THE Evening Star. PUBLISHED DAILY AT FOUR O'CLOCK P.M. Resurrexi. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 7,1875.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2161, 7 December 1875, Page 2

THE Evening Star. PUBLISHED DAILY AT FOUR O'CLOCK P.M. Resurrexi. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 7,1875.

When we read iri a daily paper such sentences as "if the Mayor had done his duty there would hare been no need, Ac.," and "which the Mayor ought to hare done" we are naturally set enquiring what tbe particular duties ; pf the Mayor, are, wherein he failed to perform those duties so as to afford ground for the complaint,, and then perhaps whether after all there'was any ground of complaint at all. Such is our case now. We read these very sentences we bare quoted above in the columns of yesterday's Advertiser, and looking into all the circumstances of the case, with which we may also add we are well acquainted, we cannot see N the slightest ground for complaint against Mayor Davies for the part he did or did not take in getting up the address of ■welcome to Sir George Grey. The question is—(l). Is the Mayor bound to call a public meeting when requested to do so in a proper manner and by a sufficient; body of interested persons—(2). Was the Mayor in this case so requested as to cause ground of complaint by his meglect to do so ? To the first of these questions we return an answer in the affirmative; to the second a most decided negative. . As regards the first vra have only to say that we hold that .when properly requested the Mayor is bound to call a meeting, and it is « part of his duty \fhkk we maintain Mr Daries has never failed satisfactorily to perform. As regards the second we further maintain that'he was not so asked on the lastocct*

sion, : as to make it imperative on his part to assent,to the request—naymore, thathe acted by fair the wiser part in holding Jbimself aloof from it altogether. Just consider the Mayor's position-^with,re*. jjaM; to public meetings, and then tKe par^; ticular circumstances of the semi-'publio one for neglecting to call which',-Mr" Davies is charged with a breach of duty• It is usual when a public meeting is urgently needed to send a requisition to the „^tty^r;..4u^,signed_re^u«ißting bun to call one. The Mayor in accordance with the requisition assents, and names some day, generally two or three days from the then present time, on which the meeting is to take place, and advertises the atme in as public a manner as is possible, informing the people, moreover, of the subject they are invited to decide upon. Now in the case before us nothing of the kind was done. Although it was known some time previously thati Sir George Grey would visit the Thames, and although at the end of the preceding week it was generally! understood that Thursday last would be.the.day of his arrival, no.steps whatever were* taken to accord him a public reception or, public address. It was not until noon of the day before that Mr Graham (non-resident), Mr Bent (who has nothingto do with the Thames), and Dr Kilgour conceived .the idea of doing so and hunted-up «fhe Mayor to join inihc matter. Even when these: few, .accompanied by two representatives of the Press, held a meeting at Mr Wilson's offices 'no steps at first were taken to have,, a public meeting, and it'was not until it was suggested that the words "hole and corner" were sometimes used < in connection with affairs of the kind, and. had, "moreover,- an ugly sound, that it was determined to adjourn until the evening/ aiid call a public meeting of those who were favourable to an address being presented. It is to be observed that it was not a public meeting called to decide upon the expediency of having an address at all, but only a public meeting of those who were favourable to presenting an address, called together for the purpose of deciding what that address should be. How then did the Mayor fail in his duty at not being present P Mayors are allowed to hold political ideas as well as other people, and perhaps for all we know Mr Davies was not favourable to an address being presented, or at any rate, such an address as was presented. Was he then bound to be present andlio incur, like Mr JBagnall, a charge of being there under false pretences; or was he right in imagining that a meeting called at the whims of one resident and two non-residents was after all such a meeting as he was not emphatically bound to attend? It must be remembered that Mr Davies before this incurred some hostile criticism tor lending his name and influence to an attempt to organise a meeting which turned out a complete fiasco^ land 7\ which was got up under more favourable auspices than the late one, which in no sense of the word could be appropriately styled a public meeting! Surely if his public duties permitted it our Mayor is not to be called upon, under pain of being charged with a breach of duty if he,negiect3.|it, to call a public meeting at the demand of every three or four people who may choose to render themselves conspicuous in the way of addresses and such like gratulations, and to rush about summoning by bell and paper, at half-a-dozen hours' notice, a public meeting at the die» tation of a few, whether he approves of the matter or not. The Mayor is the chief officer of the Borough, and has to regard its interests, and. in all matters affecting its interests; it is/but right and proper that he should take the initiative; but this Was a matter which did not concern the Borough, as a Borough, at all. We were all glad to see Sir George, and some of u« wished to : reduce our gladness to writing and let him know it in red and blue. Well, let them do it, but surely it Was no part of Mr Davies' duty to see that it was done, neither was he guilty of a breach of his duty of Mayor if he had no particular desire to attach his signature thereto. It was decided to ask the Mayor to attend to see the address properly presented ; if the Mayor had not time or inclination to do so, surely that was no business of any one but himself. Those who were favorable to the address might have wished to see him there; those who were unfavorable are no doubt glad that he did not go. Who is to decide which party Mr Davies ought to have sided with, and who is to say what his duty in the matter is P Fot ourselves we decidedly think that Mr Davies' duty as Mayor did not call upon him to act in any other way than, as he chose. It was not a matter of duty ; he was perfectly right to act in obedience to his inclinations, and what those inclinations were is no business either ef the Advertiser or ourselves. ;