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

CHURCH BRIEFS.

Mr. LYTTLETON rose pursuant to notice, to
bring forward a motion respecting
.Church Briefs
and the monies collected therefrom. The Hon.
Member observed that if there was any defect in

the present system, he was sure the House would
agree that it ought to he reformed ; so that it
might be restored to the pious and benevolent
object for which it was originally formed. Before
bringing forward his intended motion, he. would
very shortly state a few preliminary circuni-
stances, in order to illustrate it. According to
the present system, when a church in a populous
district had fallen into decay ; or when a heavy
calamity, as fire, for instance, had fallen upon an
individual, it was the practice to apply to eie
Magistrates at the Quarter Sessions. They gave
a certificate, which was laid before the Lord
Chancellor, wh3 thereupon issued letters patent,
which were called a brief. The brief passed irn-
mediately through an officer, called an under-
taker, and the person usually employed on this
Occasion was a highly respectable Gentleman,
Mr. Salt, a banker residing in Lombard-street;
and he should observe that, on all hands, it was
admitted that no man' could discharge his duty
more conscientiously or honourably than this
Gentleman. On the receipt of the brief, a given
number of copies (about 10,000) was printed
and distributed among the several parishes in the
kingdom ; the Churchwardens of each parish
were required to collect subscriptions from pew
to pew, and from house to house; and the money
thus collected was remitted to Mr. Salt. The

rue.

lion. Member then enu:nerated the charges at-
tendant upon .obtaining a brief, the whole ex-
penses of which amounted to about 841., of which
but an inconsiderable portion went to the Lord
Chancelhr. The lion, Member stated, that in
no instance did the present undertaker take the
whnle of the perquisite to which he was entitled;
and, indeed, the opinion g,enerally received that
the undertaker received considerable emoluments
from his office was most erroneous. A report
had prevailed too, that the briefs were farmed :
and the consequence of such a report neces-
sarily was that -the spirit •of liberality b.:ca-rie

chilled, as few persons would bestow their
bounty upon the mere: purchaser of such a
privilege. The fact, not Znily that there
vas no instance on record of the farming of, a
brief, but that a statute which was passed in the
reign. of Queen Anne, against such farming,,was
for the purpose of contradicting the idea that the
farming of briefs was allowed by law. The Act
was not introductory. of a new law ; it was only
declaratory of an. old one. With these prefa-
tory observations the lion. Member said, he
would shortly inform the House the remedy he
proposed for the present defects of the system.
First, he suggested that most of the fees attend-
ing the obtaining of .a brief should be abolished.
At present there was a surplus-fund available,
-which might be laid out in the purchase of an
annuity for the undertaker, in,the shape, of com-
pensation, should his feeS be abolished ; for as he.
held his office for life, and no blame was attributed
to him, it could not be contemplated to deprive
him of his office without making him a compen-
sation. The next improvement was with respect-,
to the Stamp Duty at present chargeable upon
briefs ; and this duty he had no doubt the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer would willingly give up.
lie proposed, also, a more regular distribution of
the copies, and a more general reading of them in
churches. These improvements, with the disse-
mination from authority of an assurance that the.
farming of briefs did not exist, would, he trusted,
restore these documents to their original efficacy ;
and stimulate the liberality of the public to-
wards suffering individuals. _ The Honourable
Member concluded--by moving for leave to bring
in a Bill to regulate the distribution of Briefs,
and the application of the money.collected there •
from. Leave• was accordingly given:
- ADMIRALTY FEES.

Sir M. W. Ittor,Ey moved for an Account of
Admiralty Fees for the last ten years, with the
appropriation thereof.—Ordered.
CONVICTIONS FOR FORGERIES IN IRELAND.
Mr. G. BENNET moved for an Account of the
Number- of Persons convicted for forging Bank
of Ireland Notes 'for the last three years, speci-
fying the number of each year; and also for an
Account of the Number of Persons who were ex-
ecuted in that country for the same offence, dur-
ing the same period.—Granted.
"FLAX AND COTTON ACTS.
Mr. BROGDEN brought up the Report of the
Committee upon the Flax and Cotton Acts,which
was read and agreed to.
No r I'INGLIANI PETITION.
_

