The Sun. — London, England, 1821-02-21 00:00:00

petition now before the House thought it proper - to call-the Wention theAense to - !he language; and with respect to the last speaker, it was not unfairly to be. collected, that as he did not defend that language, he disapproved of it himself. Mr. BROUGHAM explained. He had not said that he disapproted the language ; -though, had he to prepare the petition, he might have prepar ed it in other language. Mr.. WYNNE explained. -Mr. DexmArt explained. He denied that he had expressed any thing which could be under stood as a doubt from himself upon the propriety of receiving the Petition. Indeed, -with respect to that part of it which said that " when the peo ple uttered the language of complaint and woe, they were consigned to the scaffold," he (Mr. D.) contended that it was literally the fact. The distress of the people had been worked into re bellion by the conduct of spies and informers.— (Hear, hear, hear !)—Referring to the transac tions at Manchester, the Hon. and Learned Member said it was odd enough that the Ministers themselves had never instituted any inquiry. There had however been a little judicial in quiry ; and although it had been broadly as serted that cart-loads of stones had been carried to the meeting at Manchester, and that one of the Magistrates had been trampled upon, yet net 'the slightest evidence had been offered upon the judicial inquiry, for the purpose of shewing the truth of those statements.—(The Hon.and Learned Member alluded, of course, to the trial of Mr. Hunt.)—lle was aware that many of his friends were not perhaps inclined to go the length of the sentiments contained in the Petition.' But he -never remembered a Petition presented to that 11 °as'e which met with the unanimous approval of all parties. The people he did not think were bound to couch their , complaints to that Ifous e in. such language as should suit their tastes. It was requisite that the House knew what were the sentiments of the people, and this being done in th e form of petitions, they were in the ordi- Pary cou rse pr i nte d f or t h e accommodation of the House. It was not for the purpose of dissemi nating libels through the country, nor could it have that effect, that he desired the present Peti tion should be printed. Undoubtedly.the sub ject of that debate might in some shape find its way to the public ; but it appeared to him that it Was necessary this Petition should be widely circulated amongst the Members of the House, and he thought printing it would alone ensure it. Mr. B. AVILBRAIIAM explained. All he said was that the subject would be investigated be fore the close of the Session, and that he was not avers e to its being investig ated in a prope r manner . Mr. BANKEs moved th at the petition should be read again. The petition was then read ; after which strangers were ordered to withdraw.—The House divided— Ayes,,,, Nuts ..., Majority. 64 !30 -66 NM. JOHNSON'S CASE. Mr. Honnousr, adverting to the statement which had appeared in the public journals with respect to the refusal of the Secretary for the Home Department to accede to the Petition, praying that Mr. Johnson, who was at present a • Prisoner in Lincoln Castle, in consequence of his Appearance at the Manchester Meeting, might allowed t o go and see his wife, who w as i n a ( 'Yin g state, in the' vicinity of Manchester, _and .I° ll o was now n o more ; took 'occasion to ask th e ki nder. Secretary of State, whether the statement alluded to were correct, and if so, upon what g r ound the Noble Lord at the head of the De- Partment thought fit to refuse the permission so licited under such peculiar circumstances ? Mr. CLivE expressed his readiness, to give the l l o n. Member any information in his power, but upon this occasion he had, inTact, no information to give him, as he had no personal knowledge whatever of the transaction referred to, the statements of which he had, merely seen in the Public papers. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL rose., and spoke for soll le minutes, in so low a tone as to be quite in audible in the gallery. He observed, that it was not competent to the Secretary of State to Macced e to the request alluded to by the Hon. ember. If-the wife of Mr. Johnson could have been conveyed to Lincoln Castle, there would of course have been no objection whatever to her husband's communication with her. But Mr. J ohnson cou ld not ,be legally allowed by th e S ecretary of State, or by any other authority, to go to Manchester, unless the remainder of his sentence of imprisonment were remitted, and un der the peculiar circumstances of the case .it , I.