Star.
London, England, 1821-02-10 00:00:00

CONDUCT OF SHERIFFS.

Lord BELGIt AVE presented a Petition, complain-
ing of the conduct of the High Sheriff of the County
of Chester. Notwithstanding that the rights of the
subject had been invaded, yet he should feel very
great reluctance in coming forward to make any
statement that might bear on the character of any
individual, had he not been called on by the earnest
entreaty of three hundred very respectable Free-
holders, to explain to that House their complaints.—
The facts of the case were, that the Sheriff had been
required to convenes Public Meeting oflhe Nobility,
Clergy, Freeholders, and other Inhabitants, with a
view to draw up an Address to the King, expressive
of their loyalty and attachment. The Sheriff, in call-
ing the Meeting, limited-it to Freeholders only, to
the exclusion of all others. having a roll of the
Freeholders of the County, he (the Sheriff' could not
be at a loss to know who were Freeholder and who
were not. What could be more monstrous than such
conduct ? as if the Freeholders had possessed a mo-
nopoly of loyalty, and exclusive attachment to the.
King and Constitution. Several thousands, who were
not Freeholders, attended at the Meeting; and he,
should say, they were as attached to the Constitution
as any others. A very near relative of his attended,
with the intention of proposing an Amendment ; and
the moment of his rising in the Meeting was the
signal for confusion. His rising bad produced
such tumult and confusion " as eye Lath not seen
nor ear heard." And he should state to the House
what the nature was of that Amendment which had
caused so much confusion and noise. It went to state
the strongest attachment to the Constitution and laws
of these realms, to pray for the dismissal of the King's
present Advisers, and to recommend the insertion of
her Majesty's name in the Liturgy. He should ask
it these were not very fit subjects for an Address ?
Was it not proper the People should declare their
loyalty ? Was it not right to recommend to his
Majesty to dismiss from his presence those who were
the real authors of the distresses of the country ?
Was it not fit 'that the Queen, who had stood her
trial and bad been acquitted, should have the full
benefit of that acquittal ? He would ask, if it were
not more loyal to discusi these subjects, than to poisoi
the King's 'mind by instilling into his ears the wicked-
est falsehoods—that he stands on the brink of a pre-1
cipice—that he should guard against his People
thusloading a brave and suffering People with ca-
lumny and abuse? When the Amendment was read
to the Meeting, the People received it with applause.
And the Sheriff being asked to put it to the vote, be
replied he would not, and would take entirely on
himself the revonsibility—( Cries of Hear ! from the
Opposition).—He exhorted the House to attend to
the circumstance of the Sherif having usurped the

exercise of a discretion which °he coniendeddid not
reside in that Officer. Where discretion in a public
Magistrate began, there law and liberty ended—
hear).—The Sheriff 'had no legal right to
sit exclusively at the head of a Meeting which be
convened—he was only there to collect the sentiments
of the Meeting: There was such a thing as a zockd
Sheriff. and it was said, too, to be a prerogative of
the. Crown; however illegal it was. 'An Officer coM.
ing wider:fltutdescription, was a great means, in thy
hands of secorrUpt Ministry; to keep'up an improper
influence. He concluded by *Win/ that the Petitt
be brought ug.