A LETTER,
&c.
SIR,
You are so remarkably regardless of ceremony
toward others, that you cannot be surprised if you receive none
from those who may condescend to notice you. Your conduct
as a public character, for I know you in no other capacity,
has ever been consistent with that of the miserable and restless
faction with which you acknowledge yourself associated, and
which I contend has been the primum mobile of all the scenes
of disorder and riot that since 1812 have afflicted this neigh-
bourhood. In all their proceedings from that memorable period
when the fist mºb was called together, you have taken, if not
a leading, a very active part. How you were connected with
“ the respectable Whigs” before that time I neither know nor
care. Public report, which I believe you have not yet contra-
dicted, ascribes to you the authorship of the inflammatory
placard of which the consequences will not soon be forgotten.
It produced the assemblage of an infuriated mob in the pre-
viously peaceable streets of this Town, and an attack on the
Exchange, which the wretched dupes of factious artifice and
false representations actually attempted to burn down. Had
it not been for the prompt assistance of the Military, the “Now
or Never” bill might have caused the destruction of lives and
property to an extent which it is not possible to calculate. It
is here that we perceive the value of such patriots as those who
composed the “Now or Never * Committee. It is to that
Committee that we may trace the origin of all the disgraceful
tumults, which subsequently, under the names of Ludditism
and Radicalism, agitated and terrified the truly respectable
part of the population of this district.
When these lawless rioters, whose proceedings threatened us
with the outrages which afterwards occurred, had assembled,
they found themselves without leaders. Who could doubt that










4
that circumstance caused the evils which ensued Irritated
--- by the violent language which had been held out to them,
they spurned at the public authorities, and even attacked the
person of the principal officer of the town. At this time of peril
and danger, where were those who brought them together *
where were those who ought to have come forward and en-
deavoured to have dispersed them Where was the “Now or
Never” Committee? Skulking, most patriotically, in their
holes and corners. I know, for a positive fact, that a gentle-
man, as much attached to your party as yourself, went to the
Committee Room at the Star Inn, where I believe he saw you
in person, and represented the absolute necessity that existed
for the immediate interference of the Whig leaders. They
cannot, therefore, plead ignorance as the cause of their absence.
What, then, was the reason that the mob was left to pursue the
dictates of its own outrageous passions Was it cowardice?
were the members of the Committee petrified at the alarming
consequences of their own conduct ? Whatever was the reason,
they made no efforts to prevent its completion. They suffered
that to be effected by the Military. - -
I should not have alluded to this Meeting, if it had not formed
a prominent feature in the history of the Town, and been a re-
markable instance of the valuable services of the principal sup-
porters of the Guardian. We owe to it a succession of innumer-
able illegal assemblies under the direction of such paltry beings
as Johnston, and Drummond, and Saxton, and others equally
without name, weight, or consequence in the Town—men, who
could set the mighty engine of the mob at work, but who were
too desti ute of talent to stop it again, if its operations became
dangerous. At the Meeting called by your friends, the mob
first discovered its weight, and found that it could excite
alarm and perpetrate mischief. Such a discovery to the idle
and profligate was not to be neglected; and, being deserted
by their natural leaders, they chose leaders from their own
body. From the Manchester Whigs emanated all the
disorders which for several years kept the Town and neigh-






















º
5
bourhood in a continual fever of agitation. An abandoned set
of miscreants, “the vagabondizing orators," who supported
themselves by exactions from the small earnings of the poor,
followed the convenient example which your friends had set
them. They called meeting after meeting, and proceeded from
one violent doctrine to another, until they evinced that nothing
short of revolution was their object. This dangerous conduct
was happily checked when the Country was effectually preserved
from the bloody horrors of anarchy, or what is perhaps worse,
from mob government. This subject, however, has been taken
up before, and I shall pursue it no farther.
From Whiggery to Radicalism the distance is so small
that it is not perceptible to me. If there really be any, you
appear to have traversed it. When that well-conducted paper,
the Manchester Observer, was evidently on the decline, you
stepped forward to supply the approaching desideratum: “We
believe it will be genérally admitted, that no existing local
Newspaper has possessed a degree of public consideration,&c.,”
and forth came the Guardian. Soon afterwards, Mr. Service,
who had belonged to the Observer office, published an adver-
tisement in which he strongly recommended the Guardian as
an excellent substitute for the violent and abusive paper just
mentioned, of which, if I mistake not, he also asserted the
Guardian advocated the principles. If Mr. Evans could have
retained the Observer, the Guardian would never have appeared.
In his hands its most objectionable features were softened; the
asperity of its character was in some measure removed, and
it was gradually becoming, what we still want, a respectable
opposition newspaper. I do not deny that the Guardian is
superior to the Observer when conducted by Saxton, or even by
Mr. Wooller, who is a writer of acknowledged ability. You
have, however, certainly equalled it in calumnious misrepresen-
tations and flagrant efforts to bring into contempt the adminis-
tration of Justice by repeated aspersions on the Magistracy.
Even that deservedly highly-respected magistrate, Mr. Norris,
* See the Prospectus of the Manchester Guardian,