% 's felt, upon due consideration, th a t such a re f n '";on could not be consistently g ran t e d. There -1170, tin... Secretary of Stat e , wh o was most lin toa4ely disposed toward th e o bj ec t o f M r . John , re t ' l .) ekt Was preclud e d f rom gra tif y i ng hi s w i s h to e the prison er un d er suc h me l anc h o l y cir earn_ rShat • tIOBIIOUSE asked the Learned Gentleman 1 4),,r .,was the term of Mr. Johnson's sentence of :sonment which et remained T he ATTORN-ET-GENERAL replica, that he 4ld not pre c i se ly sa y, b u t lie recollected th a t. r • Johnson was committed last year._ Lord SCOTCH R EPRESENTATION. goon A. HAM ILTON gave n o ti ce o f a mot i on, s after Easte r , r esp ec ti ng th e s t a t e o f t h e notice Co un t y R epresentat i on. li e had given fi ° t tice of a s i m il ar motion last year, , and he thoughty to give e ar l y notice, as the same papers as l as t i, e ar would he. necessary. lie gave noti ce f or u esday, Ist of May. „ firc,;ll4lE . SHERIFF OF et-E' 1 • arr. C REEVEY, pursuant to - notice, rose to make 13 motion relative to the conduct of the High eril” of the County of Chester, founded on the petition comp l a i n i ng o f the sae present e d t o th e l ous e by a Noble Friend of his (Lord Belgrave) , °ll th e o t h u l t. H e should d-tain the House as l ittle as possible, hut before he made any obser vations on the , subject, he moved that the Peti tion in question be read by the Clerk. This havin g been done, the •Tion. - Member resumed, and proceeded to comment on the allegations of the Petition. Nssumin Were correct it a g that th e s e a ll egat i ons , ppeared then that a Requisition I had been addressed to the High Sheriff to con-1 vane a meeting for ttie pUrpose of` considering or a loyal Address to be presented to his Majesty This.meeting was accordingly. convened, and r loyal Address to the Crown was moved and se conded by two most respectable and well known persons. It appeared also that, on the sami occasion, another Address, equally loyal, was moved and seconded by Lords Grosvenor and Crewe, persons equally respectable with tht others. The High Sheriff, however, took upon him self to'saythat one of these Addresses was irrelevant. What he meant by that he (Mr. Creevey) did not know ; but he took upon himself to say, that the _Address moved by Lords Grosvenor and Crewe should not, he put, by which he deprived them of their right of petitioning. He not Gill) refused to put this Address, but he refused even to put the negative on the original address.-- According to the allegations of the petitioners, this High Sheriff pronounced one paper to be the loyal Address, whilst th e ma j or ity o f the meeting was in favour of the other. This being the case, the question was, how were they to deal with this high Sheriff? It was the undoubted right of the subject to petition the Crown and Parliament upon all subjects, especially for the redress of grievan ces. The Hon. Member referred to the case.of_ similar. nature on the journals of the House for the year 1680, at the latter end of the reign of • Charles the Second, in which the Recorder of the City of London, Sir G. Jefferies, was complained of by the citizens of London, in a petition to that House, for partial conduct. at a public meeting. The journals con tained a resolution. oa that question, declaring that such conduct was a dereliction of duty on the part of the officer—an open violation of the Constitution, and an infringement on the rights of individuals, greatly tending to the introduc tion of arbitrary power. The manner in which the Rouse disposed of that petition . was, by re ferring it to a S e l ec t C omm ittees—That Com mittee, with Mr. Clencher as Chairman„reported to the House, that they had examined evidence touching the charges preferred against Sir G. Jefferies;and were of opinion, that that officer had by his conduct betrayed tl e rights of his Majesty's subjects, and that an Address - should be' presented to the - Crown from the House, pray ing, that he be 'removed from his office. The case of the High 'Sheriff of Cheshire, on the present occasion, he thought was precisely the same as that he had quoted, • and they ought therefore to pursue the same course. They had nothing befoSe them but the allega tions of-the Petitioners. According to those al legations -the rights of the people of Cheshire had been betrayed—they had been deprived of their right of petitioning the