Mr. DENmAN said, he held a Petition from the
People of Nottingham, praying for an Inquiry
into the State of the Country—praying specifi-
cally fur an Inquiry into the Transactions which
took place at Manchester—(Hear, hear !)—and
also that Articles of Impeachment might be ex-
hibited against Ministers. • In the absence, of
Ministers he would not stop to say how much he
agreed in most of the sentiments expressed by
the Petitioners—he would not say how far• their
conduct appeared to him to deserve the severe
imputations which the Petitioners cast upon them.-
It was necessary for him to say that some Mem-
bers thought that the language of the Petition
was rather too strong ; for his own part, .he saw
no objection to the Petition ; but if the language
of the Petition was strong, the state of distress to
which the Petitioners were reduced should plead
for the warmth of their feelings. It would be re-
collected that Nottingham was mentioned as one
of those places in which trade had lately revived,
but in one parish in Nottingham. the arrears of
the Poor Rates amounted to six. thousand pounds
—a sum which, if attempted to be levied, would
bring the greater part of the working , people to
absolute ruin-4W warrants should be issued daily
to enforce the payment of that arrear. He stated'
the fact to slew that such men must have felt the

deep distress of their country, and that from them
it was but natural to expect, as it was only fair
to excuse, the warm expression of their senti-
ments. The Hon. Gnitleman concluded by• mov-
ing thilt• the Petition be received.
[The Petition was then brought up, and read by the Cleric,
It commenced by observing, that the present wet e not times
for the Petitioners to use the latign ige of adulation, but to.
speak as Englishmen upon the distresses and wrongs of their
country. They implored the if-louse, as they valued their
own comfort and security, to attend to the security and com 7
lot ts of their fellow-countrymen. They stated that the greatest
evils had been In ought upon the country I.y the acts of a cor-
rupt and unfeeling Administration, under whase policy the
,real glory of Englasid was tarnished, and her people bent
down under acts of cruelty and oppression, The motto "tif
rbose Ministers was .‘ Divide and conquer." They implored
the House to institute an impeachment aozainst therit for va•
rions injuries they had inflicted On the people, and for their
base and traiterous conduct. against their innocent, high
minded and persecuted Queen. They wisitd.to O'fify the peo•
pie by acts of tyranny—men were led to captivity, and
brought to the scalrold without cause. The people, stare, ing
wider distress and misfortune, cried nut for foul=: heir com-
plaints were answered the Corn Law—by swords and
bayonets—And disgraceful Acts of Parliament. Thu carnage
of the memorable 16111 ~f AllgliSi, a day of blond, Which was
not accounted for, deina tided retributive jostice. They,
irrayed that the traitors and murderers of that day might be
brought to condign punishment. The people On that day had
done no wrong—( Hear, hear :)—wliy then should they have
been butchered by armed yeomanry, who received public
thanks for their deeds of rinirder and of blood, from the ;Mi-
nisters of the Prince Regent ?—The petition was ordered ru
lie on the Table.]

On the question being put, that the Petitior
be printed,

Mr. C. NVYNN said, he did not object to the
motion that-the- Petitiau should lie on the table,
notwithstanding the offensiveness of its language,
but he could not allow an allegation to go forth
to the world, that men were brought unjustly to
the scaffold. Such a charge was a gtos insult
to the public justice of the country, and should
not receive circulation from that House.
Mr. G. BENNET said that he did not agree in
ull the statements of the Petitioners, but he had no

doubt that a great portion of them was strictly
But he could not but strongly object to
e attempt of getting rid, by way of a side
,vied, of the old right of printing Petitions. The
[l6ll. Gentleman (Mr. Wynn) could not produce
4 single instance in which 'Petitions were not
printed as a matter of course for the last two
years•. A late lamented:friend of his (Mr. Whit-
bread) had said, on the occasion where an alter-
ation► had been made with respect to the print-
ing of Petitions, that the language of seve-
ral Petitions might not often suit the delicate

ears of persons in that House, Whose conduct
those very Petitions might happen to impugn.
f t was quite anew attempt to prevent the print-
ing.of Petitions. It was done with a view which
was disclaimed in that House several years ago.