has not escaped the rancour of your press. You have wounded
the feelings of families by bringing before the Public the names
of private individuals, to whom nothing was less desirable than
the distinction thus forced upon them. Yet your Prospectus
said: “Whilst they (the Editor) will exercise the right of
spirited and vigorous animadversion upon public questions, and
boldly expose public delinquencies, they will sedulously avoid
all tendency to private slander, and endeavour to prevent the
best prerogatives and most important duties of the press from
degenerating into calumny and abuse.” .
Your friends boast of the respectability of the Guardian
on all occasions. Respectability! Sir, as an Editor, you have
done that which no man would have done who had the slightest
regard for the well-being of society: you have done that which
no man would have done who had the smallest consideration
for the happiness of his fellow-creatures in a future world: you
have at which no man would have dared to do who
reme Being. You have lent the
aid of your respectable paper to the disseminators of Sedi-
tion—nay, more—of Blasphemy. Sir, this is not a charge
which is of a trivial nature, or which can easily be shaken off.
I hope that it was incurred in a moment of indiscretion, and
not from an editorial destitution of moral and religious prin-
ciples. You cannot have forgotten, and I trust the town of
Manchester never will forget, your inserting the advertisement
of Paine's revolutionary, ribaldry and Carlile's horridly-blas-
phemous revilings of the Deity. You may say, should you
attempt a defence of such conduct, that you only acted the
part of a tradesman in admitting that advertisement ; that it
was inserted merely in the way of business; and that you
were not concerned in the contents of the works. Ignorance
of their contents cannot well be pleaded; for they have long
been matter of public notoriety. Do you think, that would
be a sufficient defence? Would you, with pretension to res-
pectability, insert an advertisement of some notoriously obscene
bºok, such as the Irish or Scotch selections of — songs,
§





















7
or even the filth of the quacks, who render our walls an utter
abomination?" I firmly believe that you would reject the
offer with indignation; nay, that you would treat it as a
gross insult. But surely the mischief that they can do falls
far short of that which would be the consequence of an adop-
tion of Carlile's principles. Carlile addresses himself to the
poor in purse and intellect; to those who are unable to per-
ceive the pernicious tendency of his doctrines, if the trash
which he publishes can be called by such a name; and therefore,
the evil extends far and wide.
Your Prospectus said of the Guardian that “it will zea-
lously enforce the principles of civil and religious liberty, in
the most comprehensive sense of those terms.” Do you attain
that end by promoting the objects of Paine and Carlile? If
you do, your notions of the principles of civil and religious
liberty are far more comprehensive than mine, and of those, it is
to be hoped, of an overwhelming majority of the community.
The Prospectus also said, that your paper would “support,
without reference to the parties from which they emanate,
whatever measures may, according to the matured and unbiassed
judgment of its Conductors, tend to promote the moral advan-
tage or the political welfare, of the Community.” I leave you
to reconcile your professions at the commencement of your
career with your subsequent conduct:—
Ultrà Sauromatas fugere hinc libet, et glacialem
Oceanum, quoties aliquid de moribus audent,
Qui Curios simulant, et Bacchanalia vivunt.
To what source can we attribute your inveterate abuse of
the Gentlemen, who fulfil the honourable and important duties
of the magistracy Why are their language, their judicial
decisions, and their characters constantly held up to derision
and contempt? “To promote the moral advantage, or the
political welfare, of the Community?” or, “to promote union
*
* It is singular that the Magistrates have not interfered: perhaps
they have not the power. In Liverpool this worst of nuisances has
been removed. -



