Commons Sitting of 20 February 1821

PREVENTION OF BANK FORGERIES.
Mr. Curwenrose to put a question to the hon. member for Bodmin upon a subject of great public importance. His question related to the steps now taken by the commissioners who were appointed to inquire into the best means of preventing the forgery of Bank notes. It was within the last few days rumoured that Mr. Applegarth's plan of a Bank note which was to render imitation almost impossible, had entirely failed: he hoped, on every ground of policy and humanity that this rumour was not correct. At all events, be hoped that the commissioners would not, on account of one discouraging circumstance, drop their proceeedings. He knew that it was impossible to get any plan which could be pronounced inimitable; but they might obtain a plan which would render forgery so extremely expensive and difficult, as to make that pursuit impossible for those who pursue it.
804
He wished to know, whether the commissioners had any plan in a state of maturity; because if they had not, he must move for the appointment of a committee to ascertain the cause of the delay.
Mr. D. Gilbertreplied, that the Bank had taken the utmost pains to give effect to the exertions of the commissioners. The plan of Mr. Applegarth, did not consist of any superior improvement in the art of engraving, but in hardening a steel plate in such a manner, by a chymical process, as to give it that durability which would admit of any number of impressions being struck from it. But it was obvious that the perfection of the plate alone did not complete the process. The commission had to proceed upon a consideration of the greatest difficulty; namely, to consider whether it was possible to make, by human art, a plan which human art could not imitate. In the pursuit of their project they had corresponded with all quarters of Europe and America. They had availed themselves of all the means of obtaining information which they could possibly command, and had selected what appeared to them the best. Some which at first appeared inimitable were in the course of the inquiry, found capable of imitation; so that the commissioners had had repeatedly to change and vary their plans according to fresh circumstances.

NOTTINGHAM PETITION FOR THE IMPEACHMENT OF MINISTERS.
Mr. Denmansaid, he held in his hand a petition from the people of Nottingham, praying for an inquiry into the state of the country—praying specifically for an inquiry into the transactions which took place at Manchester, and also that articles of impeachment might be exhibited against ministers. In the absence of ministers he would not stop to say how far their conduct appeared to him to deserve the severe imputations cast upon them. In presenting this petition he thought it right to observe that the language, although strong, and perhaps extremely so in one or two passages, was yet on the whole what he could not but consider applicable to the circumstances to which the petitioners referred. And when the House recollected that the petition came from a town where, though trade was said to have revived, there yet remained an arrear of 6,000 l. of poor's rates, which could hot be collected without aggravating the dis-

805
tress it was intended to relieve, the House ought not to be too fastidious in considering the language in which such persons conveyed their sentiments.
The Petition was then brought up and read. The petitioners stated, that the greatest evils had been brought upon the country by the acts of a corrupt and unfeeling administration, under whose policy the real glory of England was tarnished, and her people bent down under acts of cruelty and oppression. The motto of those ministers was "divide and conquer." They implored the House to institute an impeachment against them For the various injuries they had inflicted on the people, and for their base and traitorous conduct towards their innocent, high-minded, and persecuted Queen. They wished to terrify the people by acts of tyranny—men were led to captivity, and brought to the scaffold without cause. The people, suffering under distress and misfortune, cried out for food—their complaints were answered by the corn law, by swords and bayonets, and disgraceful acts of parliament. The carnage of the memorable 16th of August, a day of blood, which was not accounted for, demanded retributive justice. They prayed that the traitors and murderers of that day might be brought to condign punishment. The people on that day had done no wrong. Why, then, should they have been butchered by armed yeomanry, who received public thanks for their deeds of murder and of blood.—On the question being put, that the petition be printed,
Mr. Wynnsaid, that he must object to this motion, which would send forth in a printed form, through the medium of that House, a libel upon the administration of justice. He did not object to expressions merely offensive to ministers; but when it was said that innocent blood had been shed upon the scaffold, they ought to hesitate before they circulated such a statement throughout the country.
Mr. Bennetsaid, he did not agree in all the statements of the petitions, but he could not but strongly object to the attempt to get rid, by a side wind, of the old right of printing petitions. The hon. gentleman could not produce a single instance in which petitions were not printed as a matter of course for the last two years. His late lamented friend (Mr. Whitbread,) had said, on the occasion where an alteration had been made with
806
respect to the printing of petitions, that the language of several petitions might not often suit the delicate ears of persons in that House, whose conduct those very petitions might impugn. It was quite a new attempt to prevent the printing 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 expressed, in terms of honest indignation the feelings of the people might be stifled: gentlemen would refuse to allow such petitions to be printed. The next step would be, to prevent the petitions from being read. They might then decide not to receive them at all. He could not but set his face against an attempt to prevent the printing of petitions. It was acknowledged on all hands, 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 right of having the petitions of the people printed, was one which he would not consent to surrender. He would therefore take the sense of the House upon the subject.
Lord Binningsaid, that a more inflamed account of a possible grievance could not have been made, than that just given by the hon. member upon an objection being merely taken to the printing of a petition, which libelled the administration of justice throughout the country. Because they refused to print such a petition they were to be told that they were obstructing the right of petition? Since the arrangement had been made upon the subject of printing the votes, he only recollected one instance in which an objection had been taken to the language of a petition; so that the right of making the objection—which unquestionably existed, or else why put the question from the chair upon the printing—had not been captiously exercised. The old practice was, when arranging the votes, for the Speaker to order the petitions to be presented, omitting, however, any passages which might be deemed objectionable. By the new arrangement, the whole of each petition was printed. He certainly should vote against printing a petition containing such language.
Sir Robert Wilsonwas not prepared to say that blood had been shed innocently upon the scaffold, yet he was ready to