If it should prove successful, the thing would
come to this—that every Petition which express-
ed in terms-of honest indignation the feelings of
the people might be stifled ; Gentlemen would
refuse to allow such Petitiomte to be printed.—
The next step would be, to prevent the Peti-
tions from being reall-(Hear, hear o—They
might then decide not to' receive them at
He could not but se4 his face,against an attempt
to prevent ithe print ig Of TMistiAs under the
new-fangled laws and regulations of the Honour-
able Gentleman. One great object acknow-
ledged on all hands was, that the country should
be informed of the proceedings of that House,
but the present was an attempt to prevent the
country from being informed. The Honourable
Gentleman concluded by saying, that the right
of having. the Petitions of the people printed and
circulated, was one. which he would not consent
to surrender : he would take the sense of the
House- upon the subject.
Lord BINNING said, he was surprised at the ex-
aggerated view which the Hon. Mernber had
taken with respect to the printing of this single
petition. Was it to be supposed, that because
the House might refuse to print one Petition,
that therefore, they would refuse to print the
Petitions of the People ? The present was the
first instance ever since an arrangement vas made
with respect to the printing of Petitions, that any
objection had been made with respect to the
printing of Petitions. The old practice was, that
the votes should be laid before the Speaker. and
if any thing in the Petition appeared ummparlia-
mentary.or improper, time Speaker, using his dis-
cretion, war at liberty to .erase it. In his opi-
nion, the House should not be deprived- of the
right to keep back from the People matter which
was insulting to the character of England.
Sir ROBERT WILSON said he did not rise to
justify all the allegations in the Petition.
But could. it be denied teat men were put to
death in open violation of the law—could it be, .
denied also, that Ministers refused to bring the
parties accused of the murder to justice ? But
Ministers did more than that, they rewarded
those persons with a vote of thanks ; and the
Magistrate who was accused of having given the
order for attack, received- a lucrative place from
the. hands of Ministers.--The Petitioners gave
Ministers an opportunity, if they, dared, to enter
into a justification of their conduct. ,It also gave I
an opportunity to that House to redeem their I

character. It was a melancholy and disgraceful
fact, that six hundred and twenty persons were
either killed or maimed on the 16th of August,
and that no inquiry whatever followed. lie (Sir
Robert) was in a Court of Law a few days since,
when a Member of that House (Sir Francis Bur-
dett) had been brought up to, receive the judg-
ment of the. Court, because he addressed a Letter
to his Constituents, under feelings of indignation
which did honour to his heart. For that the Hon.

Baronet was consigned to a prison; but persons
whom he (Sir Robert) was prepared to prove guilty
of murder—yes, if an opportunity were allowed
him, he was prepared to prove the fact at the
bar of that House ; those persons Were not only
at full liberty, but were absolutely rewarded,
and encouraged, as far as impunity could encou-
rage them, to repeat the offence. 'ln the Court
to which he had alluded, he recollected the
Judge to have declared that no wrong.could be
committed in England without redress. Tie
would ask the 'House whether any redress had
been ever yet afforded to the sufferers of Man-
chester? He had been for 18 months attempting
to bring forward some inquiry on this metalcholy
subject, but he. found himself checked in every

point ; he found it impossible to bring the_subjec

before a regular tribunal.

The Gallant Genera

concluded by saying, that since the date of the
Letter, approving of the conduct of tl►e Man-
chester Yeomanry. every act of the Government
required a Bill of Indemnity.
Lord CASTLER EAGH said,
.that it was an ex-
traordinary assertion that the Government was
bound to bring persons to justice- accused of
crime. He thanked God that. they lived under
a Constitution different from what the Gallant

Officer supposed. It depended not on Minister;
to do so—every subject charged with a crime was
liable to be brought to trial for it. It could
only answer the purpose of those who wished to
inflame the public mind to prefer charges ofinur-
der against individuals. If such charges could
be legally sustained, why were not steps taken to
bring them forward ? Why did not the Gallant

General prefer those charges ? lie travelled ou

of his military duty to serve his country in a civil
capacity; and, if those charges could be sustained,
the Gallant General, instead of going down to that
House with false insinuations, was bound to

bring them forward in a regular shape. For
his own part, he gloried in the part which he
had taken with -respect to- that transaction,

in procuring the sanction of Government to
those whose bona fide efforts on that occa-

sion were dictated by what they considered,

. -
and what he believed to be,ia -sense of duty.--
The honourable General should not say that his
MajeStY's Ministers were withholding justice ;
though without the assistance of the Honour-

able General's advice, they had the fortune to
meet the approbation of the House, and, he be-
lieved, of the country ; but if it were otherwise,

it was not with them that the adrninistnztion of

justice resided. As to the words of the Petition,
there were scarcely any expressions respecting
the Ministers of the Crown which. should make

him hesitate to receive Petitions of the people-L.—
(1-lear!)----hut when the Petition spoke of acts
of the Legislature, and of the administration of

justice, in the terms v hich had been read, be
thought that to receive it would be' to encourage
the predominant spirit out of doors. It might
benaturally said, that if there was any objection
to the Petition, it should have been taken on the

question that it be allowed to lie.on the Table.—

(Hear!)--This was true; -hut 5,7.11 en, from ivad,

vertence or otherwis, an objectionable Petition

was laid upon the Table, were they to be de-
prived of all discretion, and obliged to print and
send forth a libel ?