Crown in the same man ner as - ".];le citizens of London were in 1680 by Sir G. Jefferies. They were therefore entitled, by the law of the land, and by .thepractice of Parliament, o have their Petition referred to a Committee, to have the facts stated in it testifi ed ; and if they were proved to -the satisfaction of the Committee, than he should move that House on the subject of the conduct of the High Sheriff. He thought this complaint of these Petitioners entitled to every attention on the part of that House. Independently of its being . a most gross violation of the duties of the High Sheriff,- and an infringement on the rights of the subject, it-was peculiarly deserving of at= lention at this day, when those Bi:ltsweie in full operation which placed the sacred right of peti tion in the hands Of the Mayors of towns and the competent local Authorities of the county. It was so seldom that these Gentlemen would call meetings, that it-was absolutely necessary„ when they did condescend to do so, that they acted with beciiming justice and impa . rtiality. And this , was the more necessary still, when•the Noble Lord opposite, on all occasions when the senti ments of the Country were referred to, set forth as the real senti men t s o f t h e C o u n ty, those de clarations got up much in the same way as the Cheshire Address, by the Clergy and creatures who cut a great figure in the Gazette, and this the - Nobl e L or d called public opinion ! Whilst' such - people as these had free expres sion of their sentiments, it was too much -that such -as L or d G rosve n or an d Lord Crewe, and • the Freeholders of the County of Ches ter, should .be excluded by the basest arts. They were not content, however,' with sim ply excluding them, but they abused them also. The Corporations and Clergy, throughout the kingdom now monophlized the whole loyalty to themselves. The lion. Member read several extracts from loyal Addresses inserted in the Gazette; deprecating the existence of sedition and blasphemy. The Clergy were at the head of all the abuse of the nation. The County of Chester itself was in the curious predicament of having a Bishop -at on * end of it, and a " Wel lington Club" at another, dealing out abuse in general terms and without discrimination, whilst Lords Grosvenor and Crewe were . not even al, lowed to express their sentiments. Amongst the Loyal Addresses siith which th e G aze tt e t eeme d , he found one from the Borough of Harwich,which every one who knew any thing, knew to he a re gular Treasury Borough. Two Right Hon. Gentlemen opposite, the President of the Board of Controul, and the Chancellor of the Exche quer, knew :very well that. if they sent two New-Zealand Chieftains down to that Borough, they would be duly returned.—(A laugh.)-- The language of -this Address was truly of the sublithe - order, and as it was transmitted by the Right - Hon. Nicholas Vansittart, he-supposed the only reason that he did not present it in person was, that his feelings were overpowered by the compliments paid to himself and colleagues in it. These were fair specimens of that public o g Anion with. which the Noble Lord opposite boasted himself and colleagues were surrounded. lie had only one boon to crave—and that was, that such individuals as Lords Crewe and Grosvenor, and the respectable freeholders of Cheshire, might be afforded the same opportunity of ex pressing their .sentiments as the loyal rotten Corporation of Harwich; With respect to the petition on which he -founded his motion, if it were proved that the allegations in it were true, he hoped the House wculd agree to a vote of censure on the - High Sheriff of Cheshire, so-as to' ensureat.the next public meeting of the County, just and impartial conduct, For liimSW, he knew nothing of the High Sheriffpersonally:= . All that. he knew of him was ,,th a t if th e p et i t i on spoke truly, he had done wrong in his publicca pacity ; and he hop e d the House would pass Ari opinion' . upon , it, He concluded ,by moving;,. " That the petition of Robert Bragley and others,' complaining of the conduct of the High Sheriff 9f Cheshire, at a meeting of the County, held at North wich on the. 19th January. 1811, be 'refer red to a Select COmmittee of that House, to exa mine the matter thereof, and report. the same to the Howe." The motion having been seconded, Mr. DAVIZNPORT expressed his conviction that the High Sheriff was a man of as independent a character and: fortune as any man in the king dc,m. If he did wrong 'orithe occasion alluded to, it . was an error of judgment, and riot wilful.