807
assert that people had been cut down and trampled to death in broad day, without having been guilty of any violation of law; and that ministers, so far from bringing to punishment the perpetrators of that atrocious act, had rewarded there by transmitting in the first instance the thanks of their sovereign, and by subsequently conferring upon the individual by whose order the people had been trampled upon, a place of great emolument. This petition, so far from being deemed objectionable, ought to be received with readiness by ministers, who had thus an opportunity of redeeming themselves from the disgrace and infamy of countenancing the destruction of 620 persons who had been Wantonly killed, wounded, and maimed on the 16th of August at Manchester. He was in a court of justice the other day 'when an hon. baronet (sir F. Burdett), was receiving sentence for having expressed his indignation at the murders that had been committed at Manchester,—murders which he was prepared to prove at the bar, if the House would grant him the opportunity. He had heard the judge declare, that no wrong could be inflicted in England without redress. Where then was that redress for the people of Manchester? He and others had been in vain seeking to obtain redress for that outrage. The conduct of ministers, in suffering it to pass without inquiry, justified the people in considering their subsequent acts so lawless as to call for a bill of indemnity.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, he could not help admiring the strain of feeling in which the gallant member thought proper to indulge, when he launched out in describing acts of the most extraordinary description, and at once charged ministers with protecting from punishment known violators of the law. Thank God the people of England lived in a country where the ministers could not, if they Were so disposed, protect any individual who had offended against the laws from being amenable to their jurisdiction. The ministers had here no power to screen any man from the consequences of his act: the highest and the lowest were alike amenable to the law. Why did the gallant officer indulge in this theme of declamation, when the laws were open to the aggrieved party? Was it because it answered better the views of the gallant member, and others who thought with him, to keep this subject afloat as a topic
808
of inflammatory declamation rather than to put it into any train of legal inquiry? If there were any man, or any body of men, under a charge of murder, and no person stepped forward to bring them to punishment, it was a reproach to the gallant general that he had not travelled out of his military character, and assumed the civil functions of a public prosecutor. With regard to the thanks which his majesty had been advised to give to the magistrates of Manchester, he should always glory in the share he had had in protecting men who had saved the country from the base attempts which evil-minded persons had made to subvert its constitution. The true reason why the conduct of the magistrates and yeomanry had not been brought before a jury was, that there existed no grounds for such a proceeding. Though ministers, in the line of conduct which they had pursued, had not the good fortune to possess the favourable opinion of the gallant general, they had obtained what they valued much more—the approbation of that House. As to the question immediately under consideration, he hardly knew any thing that could be said Of the ministers of the Crown, which ought to prevent [the House from receiving a petition; but when it spoke in unbecoming language of the legislature, or impugned the administration of justice in the courts of the country, it was the duty of the House to express its opinion in such a manner as should repel the unfounded charge. Perhaps it would have been the more natural course to have objected to the petition being received; but he did not see that because that had been neglected, they were deprived of all discretion, so far as to be obliged to send before the country sentiments so unbecoming and so dangerous.
Sir R. Wilsonsaid, he had not asserted any thing that he was not prepared to prove. He charged the parties to the transaction of the 16th of August with murder, and he was prepared to take the responsibility of that charge.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, it was open to the hon. general to establish his charge before a competent tribunal.
Sir M. W. Ridleysaid, that if he had been in the House when the petition was read, he should have objected to its lying on the table; but he thought that as it had been received it ought to be printed.
Mr. Wynnncould not accede to the pro-

