported the ob-
jections of Alderman Waithman ; he declared he had
never heard of proceedings so •wholly incorrect and
erroneous. He would never consent to the proseep-
tion of individuals, without any evidence but die'
statements of their accuser, and without giving them
notice of the complaint against theM, and hearing
what they had to urge m answer. He objected,'
therefore, to the whole of the proceedings respecting
the Common na, and concluded by moving, that
that part of the. Minutes be rescinded.
Sir Wit.t.tatia Cuerts opposed the motion. That
Curt had no power to rescind their Minutes.
Mr. Reconnsa now came forward, 'and said he
agreed with the.Honotwable Baronet, the Court of
Aldermen was a Court of Record, and, therefore,
they could not rescind their Minutes. The thing
never was done. _ _

Mr. Alderman DOMVILLE with much warmth,
expressed his indignation at ;he late proceedings of
that Court; they were entering into discussions and
inquiries about matters with which they had no con-
cern, and with which they had no right to interfere,
%Nile the real-and important business of the Court
was neglected, and left wholly at a stand. The Re-
corder was wrong altogether ; he recollected several
instances in which Minutes had been rescinded in
that Court, and once upon a business brought forward
by Sir William Curtis himself.
While Sir William Demville was speaking, Mr.
Alderman Wood had been looking over the Minutes,
and produced an instance in which some Minutes had
been rescinded.

On which Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN observed, it
was most extraordinary ; they were instituting pro.
ceedings upon ex-parte statements, and upon the
author►ty and opinion of the Law Officers; and now
it appealed, that even on what might be termed an
every day occurrence, these same Law Officers were
not quite infallible.
The right to rescind Minutes being thus admitted,
a conversation of some length ensued, as to the pro-
priety of further information, which terminated in
Mr. Sheriff Parkyns being called in, to give his ac-
count of the circumstances which occurred.

On the Lord Mayor's questioning him as to what
passed at the Common Hall, and what was the cause
of the obstration of the election of a Lord Mayor?
Mr. Sheriff I'ARKyNs replied, he did not know
drat there was ;say obstruction; a great crowd of