— (He - tr.)--He never heard that the High Sheriff was a:party roan. It had been stated that he must be so, because h e b e l onge d to a newly raised YeAnanry Corps. This corps had not been raised as a party corps, but in a manner the most free fro n any thing like it. It h a d b een agree d u p on at a 'General County Meeting, and both Whigs and Tories subscribed. to its funds, and were among its Officers. He hoped the - House, before it came to a yote•on this motion, Would - consider that it was no small matter to drag a High Sheriff no to the Bar of that House.—(hear o—Country Ge itlemen were generally appointed to that otlice,• who from their Itibits of life were not likely to know any thing of the .business of a Public Meeting. atari , tell.s.them.to do one thing, and another, another ; so that they were left to judge for themselves,: distracted by a division of counsel. He assured the House that there was no situation in which a country Gentleman was more likely to err unwittingly than in that of a High Sheriff. Mr. EuEicros bespoke the indulgence of the House, in trespassing with a few observations on the subject under discussion. He had received a letter from the High Sheriff of Chester, written on the spur of the occasion, when the Petition in question was presented by the Noble Lord op posite (Lord Belgrave), which he would take the liberty of reading to the House, hoping they would make allowance for its having been writ ten in haste. It gave a clear and satisfactory ac count of the conduct of that honourable dual, for Which reason he. was induced to trespass on the time of the House with it. The Hon.Mern--,' her then proceeded to read the letter. It stated that the statement of the Noble Lord (Belgrave) if correctly reported in the daily papors, con tained several inaccuracies. It c h arge d hi m with calling a themeeting contrary-. to th e requ i sition, requiredwhich The requisition - which he received said nothing about the inhabitants. As to the proposition-of he did promise to ac ce d e to i t, if the Salt Lord Grosvenor, that they should. adjourn to a field, House were not large enough, and he sent his Under-Sheriff to clear the Salt House, in order that the meeting might be held there. • As to th e second cause of complaint, .the letter ob served, he was not called upon to notice that, for it was beyond his skill to control the noise. He had at one time been able to obtain a tem porary silence, but. after that, he regretted to say, his efforts had been unavailing ;—the cla mour was such that he could, not hear several of the speakers. That he absolutely refused to put the Address proposed by Lord Grosvenor he de riled, although his language might perhaps have been so construed. The letter further stated, that the writer was not sufficiently versed in Parlia mentary usage to be aware that the amendment ought to be put before 'the original resolution. He had, however, put the original Address, and also the negative, and a large majority in the spew of hands appeared to him to be in favour of the former. Of the justice of his decision in this respect he had since-been assured by many most respectable persons. A division had been de manded, but he had not an opportunity of effect ing it, and was, by necessity, forced to abandon the idea of a division as almost impossible. On reflection, he stated that he considered himself justified in not haVing put Ltird Grosvenor's Ad dress ; for it embraced topics directly hostile 'to the expressed purpose for which the meeting had been convened. He desired to know also, why he had not been called upon to call another meet ing for the purpose desired by the Noble Lord, if he thought he had not acted impartially on this occasion ? Lord Grosvenor and his party had stationed, themselves behind his chair, where they kept up an uproar, and endeavoured to di rect his conduct, in consequence of which he might perhaps have retorted somewhat warm ly. his conscience told him that he had acted on that occasion with the strictest impartiality,. and he had received with satisfaction assurances to that -affect from the greater part of those who composed the meeting. This, continued the lion. Member, was the statement of the High Sheriff on this subject, which had been corroborated by a great number of persons present on the occa sion., ivho were ready to come forward and state what they knew.--(Hear,- hear !)