Sir R. WILSON said, he had not asserted any
thing that he was not prepared to prove. lii
charged_ ale parties to the transaction of the 16th

of August with murder, and he was prepared to
take the responsibility of that charge.—(Hear!)
Lord CASTLEREAGH said, the Hon. General
had better bring that charge before a competent
tribunal.—(Bear!)
Sir M. RIDLEY said, that when the new mode
of printing the votes Was first pro osed in the
Committei! he ha4' bjected to,the 'Toposition,
•
oNtie nd t laC, t e printi o ions
nigh lore entel thought that if a Peti-
tion was fit to 'be -laid on tie Table, it was fit to
be printed, and therefore he should vote that it
be printed ; though he was -ready to admit thit
he should have voted against the reception:.of
if a qaestion had been taken on it.
Mr. Wv.ast could not accede to the proposition
that every Petiticn that was received was fit to
Le printed, as there might be Petitions presented
containing reflections on individuals which it
would be highly improper to send forth.
• Mr. DICKINSON concurred with the lion. Bart. •
(Sir M. Ridley) that in the Committee it had •
been deemed an objection to the new mode or
printing the votes, that it might prevent the Pe-
titions from being printed, but it had been un-
derstood that the power should never be so ex-
erted.
Mr. B.tTHURST observed, tl:at whatever the
private opinions of the Mt mbers of the Com-
mittee were at the time, it could not take away
the power which the House possessed,• which was
proved by the very circumstance .that the ques-
tion was taken first on the reception, and then oat
the printing of the Petition.
Mr. BOOTLE WI LBRAHA 31, a I Odillsr, to that part
of the Petition which complained of the transac-
tions at Manchester, stated that the Magistrates
and Yeomanry had always been desirous foe an
intpiry into their conduct. Upan these trans-
actions an HonouFable Baronet (Sir Francis Bur-
dett) had last Session given notice of a motion ;
but had from time to time postponed it, until it
eventually fell t) the ground on the close of the
Session. It had, however, bee n renewed, and
the Magistrates and Yeomanry still invited an in-
qu'ry. It was known that the Bills, against the
Yeomanry (for none had been preferred against
the Magistrates) had been thrown out at two
Assizes, although the Grand: Jury at the last
Assizes was composed of different persons from
the former Jury. The Hon. Member sat down,
repeating the desire of the Magistrates and 'Yeo-
manry to meet inquiry.
Mr. Pm LLIPs said, that he had carefully and
anxiously examined all the facts relating to the
transactions at Manchester, and he had foundno- •
thing to justify the acts complained of. It had
been said in that House, that these acts had beeit
grossly exaggerated ; but nothing he had found..
upon his inquiry justified that assertion.—(Hear,
hear !)-:—Much stress had been laid on the re-
jection
by the Grand Jury of Lancaster of the
Bills against the Yeomanry ; but if what he
had heard was true, and he believed it to be
true, he could only say, that he thought no other
Grand Jury would have rejected the Bills. If
they could have .been presented in the county
of York, he thought the result would have been
different.
Mr. STEWART WORTLEY !a.'d that a Court of
Law 1‘ Rs t' e proper place for discussing the
question . As the Grand Jury had rejected the.
Bills of I ndictnh-tnt under the Cutting ft4--Mairti.
i„g- Art, why lnld not a charge of Murder bee
preferred ? Nay, why had not an Indictinent%✓
;
or an Action of Assault been instituted ; for either
of these proceedings would have raised the ques-
tion as to the conduct of the Magistrates and leo-
martry ? •
Sir Roaseerer WILSON explained.—The reasoa.'" •
an Indictment for Murder had riot been pre-
ferred, was on account of the result of the Old-
'ham Inquest. The Coroner had taken the inquest
in an informal manner, and whether he had done
so designedly or not, it was not necessary to in-
quire; but the consequence of that informality
was, that the Jury could record no verdict. A
majority of them declared that they would hav4'
brought in a verdict of Wilful Murder. As to
the Hon. Member's question, respecting an in-
dictment on an Action of assault, he begged in
return to ask a question of the lion. Member,
if on that occasion he bad lost a brother, a wife, or
a child, would he be satisfied w'em preferring ai
indictment, or bringing an action of assirmlt
Mr. S. WoaTeEr explained. He rnemely stated
that sue: a proceedinc, would 'raise the legal
question. •
Mr. BitouGnam said he thought it must be the
desire of the'llouse to put the Petition in print,
if possible, although he did not think it necessary
to defend the language. of it. The lion. ald
Learned Member .proceeded to examine the e7c.-
ceptipnable passages. -He o')jected, he said, to
no language of violence reyp-cting his Majesty's
Ministers—(llear, hear, hear! fam the 0 oposi-
tie). The phrase " disgraceful Acts of Parli t-
ment," must he understood from the subsequent
words as applicable to the conduct of Ministers;
and he (Mr. B.) contended (hut the people 11714
a right to stigmatise Acts of Parliament earrietll.l---)
the influence of Ministers ; and Wiel.re:peet
the other parts of the language, he crnr,iderel
that the people had a constitutional right to
co great lengths in the language of Petition.
With respect to the transa.c,tions 'at Manchester,
he declared that nothing on that subject
which had occurred since those transactions,-
had
altered his original opinion. Indeed he
thought what had happened since, had time
more to abate the respect of the people for 6e
administration of the public justice thanany thing
he had ever known before. Nothing had '5O
tended to shake the confidence of the people in •
that -best and surest support of a Government.
In particular lie regretted that the Grand Jury
of Lancaster had not found the bills of indict-
ment ; because had they found these bills, the
subsequent proceedings upon them, the convice
Pion or acquittal of the accused, would have re-
stored tho public;contidence in time laws.
Mr. LUSHINOTON begged to recall the attcn-
ticn of the House to the question immediately
mid 'r discussion. After some observations upon
the- Parliamentary law, to show that printing a
p 'tition was not a necessary consequence to red
- ceii•irg it, the lion. Member remarked,
even the Hon. Gentleman who presented the