and several
Penuntwished
to
orestadled
srtheartivonerrth,
buewthhthtsaicehilelcgelaionnlywcasaunst
some delay in the election;
obstructed ,but did actually take place. Mr.
do, and
Thompson came forward to address the Livery, the
Common Serjeant said he had no right so to
but one of
bsoymoe:nutmleulmtenthwenhomtoohke pdlaidcen,
owthkicnhowwas, occasioned
them he understood was a Mr. Smith. One of the
City Marshals then laid hold of Mr. Thompson with
mMrr...rtinaithpmsoann:mcarm.
we
afiorth--
somes d , violence,a
:ai d No no
!wnhoi c!
h
man, and others, then addressed the Livery, as he
conceived they had a right to do, and in the course
of their speeches observed upon the duties of a Lord
Mayor. The Common Serjeant interrupted them
several times very improperly, as he thought, and
some Resolutions were moved, and carried almost
unanimously..
Mr. Alderman Woov said, it was now quite evi-
dent that the entry on the Minutes was erroneous ;
Mr. Sheriff Parkyne statement was very different
from that of his colleague, and they ought therefore
to go into evidence. He should persist in moving the
rescinding of the entry on the Minutes.
Sir RICHARD CARR GLYN agreed as to the right
t
of the Livery to discuss matter of a public nature in
Common Halls called for the purpose, or if Common
Halls were denied them, at their assembling for elec-
tions, but that should be after the election was over;
he thought the election should not be obstructed, and
should therefore vote for inquiry.
Mr. Alderman THORP thought that Court had no
right to interfere 'at all with the privileges of the Li-
very. They were an independent body, and if Com-
mon Halls were denied them, it was very natural
they should seize the opportunity, when called toge-
ther, of discussing public grievances.
Mr. Alderman &nen observed, that as there was
.so much difference of opinion as to the rights of that
Court, it was high time for them to inquire what
they were? and if they had any, or whether they had
only furred robes and gold chains, as he had been
told, and no power at all ? He appealed to the
worthy Alderman as to his own conduct; he thought
the Livery had a right to discuss public business in
Common Hall, and he had never denied them, or re•
fused to call Common Halls when so requested to
do ; at the same time, he must contend, that when
the Lord Mayor and Aldermen had retired, he
thought the Livery were bound to proceed on the
Election only.
Mr. Alderman WAITIIMAN bore testimony to the
conduct of the worthy Members, Glyn and Birch,
and allowed that they had always acted fairly ; that
they had never suffered their politics to interfere
with their duty, and had never denied the Livery
their rights of Common Ilalls : but he would ask, if
a Lord Mayor did refuse Common Halls—if when
the Livery, after an Election, attempted to discuss
public business, he dissolved the Hall and prevented
them—if when they proposed to meet without Lis
sanction, he threatened to shut the doors of the Hall
against them, how was it possible they could exer-
cise the right these worthy Aldermen allowed them?
The greatest latitude was allowed at all Elections,
but here the Livery were to be brought to the hust-
ings muzzled, and be told they had nothing to do
but to give their votes. He insisted that the inter-
ruption and interference of the Common Serjeant and
of one of the Marshals, was a gross assault, and a
violation of the rights of the Livery.
Mr. Alderman Cox and Sir Jolts F.Ammt thought
the Committee to which the business was referred was
the proper place to go into any inquiry.
V.-. Alderman WAITIIMAN replied, 'a very snug
Committee for inquiry, with the Lord Mayor and
the worthy Baronet a: its head ! He was well aware,
constituted as that Court was, there was no chance
of succeeding for him ; he could not, however, help
declaring, that, by erecting themselves into a Tribu•
nal to inquire into all manner of complaints the
Lord Mayor might choose to bring forward, and de-
fending him against prosecutions for his own con-
duct, they were making themselves a subject for the
ridicule of the whole country. What must the coun-
try think of them, when it was notorious the diffi-
culty they had upon general occasions to get toge-
ther a sufficient number of Members to do business;
and yet, at the last Court, when there was no parti-
ctflar business on the Summons, and when none but
those who had been privately informed had notice 'of
any business of importance to be brought forward,
no less than IS Aldermen were present, a greater
number than had been known for years?
Sir WILLIAM Curtris, in answer to the observation
of Alderman Waithman, said he was not at the Meet-
ing at the Mansion-House on the Saturday, but al-
lowed he was present at the. Meeting of Wednes-
day last.
The question for the conFrmation of the Minutes
was then put and carried, Sir WILLIAM DONIVILLE
and Aldermen Woon,:fitoap and WAITIIMAN, only
holding up their hands against the motion.
LOYAL DI:CLARA/102i.
Sir WILLIAM CURTIS, agreeably to notice, rose to
move a Loyal Address to be signed by the Members,
and observed, that at a time when the disaffected were
raising the standard of sedition and rebellion in the
country, it became the duty of the sober-minded and
loyal part of the community—the lovers of social or-
der—to declare their abhorrence of the libellous and
blasphemous publications with which the country
was inundated. rne public distress be considered to
be only of a temporary nature, and arising from the
war wholly. The worthy Baronet concluded by
moving a series of Resolutions, in the form of a De-
claration, which were seconded by Mr. Alderman
SCIIOLEY.
Mr. Alderman WOOD reprobated the proceeding
as calculated to irritate the nation, by charging the
great mass of the people with disaffection to the Go-
vernment, the ob'ectj of which was merely to cover
the misconduct of the Magistrates and Yeomanry of
Manchester. He knew it was in vain to contend, in
that Court, as there were persons there always anxious
to please in a certain quarter; he should, neverthe-
less, hold up his hand against the Resolutions.
Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN deprecated the conduct
anmduthche calking of
ti elarmgeberinodfiscarait-
tmofinasomteeminedeitivnidgus,alsas,
Court ; but he was of opinion it was highly desirable
that the cause should be taken up by men of property
and respectability through the country. These sort
of Loyal Declarations were wore likely to irritate.the