—The blouse would see how the greater part of the charges which had been brought by the - Noble Lord op posite (Lard Belgrave) were refuted in this statement. The Hon. Member also read a letter from the Under Sheriff of Cheshire, which stated that if there was any blame in the manner of con vening the meeting - it belonged to' himself,, who had, according to all .former custom, convened the " Nobility, Gentry, Clergy, and Free holders." lie trusted the House would see that the conduct of his Hon. Friend the High Sheriff of Cheshire,' was such as did not merit the stigma which had been east upon it. Mr. Gires- hoped the- Houee would not think it necessary to notice the conduct of the High Sheriff, unless something more serious were established against.him. The case as it now ap peared was; that -Lord Grosvenor and the Peti tioners had been outnumbered, and felt sore in consequence. If they did not like the manner in which the Meeting'was conducted, why could they not have withdrawn, as they had on another occasion, to some other place, and voted counter resolutions Mr. PnILLIrs vindicated the conduct of Lord Crdsvenot v.d his friends at the meeting in Ties- Con. t he'rnsob had not'_lieen - under the -bill Once of his opponents, he would not - have been prevented from being heard. If the High Sherit} was. really inclined -to act impartially, wh v had he not divided the Meeting when called on ? • Mr. BOOTLE W/LBRAIIAM contended for the power of that house to interfere in cases shni!ar to that then under discussion., He did not how ever think that there was any constitutional con nection betwixt the-High Sheriff and Parliament, and he was borne out in this notice' by the rune- rat,tenor of Watitstotte's remarks da the subject. He thought the House ought to- be.perfectly satis fied with the explanation which they had receiv ed fron the metah of the .High Sheriff himself, end as the case now really s .00d, he thought all the facts charged upon him had been amply refuted. if It's not having put the amendment before the orig . nal resolution were subject of grave accusation, the same,he believed,might be brought against the Lord Mayor of the City of London, who had committed a similar error on •a late Occasion; From his own knowledge, he could state, that the room was so full that it was impassible to divide the meeting. He did not mean to defend the conduCt of.the meeting in not allowing Lord Grosvenor to be heard ; but if that NOble Lord was at a loss to know what cause he had given for such treatment, he might remember that some expressions he had made use of within. the last few months had rendered him somewhat conspi cuous. He entreated the House to consider twice before they exposed this Hon. Gentleman to be handed over to the custody of the Serjeant at Arms,. which might be the consequence of 'call ing him to their Bar. Air.CURWENwas in favour of the motion. The existence of that House depended_ so much on the purity of the right of petition, that he was surprised to hear any one treat the matter lightly. That House owed its veight and consequence, superior to thatof all other bodies, to its con nection with the' people. If this were a motion for a vote of censure on the High Sheriff, he would not support it ; but it was merely for in qeir. v. Were the High Sheriff' his dearest friend, he should desire to go into the inquiry in order to clear him. Mr. Alderman Woon observed, with reference .to what had been said on the subject of the con- dact of the Lord Mayor on a lato- occasion, that he had put the previous question. If' he deserv ed to be called to the Bariif that House, there Were plenty of Honourable Gentlemen on the other side who would have readily done so: Mr. Wysixe declared his intention to give a decided negative to the motion before the House. He did not recollect any case of a similar nature having before occurred. He defended the , con duct of the High Sheriff in convening the Nobility, _Gentry, .Clergy, and Freeholdersi without men tioning the inhabitants. That had been the prac tiCe from - time immemorial. The mention of the inhabitants in calling County Meetings, was of very modern date.—(Hear !)