matter who, but, I believe, some suffering tradesmen, in
London, agreed to call a meeting of _distressed_ people in
Spa-fields, in order to present a petition on the subject of
their sufferings: one of the Committee, who had called
this Meeting, wrote to Mr. Hunt to come and assist at it.
This he did. Being there, he proposed a Petition, which
was agreed to. This Petition has appeared in the _Statesman_
newspaper, to which I refer the reader; and when
he has looked at it, he will be convinced, that, if the language
of _moderation_ be desirable, the language of this
petition is much _more moderate_ than that of almost any
petition, which has recently appeared in print. Upon
what _ground_, then, is this outrageous abuse founded? The
Meeting separated very quietly; never did any Meeting
partake less of riotous behaviour. In the evening of the
same day, a mob of boys and others attacked some _bakers'_
and _butchers'_ shops. But, whose fault was this? Was
it Mr. Hunt's, who seems to have spent a quarter of an
hour in endeavouring to convince his hearers, _that to commit
such acts was to prove themselves unworthy of relief_;
or, was it the fault of those pestiferous vehicles of falsehood,
the _Courier_ and the _Times_, who are incessantly
_inveighing against the avarice of bakers and butchers_?

"It is clear, that these proceedings of the evening had
no connection with the Meeting, but, on the contrary,
that every thing which was said at the Meeting had a
natural tendency to prevent them. As to the _attack on
the office of the Morning Chronicle_, that might possibly
arise out of what Mr. Hunt said at the Meeting. And,