809
position that every petition that was received was fit to be printed, as there might be petitions presented containing reflections on individuals which it would be highly improper to send forth.
Mr. Bathurstcontended, that the House had sanctioned the principle that a petition might be received and not be printed, by deciding that after it had been laid on the table there should be a distinct question "that this petition be printed."
Mr. B. Wilbrahamdeclared that the magistrates of Manchester were anxious, for a full inquiry into their conduct. No bills had been presented against any of them. As to the yeomanry, they stood in a situation somewhat different; for bills had been presented against them, and had been thrown out by the grand jury.
Mr. Broughamthought it must be the desire of the House to put the petition in print. The phrase "disgraceful acts of parliament," must be understood as applicable to the conduct of ministers; and he contended that the people had a right to stigmatise acts of parliament carried by the influence of ministers. With respect to the other parts of the petition he considered that the people had a constitutional right to go great lengths in the language of petition. With respect to the transactions at Manchester, nothing on that subject which had occurred since those transactions, had altered his original opinion. Indeed he thought that what had happened since, had done more to abate the respect of the people for the administration of the public justice than any thing he had ever known before. Nothing had so tended to shake the confidence of the people in that best and surest support of a government. He regretted that the grand jury of Lancaster had not found the bills of indictment; because, had they found those bills, the 'subsequent proceedings upon them, the conviction or acquittal of the accused would have restored the public confidence in the laws.
Mr. Lushingtonobserved, that the House had last session rejected a motion for the printing a petition; and if there was ever a case in which the House should exercise its discretion, it was in the case of this petition, the language of which, was so universally acknowledged to be objectionable.
Mr. Denmandenied that Ire had ex-
810
pressed any thing which could be understood as a doubt as to the propriety of receiving the petition. Indeed, with respect to that part of it which said that "when the people uttered the language of complaint and woe, they were consigned to the scaffold," he contended that it was literally the fact. The distress of the people had been worked into rebellion by the conduct of spies and informers. Referring to the transactions at Manchester he said it was odd enough that ministers themselves had never instituted any inquiry. There had however been a little judicial inquiry; and although it had been broadly asserted that cart-loads of stones had been carried to the meeting at Manchester, and that one of the magistrates had been trampled upon, yet not the slightest evidence had been offered upon the judicial inquiry at York," for the purpose of shewing the truth of those statements. He was aware that many of his friends were not inclined to go the length of the sentiments contained in the petition. But he never remembered a petition presented to that House which met with the unanimous approval of all parties. The people were not bound to couch their complaints to that House in such language as should suit its taste. The House should know what were the sentiments of the people; and this being done in the form of petitions, they were in the ordinary course printed for the accommodation of the House. It was not for the purpose of disseminating libels through the country, nor could it have that effect, that he desired the present petition should be printed.
The question being put, "That the petition be printed," the House divided: Ayes 6*. Noes 130.

List of the Minority.

Allen, J. H.

Duncannon, visc.

Althorp, visc.

Ellice, Ed.

Beaumont, T. P.

Fergusson, sir R. C.

Becher, W. W.

Gordon, R.

Birch, J.

Graham, Sandford

Bright, H.

Grant, J. P.

Brougham, H.

Griffths, J. W.

Bury, visc.

Guise, sir W.

Calvert, C.

Hamilton, lord A.

Caulfield, hon. H.

Harbord, hon. E.

Colborne, N. W. R.

Heathoote, G. J.

Crespigny, sir W.

Hobhouse, J. C.

Creevey, Thos.

Honeyvvood, W. P.

Curwen, J. C.

Hornby, Ed.

Davies, T. H.

Hughes, W.L.

Denison, W. J.

Hume, J.

Dickenson. W.

Hulchinson, hon.C.H.

811

Lambton, J. G.

Rice, G.

Lennard, T. B.

Ridley, sir M. W.

Lushington, Dr.

Robarts, A.

Maberly, John

Robarts, G.

Macdonald, J.

Robinson, sir G.

Martin, John

Stanley, lord

Monck, J. B.

Sefton, earl of

Moore, Peter

Smith, W.

Moore, A.

Stuart, lord J.

Newport, sir J.

Taylor, M. A.

O'Callaghan, J.

Wharton, John.

Ord, Wm.

Wilson, sir R.

Ossulston, lord

Wortley, J. S.

Palmer, C. F.

Wyvill, M.

Phillips, G.

TELLERS.

Phillips, G. R.

Bennet, hon. H. G.

Power, R.

Denman, T.