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
Ifouse 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 the form of petitions, they were in the ordi-
Pary course printed for the 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
averse to its being investigated in a proper manner.
Mr. BANKEs moved that 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 to go and see his wife, who was in a
('Ying state, in the' vicinity of Manchester,
_and
.I°llo was now no more ; took 'occasion to ask the
kinder. Secretary of State, whether the statement
alluded to were correct, and if so, upon what
ground 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
llon. 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
sollle 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
Maccede 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.
Johnson could not
,be legally allowed by the
Secretary of State, or by any other authority, to
go to Manchester, unless the remainder of his
sentence of imprisonment were remitted, and
under the peculiar circumstances of the case .it
,I.%'s felt, upon due consideration, that such a re-
f
n'";on could not be consistently granted. There-
-1170, tin... Secretary of State, who was most lin-
toa4ely disposed toward the object of Mr. John-
, ret'l.)
ektWas precluded from gratifying his wish to
e the prisoner under such melancholy cir-
earn_
rShat • tIOBIIOUSE asked the Learned Gentleman
14),,r.,was the term of Mr. Johnson's sentence of
:sonment which et remained
The ATTORN-ET-GENERAL replica, that he
4ld not precisely say, but lie recollected that.
r• Johnson was committed last year._
Lord SCOTCH R EPRESENTATION.
goon A. HAMILTON gave notice of a motion,
s after Easter, respecting the state of the
notice County Representation. lie had given
fi°t
tice of a similar motion last year,
,and he thoughty
to give early notice, as the same papers as last
i,ear would he. necessary. lie gave notice for
uesday, Ist of May.

„ firc,;ll4lE. SHERIFF OF et-E'
1
• arr. CREEVEY, 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 complaining of the sae presented to the
louse by a Noble Friend of his (Lord Belgrave)
,°ll the oth ult. He should d-tain the House as
little 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
having been done, the •Tion. -Member resumed,
and proceeded to comment on the allegations of
the Petition. Nssumin
Were correct it a g that these allegations
, 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 the majority of 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 Select Committees—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 sentiments of the County, 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 -Noble Lord called public opinion !
Whilst' such -people as these had free expres-
sion of their sentiments, it was too much -that
such -as Lord Grosvenor and 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 the Gazette teemed,
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 ogAnion
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,,that if the petition
spoke truly, he had done wrong in his publicca-
pacity ; and he hoped 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 he belonged 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 had been agreed upon
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 charged him with
calling a
themeeting
contrary-. to the requisition,
requiredwhich
The requisition- which he received said nothing
about the inhabitants. As to the proposition-of
he did promise to accede to it, 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
the 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 the 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 meetings called by Magistratta—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