—The neat part of complaint, was the High Sheriff's not having put; the Amendment before the Address. Now, he: really did not know what right the Members of that House had to expect that all bodies were to follow their practice and adopt their forms in every thing. Those who were for the original Address held up their hands, and those who were against it did the same, and he did not know a more intelligible way of doing business than that.' Then it was complained that no division was granted. lie (Mr. Wpm) .had never heard of a division of a county -meeting. lie recollected meetings of Freeholders to the number of eight or seven thousand, and he should like to know how such -a meeting was to be divided. It was even possible to convene a meeting of 15,000. — The ancient method was by a show of hands, and he called upon the House to consider the, difficulty of accomplishing a division of large as semblies. On these grounds he thought th e high Sheriff had done well, and should certainly vote against the motion. . , Lord BELGRAVE having been present at the meeting, rose for the put pose of offering explana tions on one or two points that had been touched upon in the course of the evening. He was anxi ous that the counter statements which had been made on this subject should be referred to an impartial Committee. With respect to the words of the Requisition - , which had been read different ly from his reading of them by an Hon. Member, he begged now to,call the attention of the House to them. They ran thus :—" We, the under signed, request' you to call a meeting for the pur pose of declaring the sentiments of loyalty to the Constitution, that animate the breasts of the inhabitant 4 of this place." These were the pre cise expressions used in. the Requisition. He was sorry to be obliged to contradict one- as sertion that appeared in the letter of the High Sheriff. He had stated that he did not distinctly re fuse to put the Amendment. He (Lord Belgrave) must'assert that when called upon to put it, the High Sheriff used these words :—" I shall take upon myself to refuse fo put the Amendment." lie briefly described the proceedings at the Flint Meeting, and vindicated the right of the People to meet in public, for the purpose of voting Ad dresses or Petitions, on any subject that might seem to call for them. He was anxious that the authority of the Sheriffs of counties should be sup-pm:U-4. as he knew that it was as important to a county that 'ts Sheriffs should be looked up to with rc\spect, as it was to the city of -Lon don that it Aould have a magnificent Lord Mayor. But he wished the House to remember in what manner the Sheriffs had formerly been chosen by the people, and he wished them to look cee-efully at any proceedings that went to make them act as the mere instruments of the Crown. Up to the 9th of Edward the Second; the Sheriffs were always chosen by the people,. as much as Members of ParliamAt were at present. He sheaved how this right had fared in different parts of the kingdom. In the . county of West morland it was vested in one Nobleindividual, and a Countess of Pembroke had actually sat as Sheriff on the Bench' with the Judges. 'This might- seem strange to Englishmen, but not so strange to foreigners. lie Was led to this' .cnn •chasion, from having the other day accompanied a foreigner to the House of Lords, who on seeing the iienzil of Dis!:ops, had asked of them, " if they were not Peeresees, who sat :there in their own right ?"—(A laugh.)... If the Sheriff com plained of. had. : been in an error, in a matter SD important. as to deprive the Freeholders.of an opportunity of expressing their sentiments, he thought his conduct ought to meet .with repre hension from that House. He did not wish to press against, this individual Sheriff, but he thought the Huse ought to reprehend !the con du :t pursued at Northwich, on the 19th of Ja euiry, and declared that the Amendment pro oo d ought to have been put, and the division called for granted. • ". Mr. %VARRE would have been better pleased,. hrd this motion been shaped so as to apply to S' er:ff. who had refused to call Public Meetings at .all. Their conduct seemed -to him worse than ti.at which was now_ the subject of cotnplaint. in the present case, he did not believ(i'that zhe Sheriff had acted with partiality—he did not be lif v.,. that that individual was carried away by a sfro ig political_ feeling either on the one side or tile other. .To him it appeared, that h had only erred on a point of form. Lord CASTLEREAGII thought no case had been ,made out against the Sheriff. He had heard his letter read that night, and he had never heard a letter read, that spoke more strongly to the candid mind a disposition to perform his duty, and to do nothing that was not right. He felt called upon to oppose the doctrine, , that in such a case..the individual complained of,' or the House ought to be exposed to all the inconve niences of an inquiry into the proceedings at a county meeting at which great confusion miglit have prevailed, and at which the High Sheriff might