and concentration amongst the friends of freedom in this
neighbourhood ” When Major Watkins liberally offered an
extremely well-written report of a public dinner in honour of
Colonel Fletcher, for insertion, under a certain restriction,
it was refused; because the refusal afforded an opportunity of
reviling the worthy old Colonel. This most active and indeſat-
hatred to the friends of freedom, in the cant phrase of the day,
by the important services which he has rendered to the Country
generally, and to this neighbourhood in particular. Some ten or
twelve years ago, when the peace of the Country was menaced
his exertions, that the Luddite system, which had extended
County, was defeated and entirely subdued. Hence, and to his
faction could heap upon him, has been his portion. May he
long continue to deserve it! With Magistrates like him, we
however highly talented they may be.
Why
easy to divine. He acts the part of an upright and indepen-
dent magistrate, and in a case of public emergency will be
found at his post. The known enthusiastic loyalty of the
Rev. C. W. Ethelston, at once points out the cause of his
receiving a share of the honour, which the abuse of the party
another respect. He was particularly active when the friends
of reform and freedom were attempting to commence an open
rebellion, which the firmness of our Magistrates and public
authorities crushed in the shell, :
dsso deeply as that which is merited. The gal-
The consciousness that the lash is justly inflict-
# §., º
igable magistrate, it is well known, has long been an object of
by the “union and concentration of the friends of freedom”
of that time, Colonel Fletcher was the principal cause of the
failure of their dark machinations. It was chiefly owing to
its ravages to the populous manufacturing districts of this,
honour does it redound, that all the obloquy, which a patriotic
need not dread the designs of the factious and disaffected,
Mr. Norris should be so often assailed, it is not
confers on all by whom it is attracted. He is also offensive in
























has properly described you, Sir, in the following words, which I
take from a paper that for a period of fifty years has maintained
a superior character for veracity: he said that you were “an
Editor who professed to be particularly anxious to establish,
and certainly was to assert, for his paper, a character for supe-
rior information, authenticity and correctness; an Editor, who,
they (the Commissioners of Police) must all have observed,
never failed, when the slightest insinuation to the contrary,
however just, was thrown out, to shew himself peculiarly
sensitive, nervous, and irritable;” to which he added, “ and,
whom it, therefore, particularly behoved to be extremely
careful what he asserted of others.” Yes, Sir; no sooner is a
fallacy exposed, than you confirm the exposure by your coll-
duct and language. When a “Bye-stander” reprobated the
report of the Bolton filiation case, which appeared in your
paper, as an attempt to cast ridicule upon the Magistrates who
heard it, and through them, to bring Courts of Justice into con-
tempt, you were rancorous and vituperative. Mr. Jeremiah.
Garnett, the barber's block on which the wig is exposed for 3...”
sale, steps forward with a very pugnacious espistle, in which
he challenged the writer to avow himself. Then Mr. John
Edward Taylor commences an attack upon Mr. Wheeler, in
language which gentlemen usually reject. From these
two angry persons we learn that Mr. Wheeler denied that
he knew the writer’s address; and also that it was contrary
to his usual practice to publish any thing from an unknown
author: hence they insinuate that his assertion of ignorance is
untrue, and that he did know the writer’s name at the time he
refused to give it up. I know nothing of these circumstances
but from the papers; but I cannot perceive from them any rea-
son to doubt Mr. Wheeler's word. There was no necessity,
that he should know the name of the writer of the chastising
letter; for, what it complained of and amply redressed was
pretty well known. On the very face of the report there is
a palpable intention of holding up the Magistrates to ridicule.
If it contained only the solitary instance of wilful perversion of












