§ Mr. Beaumontrose to call the attention of the House to the conduct of Sheriffs in refusing to call county meetings. It would be in the recollection of the House, that on Friday last a petition was presented by the noble lord who was member for Chester complaining of the conduct of the sheriff of the county, at a public meeting, in two instances. In the first place, it was alleged that he had prevented an amendment from being put; and, in the next, that he had not proposed the negative question on the original motion. In bringing forward this motion it was not his intention to discuss the particular conduct of this sheriff, nor to propose any vote of censure on him, in consequence of the course he had adopted. All he meant to do was, to state the general inconvenience which arose from the conduct of sheriffs, under certain circumstances, which inconvenience had been experienced in Northumberland, in Gloucester, in Kent, and in some other counties, and to endeavour to procure some legislative measure to prevent the recurrence of the evil in future. He would briefly introduce the subject to the House. With respect to the conduct that had been immediately complained of, it was most obvious that if a sheriff had the power of declaring to a public meeting what should and what should not be received—what he thought proper to permit and what he pleased to prevent—the inconvenience and injustice would be, that 668 all discussion would be precluded. Again, if when a public meeting was assembled, the sheriff refused to put the negative question on any proposition, it was quite evident that the real sense of that meeting could not be collected, when its opinion was not asked both affirmatively and negatively. He should not trouble the House with a detail of all the examples which had been recently set by sheriffs who had refused to call county meetings, but would confine himself to one; namely, that of the high sheriff of Northumberland. The case was this—a number of gentlemen of rank and property in that county had signed a requisition, calling upon the high sheriff to convene a county meeting. The object was unequivocally legal, and the parties indisputably entitled to address the sheriff upon such an occasion. In any view of the case there could be no possible or reasonable objection to comply with their request, nevertheless the sheriff thought fit to return a refusal, and to decline assigning any reasons, except that he acted in the exercise of his own discretion. Now, it could never have been contemplated by the legislature, in passing the late act, that the sheriff should set up his own will and pleasure against the sense of a large number of respectable persons in the county, who desired a public meeting—quite the contrary; for he well recollected, when that act was pending, a minister of the Crown declared that the power vested in the sheriff was calculated more to promote than prevent real county meetings, for they would, according to the new regulation, have the additional dignity of the presence of their constitutional officer whenever they assembled. So that it was clear parliament never intended by the enactment to restrict the right of petition; although, after the use which made of the act, they should be extremely cautious how they did any thing that was calculated to be misconstrued into the power of restricting so valuable a right. In the committee, he should propose, cither to repeal or amend the former act, or to affix some specific and clearly defined boundary to the discretion of the sheriff respecting county meetings. In making this motion he had no wish to keep alive any subject which was calculated to keep alive the agitated state of the country. He conceived, however, that any question involving the exercise of the right of petition was of such vast importance 669 as to require consideration. They ought to ascertain if that right had been restricted, and, if so, to adopt such measures as would prevent a recurrence of the evil. He concluded by moving, "That the petition of certain inhabitants of the county of Chester, presented to this House on the 9th instant, and complaining of the conduct of the sheriff at the last county meeting, be referred to a select committee, to examine the matter thereof, and report their observations thereupon to the House."
§ Mr. Davenportrequested to know what was the difference between the present motion and a motion of which notice had been given by the member for Appleby.
§ Mr. Beaumontsaid, that the present motion was directed towards a general legislative measure, while that of his hon. friend referred to some particular in stance.
§ Mr. Creeveysaid, he thought that the motion of his hon. friend would have been for a general inquiry into the conduct of sheriffs as to the exercise of their discretion in refusing to call county meetings. His object, in giving the notice of last night, was to bring the conduct of the sheriff of Chester before the House, with a view, in case it should appear that he had acted improperly, of having him censured.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, it appeared to him that both motions were of the same tendency, and went to affect, in the first instance, the conduct of an individual. Both were, in his view of them, anomalous; for they called upon an individual—and without, at the outset, showing the fullest necessity—to encounter the expense of defending himself at the bar of that House from an imputation. It was a serious thing to put a gentleman under the reprehension of that House, without previously affording him the opportunity of showing whether or no he could justify his conduct. Although his majesty's government had no desire to obstruct any inquiry which had for its object the removal of any supposed impediment to the right of petition, yet he thought it too much to call upon that House, at the outset, to erect itself into a tribunal over the exercise of the discretion of a high sheriff, whose deliberate powers were recognised by the control vested in him over the arrangements of the county courts. Let the House be put in possession of the particular acts on which the charge of de- 670 linquency was grounded, and then let it be seen what explanation or justification could be applied to these facts. With respect to the present motion he should wish to ask the hon. mover whether he thought it wise to press it, when on Tuesday they were promised a fuller statement of the particular case?
§ Mr. Beaumontsaid, that nothing was farther from his wish than to take the House by surprise upon this subject, or to interfere with the motion of his hon. friend. He was ready, therefore, to withdraw his motion for the present.
§ The motion was then withdrawn.