not appear to have possessed all that know ledge of the duty of a President, which it was .. desirable should belong to an individual placed in his situation. If he had no other .motive for op posing the present motion, he , should disprove of it from the injury it was likely, to do to county meetings themselves. He should be very, sorry to see county meetings discouraged, ~ as he considered them to offer the nos respectable and the most useful way of col lecting the expression of the sentiments" of - the people. No man who .knew the law of this Country, and who knew the benefits ~ whit h had. keen derived from County. Meetings, would desire to see them discouraged.. But sure he was, that if they wished to throw embarrass ments in the way of calling County Meetings, they could do nothing better than agree to a rno.? tion like the present, which would go to lake; from the Sheriff that discretion which he ought tx:, - exercise (which it.could be wished should incline... rather to the liberal .side), and to make him liable to answer fo them for all his errors, and expose . the House to the inconvenience of. having all the business of County Meetings .brought. be fore their bar. • He did not think it was for that House to lay down the law for the ge neral regulation -.of the- conduct of officers.who were only amenable to them in cases of. elec- • tions.. It would_ be to charge that House with an infinitely too great jorisdiction, if. they took upon themselves to controul the conduct of Sheriffs, not only where they were concerned in elections, but in all other cases. If they took up the subject on the ground that the .transac tions now called in question affected the right of * petitioning, he did not see that they would stop at County Meetings, it must evencl . to the pro ceedings of bellies assembled in their corporate- . •• character--to meetings called by Lord Lieute nants—to m ee ti ngs ca ll e d by Magis tratta—ta•- meetings in rooms—and to the meetings in Payee Yard. He would put it to the House, if they could conveniently exercise a jurisdiction so ex tensive, and if they did not extend their inter ference to all -public meetings, he did not tee on what principle they could attend to County Meetings. His persuasion was that the ch,a racter of the County Meetings depended on. the feelings of the country. The coodue • of those who attended them .was best hated by the consciousness that they were' i the presence of their neighbours and of their ati cestors, with whom they were naturally anxious to stand well. Nothing would tend so much to diminish the number of County Meetings as the • 'course now proposed to 'be pursuech He, would declare, that if he Were the Sheriff of a Collet v, he would not call a public meeting, if he were to be called before any tribunal to answer for the whole of his conduct through all the - citifies and confusion with which he might have to contend while performing his duty. That mat ters quite irrelevant were sometimes introduced at these meetings was known to every one. At a " late Middlesex Meeting to address the Queen, distinguished Parliamentary Reformer (Major Cartwright) had thought it quite relevant toin troduce the subject of Parliamentary Reform, • and his project for Annual Parliaments and Uni versal Suffrage. A very great Whig authoritY had disdpproved of this, and in consequence the • proposition of the Major was negatived. To him that proposition did not really appear more irre levant to the business of the day than that which the Sheriff had declined submitting to the Meet ing at Northwich. To him *it appeared neces sary to allow the Sheriff a liberal discretion. Mr. A. MOORE supported the motion, and re • marked on different. accounts which had been given of the'proceedings'at Northwich. if theie were contradictory statements before the HouSe respecting a• public right so important as that now under consideration, could any course lie more proper than to refer the. whole case to a Committee ? In his 'Opinion, 'The question now before the House was of greater itnpottance than that relative to the right of the Sheriff to refuse to call Public Meetings, Mr. CatevEy, in reply, - 6 - bserved, that if She riffs possessed the powers claimed by the Sheriff of Cheshire, all County Meetings must be miga-- tory. He had no vindictiVe feeling, and acted from public prinCiple only. The House then divided, - when the numbers For the Motion, Against it Majority OLD STORES. My. GRENFELL stated, that the papers which he wished to have laid before the Hoze referred ...122