10
their language, in which a sound classical scholar is falsely
represented as saying onus probanda, I should deem it suf-
ficiently justificatory of Mr. Wheeler's conduct, and a proof
of the justice of the castigation inflicted on you and your re-
porter.” The latter, who in the course of the correspondence
made a sort of negative boast of his literary attainments, most
probably did not know that a scholar never lays a school-boy’s
stress upon a letter; but you, Sir, well knew that it was utter-
ly impossible that the gentleman, who was thus misrepresented,
could have made so gross, so absurd a blunder.
Though I applaud, and every one else must, who respects
the Magistracy, Mr. Wheeler's conduct in inserting the lacer-
ating commentary on your report, I think it censurable in
another point. He filled nearly a column of the valuable room
of his paper with an answer to your attack upon his veracity
and character, when his brief reply ought to have been:-
; – —“Vous me fites, Seigneur,
ſº En m' attaquant, beaucoup d'honneur.”
of your regard for the ro testow, for the decencies of so-
ciety, we have a striking instance in your behaviour to another
of your contemporaries. During ages the most barbarous, and
in nations the most savage, the grey hairs of senility" have
claimed and obtained veneration. There is something about
a man, who has merged into the winter of life, after passing
through the summer with credit to himself; who has reared up a
respectable offspring, and who sees himself living in another
generation, which excites a feeling that is more readily con-
ceived than defined. Yet, Sir, to such a man did you, a gen-
tleman, a man of letters and possessing respectable talents,
apply the opprobrious epithet, “slanderous scoundrel!” The
provocation, could any provocation justify conduct like this,
£3%
*In the GuARDIAN of Saturday last, we have, “deliberately
penned,’’ the very hackneyed words mirabile dictu, given thus, mirable
field. , I will venture to affirm, that there is not a man in Manches-
ter, who will accuse Mr. Taylor of ignorance, though two such pal-
pable errors occur in two such common words. They are words,
too, which are understood by those who know nothing of the language.
%




| 1
was not such as required the term to be applied on the occasion,
You were offended to downright irritation with Mr. Aston,
merely because he refused to violate his honour by betraying
the confidence which was reposed in him as a printer. If Mr.
Aston, or any other printer, gave up the name of his author
without that author’s sanction, he would be guilty of one of
the basest acts by which a man can be degraded. It is a breach
of faith, for which, the law affording no redress, the responsibi-
lity must attach to the character. It is an obligation upon the
honour of the printer, and can only be discharged by a rigor-
ous observance of whatever restriction may be imposed.
You have been too long connected with the press not to
know the necessity there is for absolute secrecy in an office,
and more especially in a newspaper office, where the writers
are, of course, the most numerous. A printer is with respect
to his author, what the lawyer is to his client—they are
each the depository of secrets, which on no consideration
should be betrayed. But what was it to you or to any man
who were the Correspondents with the Editor of the Herald?
If the charges preferred against you were false, they might be
as easily rebutted as if the real signature were given. I
remember on a former occasion, when a writer in Mrs. Cow- .
droy's Paper, under the signature of “A Commissioner of the
Police,” accused you of gross and calumnious misrepresenta-
tion with reference to one particular report, that you sheltered
yourself under the plea that the writer was anonymous! Why,
Sir, it was a mere question of fact, simply decided by turning
to your own file. This I did myself, and I found that the writer
was correct. I found in a report of a debate in which agentle-
man's character was involved, that the exculpatory part of Mr.
Law's speech was oritted. But what made the case the more
remarkable was, that you had accused Mr. Wheeler of misrepre-
sentation in his report of this very meeting! Not answer the
charge of “a Commissioner of the Police” because his name
could not be obtained You knew that it was unanswerable,
and that your file was your principal accuser. In such cases








12
as these of Mr. Wheeler, Mrs. Cowdroy, and Mr. Aston, what
have we, the public, to do with the names of those who ani-
madvert on the conduct of some other editor? All that con-
cerns us are the facts which are adduced, and if they remain
unnoticed, we very naturally, and very justly, conclude that
they are true. Your mode of evading a question on the ground
of an accusation’s being anonymous, when it merely refers to
a matter which you have yourself sent before the public, is,
to say the least of it, bungling. Your treatment of Mr. Aston,
however, I shall not designate by any term. It will be duly
appreciated by your fellow townsmen.
For precisely the same reason that all our active Magistrates
are calumniated, Mr. Green is vilified on every occasion where
his name or conduct can be introduced. This gentleman first
demonstrated that the office of Boroughreeve was not sine curé,
that it was not an empty title. He proved by his own exam-
ple, that duties, highly-important duties, were annexed to that
office; and what was still worse, he fulfilled them. This mºst
never be forgiven. Let him ever be remembered as the
“Blanket Boroughreeve.” This appellation may not be un-
derstood. I do not, however, charge you, although you
applied the epithets “slanderous scoundrel” to a man as
much entitled to consideration surely as yourself, with having
used it on any occasion whatever: but the friends of freedom
know that it was very liberally applied to him. Mr. Green
was Boroughreeve in the year when some of these friends,
headed by such fellows as Drummond, Bagguley, Johnston,
and others, proposed in order “to promote union and concen-
tration,” to proceed in a body to London with blankets on
their shoulders. Some of them really did attempt the journey,
and got even as far as Derby. Can any one doubt the object
of thi wise measure ? Can any one believe that this precious
“Meeting of the Inhabitants of Manchester” would have taken
place, if the previous Meeting, in 1812, to which allusion has
before been made, had not been assembled and deserted by the
Whigs of Manchester? This gross and palpable effort to bring
º
















