The Statesman.
London, England, 1821-02-23 00:00:00

• 11.1.11.1.P.Mb inc
.7.,
tea that the imperial Parliansielt was Ws &peso& to
listen to their complaints, or to tediess their wrests.
Mr. D. BROWNE opposed the motion, and edlO-
gised the late tranquillity and loyalty of the Irish*
'people.
Sir JOHN SEBRIGHT observed that having
voted for the late restrictions on public meetings, he
felt himself bound to say, that in so doing, he looked
to meetings such as that held at Manchester. He
tevermeant, however, that the rights given to She-
riffs should be used as they had been used In Ireland
,open this oecaaioa. The speech of the Right Hon.
Secretary for Ireland (Mr. C. Grant), bad convinced
him that the present iras of all cases that on which it
was of the highest importance to appoint a committee.
6--(Hear, hear.) It might certainly hive been sup-
posed that ever sheriff would have had a greater de.
ferenee for established usage, for public opinion, and
the dignity of his ancient office, than to act in so
.doubtful a manner. He should be sorry to find his
. Majesty's Ministers throw any impediment in the way
of the only effectual or satisfactory mode of investi-
gating the subject.
• Mr. B. BATHURST said time late restrictre sets did
not apply to Comity meetings, which stood entirely on
the basis of cowmen law. The only question which the
House had now to consider was, whether this was the
most proper tribunal before which the inquiry amid be
carried en. If the Sheriff had done wrong, what punish-
ment was the House to inflict on him, or had they the
.saine means of examiniegeridence which were possessed
itt courts of law? If theamte abothiinvolve any points
of law, that was surely not the place for coming to a de-
cision of them. If they were to appoint a committee,
this would not prevent individuals who thought them-
selves aggrieved from seeking their remedies against
the Sheriff at the same time in the ordinary courts of
justice. Now, what a strange situation would the House
he placed in, if two distinct proceedings took place on-
the same subject of investigation 1 If that House pass-
ed a resolution of censure or of acquittal, it would not
prevent the parties complaining from instituting legal
proceedings.
Mr. M. Fir:GERALD and Mr. B. BATUeRST mutually

explained.
Mr. J. P.MIANT said, it appeared to him that all
the arguments of the right lion. lientleman proved
this, if thcy proved any thing—that there was no
vase where private individuals, haying remedy at law,
ought to Ile allowed to come for redress to that House.
If that were indeed the case, be wondered why they sat
at all as a [louse of Parliament.—(hear.)
Mr. EL:.iti read a passage from the petition, to show
that the allegations contained in it were different from
the account he •00l others gave of the transaction.
11r. ti. MARTIN contended, that the subject was not
one that ought to occupy the attention of a committee.
Mr. PEEL said, he could not avoid expressing his
regret that resort had been had to a military force on
this occasion.—(hear, hear.) Ile stated this, because as
be natant to give his vote against the *notion, an inference
slight be drawn from that circumstance that he thought
the interfcre*lce of the military justified in the case
alluded to. Ile, however, approved of the conduct of
the ir:,h government in not censuring the sheriif, or
even causing an inquiry to be made into iiis conduct;
soul he did so on this principle—because he had
always considered it most injudicious in the govern-
ment of Ireland to interfere at all with Ministerial
°Seem

Mr. C. (.RANT explained.
- tale J. MACKINTOSH said i 4 hod hems
ii would have been improper for the tioverntuent of Ire-
land to have reinoved the Sheriff from his office, even if
they knew that he had •iiimwonducteml himself in it. That
might, as a general principle, he trite ; but if it were
rrtie, what should be said of Ministers who, without in-
quiry, and even without hearing(, removed from his post
one of the most illustrious, virtuous, and respectable
men in England—giving I • the first intimation of his
dismission, too, in a way which would have been thought
Lash front a private master to a menial servant, to wit,
by a paragraph inserted in a Ministerial newspaper ? If
ee notch respect was flue to the Sheriff of Ihtblitt, surely
a little respect ought to have been shown to the illustri-
ous individual to whom he had alluded : and the house
ought to examine into the rouse of so much rigour on
the one band and so much lenity on the other : the lenity
was shown to a man who rut short a proceeding
likely to terminate in strictures upon the tiovernment
the rigour was exercised towards one who favoured
the expression of public opinion.—(llear, hear, hear.)—.
It had been argued that the violation of individual
right was not a wrong fur the inquiry of the House of
t on:mons ; but where could a definition be found of
the duties of a High Sheriff at a public meeting? Was
stole redress at law for the employment of the mili-
tary? The military would defend themselves by
pleading time command of the Sheriff. Would the
Sheriff himself be answerable in a Court of Law ?
Every Member in the House knew that, to convict a
civil Magistrate corrupt motives must be made out.
Suppose a Sheriff, a short time after any little error
on the right side, to receive a lucrative employment
—and there had been such an instance--wonlel that
fact he enough to support an allegation of corrupt
motive? It would not. In fact, to say that the
House of Comm:tits was not to inquire into the wrongs
committed by public officers, was to airy that, nine
tilts is ten, public officers might commit wrongs
with impunity.
Mr. SHAW had been present at the meeting in
question : and thought the conduct of the Sheriff
indiscreet, but not corrupt. He objected to the in-
terference of the House, because a remedy was open,
at common law, and because he believed that that rt.
wetly was likely to be resorted to.
LUrd CASTI.F.REMIH was not at all surprised at
the speech of the Hon. and Learned lientleman opps-
the. The case of the Noble Earl (Fitxwillians), was
not exactly in point, because a Lord-lieutenant was
neresm:arily a confidential officer ; a Sheriff not being
tpiite so closely connected with Hover:intent. For an
inquiry like that now demanded there was but one
precedent in the parliamentary history of England ;
and that was a rase occurring not in the best times,
for it occurred in time reign of Charles 11. A pro-
ceeding imi the Irish House of Commons bad been
attempted in he set lip as a precedent ; but first he
(Lord Castlereagh) denied that the House was at all
bound by such it precedent ; and, next, he maintained
that the circumstances of the casein Ireland were eaten-
daily different front those of the case before the House.
The question was, conld time matter be better Investigated
io the House of Commons than in a Court of Law ? He
denied that it could be so; and if there was any in-
quiry in the house, it must be an Inquiry at the Bar,
because a Committee up stairs, could not go into
matters amrecting the character and even the personal
liberty of the Sheriff. If the house undertook to
investigate and arrange all the disputes which took
place at public meetings, it *weld cut -out fur itself