13
about a new state of things was timely checked by Mr. Gr en
aided by other authorities. No aspersions on this gentleman's
character will be of any avail. The “ready cut and dried mo-
tion,” as one of your vulgar retainers termed it, will remain on
the Town's books, sanctioned by a great majority of the most
respectable Inhabitants. The Resolution is couched in such
positive terms that a transcription of it may not be unservice-
able—it may prevent another waste of time:— -.
“That the charges in the GUARDIAN paper of the 8th of
March last, imputing to Mr. Green a gross assumption of
authority and a considerable sacrifice of Police funds, whilst
he was Boroughreeve of Manchester, having been fully investi-
gated, it appears to this Meeting that such charges are Not
correct; but that this Meeting is decidedly of opinion that,
in his public functions Mr. Green uniformly attended to the
best interests of the Town, and faithfully discharged his duty.”
Keep this Resolution of one of the most respectable Meet-
ings that ever was held in this Town, perpetually before you; º
follow, in short, the precept of Horace, which I need not quote, º
and it will save you from other mortification, and, I will say,
disgrace. . . §
There was, if I do not mistake, something said at the
same police meeting about persons attending to vote for one
side. No; I recollect it was an Insinuation in the last Guar-
dian. Why, Sir, there is not a circumstance more common or
more noted than that you are always attended by certain
persons, on occasions where you deem their presence neces-
sary. Your letter carrier and others appear only on such 3.
occasions. They are tin kettles tied to the bull-dog's tail.”
I will grant that many came for the sole purpose of voting on
Mr. Green's behalf; and you gain nothing by the concession,
* A story is told of our Literary Colossus which is not
found in Boswell’s Life. It is said, that on one occasion the
pher came breathless to Dr. J obason—“Sir, Sir, do yo know
they have been saying of you?” “No ; how should
they say you are a great bull dog.” “Indeed: .
they say of you;-that you are a tin kettle tied to my tail
ºn
º





















ld makes on the “cut
He says : “As to the
'aylor alludes, it is
§ 1 as several
rument, and

to §
policy? This self-assumed importance ha
most ridiculous height. W §§§.3%
*lockhead, Cobbett, directin
scarcely less egregious egotist, the Editor
superintending the arranger ments of the Town. No, S
is not agentleman in Manchester, who with any consider:
for his own character, will condescend to appear at the bi
a Newspaper office, even though it be that of the respecta
GUARDIAN. It is a course which, by the way, you yourself
º
. do
not adopt. Mr. Aston's columns were as open to you as your
re tº Mr. Green. The calling for the name of a corres-
. is but a flimsy pretext to cover the incapability of a
satisfactory reply. In this instance, however, you supposed
wº that Probus was Mr. Hulton himself, and you were well aw
of the importance which you would ive, if you c ld.
that you had an opponent … -- i.
in. Besides, the kn
he French adage savs. tha
and it does not appear to me that, “We are informed,
have great reason to think our information correct,” o ś,
hear, but we really cannot credit the report,” makes a nearer
approach to veracity. They are, in fact, merely convenient
modes of introducing a topic. They resemble Charles Mack-
. lin’s . ation, “Bless us! was. not that a gun p” º which he
paration of Gun-powder. Such, too, is your own “We are
told,” which was so properly treated by “Probus.” with
same right that you enquired ra.
re informed