CONDUCT OF THE SHERIFF OF CHESTER.
Mr. Creeveyrose for the purpose of submitting a motion, founded upon a petition from the freeholders of the county of Chester, which petition was presented to the House on the 9th instant. In the first place, he would move that that petition be read. [The petition was here read by the clerk.] He understood the case to be briefly this:—A meeting of the nobility, clergy, gentry, and freeholders of Cheshire was convened by the sheriff. At that meeting an address was submitted. An amendment to the address was moved and seconded by two noblemen, earl Grosvenor, and lord Crewe; the effect of which was to suggest another and a different address, deprecating the conduct of ministers, and requiring the restoration of her majesty's name to the Liturgy. Both addresses were equally loyal, but there was this material difference between them, that the one moved by lord Grosvenor entered into a little detail of facts and opinions, which it was thought right to submit to the consideration of his majesty, with regard to which the address on the other side was totally silent. The petitioners complained that the sheriff refused to put the address of lord Grosvenor at all, and also, that he would not allow the negative to be put upon the address of the other side, declaring on the first show of hands, that the majority of the meeting were in its favour, and immediately withdrawing himself from the chair. The petitioners further alleged, that the majority of the meeting were adverse to the original address, and decidedly for that of lord Grosvenor, as would have been testified had the sheriff put that address first, as they conceived it his duty, as that was an amendment upon the address originally proposed. If
812
the allegations of the petitioners proved to be true, he apprehended that there could be no doubt, as to the propriety of some animadversion upon the conduct of the sheriff. When the allegations should be established in evidence, it would then be for the House to consider how a sheriff should be dealt with, who had thus interfered with the right of the people to petition. In the year 1680, the House bad come to a unanimous resolution, that any violation of the right of petitioning, by obstructing the people in the exercise of that right, or in any demand for the redress of grievances, was an unjustifiable act. There was also a precedent, which immediately followed, of a distinct censure pronounced by that House upon the conduct of sir George Jeffries, who, as recorder of London, had presumed to obstruct the citizens in the exercise of the right of petitioning. Here, then, were precedents directly applicable to the case to which this motion referred—the first containing an assertion of the right of the people to petition, the second the referring of a complaint upon the subject of this right to a committee of the House, and the third conveying a just animadversion upon an individual, by whom that right had been violated. Now, upon these precedents he proposed to act; and therefore, he should in the first instance, move for the reference to a select committee, of the petition presented to the House on the 9th instant, from certain freeholders of Cheshire, with power on the part of that committee to examine evidence touching the allegations of the petition, and with instructions to report thereupon. The precedents which he had quoted running, according to the common expression, on all fours with the case to which he had to call the attention of the House, he could not apprehend any objection to his motion. Whether the statement of the petitioners were well or ill-founded would appear from the examination and report of the committee; and upon that report being presented, it would be for the House to determine as to any subsequent proceeding. If the allegations of the petition were established in evidence, the House would decide how the sheriff should be dealt with. This, then, would be matter for consideration upon a future day. At present, the sheriff alluded to appeared to have been guilty of a gross violation of the right of petitioning, and therefore the House was particularly called upon to take cogni-

813
zance of the charge against him. There was, indeed, in the circumstances of the present times, a very forcible reason why that House and the public should be peculiarly jealous of the right of petitioning. From the obnoxious acts which had not long since been passed, it was evident that ministers and their adherents, were peculiarly jealous of any expression of the public opinion. So, indeed, the noble lord (Castlereagh) manifestly was, when he solely and emphatically dwelt upon those addresses from corporations and clergymen which made such a figure in the London Gazette. But while corporations and clergymen were at liberty to express their opinions and to present their addresses, was it too much to desire that the same liberty should be possessed by the people at large? That the sentiments of the people were adverse to ministers was matter of notoriety. He would dare even the noble lord to dispute the fact. But how could those sentiments be expressed if a sheriff, who was one of the few persons at present authorized to convene a public meeting, were allowed to act as the sheriff of Chester was accused of having done in this case If such conduct were indeed overlooked, ministers having the appointment of the sheriffs, and possessing considerable influence in the appointment of most corporate officers, their wish to suppress the voice of the people might be gratified by very easy management. Let the corporations and the clergy declare any opinion they might entertain; but at the same time, such men as lords Grosvenor and Crewe, as well as the petitioners before the House, should have an opportunity also of expressing their opinions upon public affairs. If what were called the loyal addresses contained the foulest abuse upon the nation, was it to be endured, that the people should be prohibited, not only from addressing their sovereign, but from speaking even in their own defence? Let the House hear extracted from the London Gazette, the language of the loyal clergy and gentry of Chester. Here the hon. gentleman read the following extract "Now, when the disaffected are almost unfurling the standard of rebellion, when the blasphemer is aiming to overthrow the Altars of his God; we feel it to be the duty of all to come forward and defend our well-poised constitution, and our holy faith." There was an address, too from the members of the loyal
814
Wellington club at Stockport. This club, instituted in honour of the great captain of the age, contributed freely to the columns of the Gazette their assumptions of peculiar loyalty, their abuse of their fellow-citizens, and their political horror of blasphemy. Earl Grosvenor and the great body of the county were therefore desirous of expressing their loyal sentiments; but the sheriff had not thought that they were entitled to this satisfaction. He begged to call the attention of the House to another address. It was from the corporation of Harwich represented in that House by the president of the board of control, and the chancellor of the exchequer. Harwich was a regular treasury borough, and would have as readily returned the two chiefs who had come to this country from New Zealand, as the two right hon. gentlemen opposite, provided there should be no suspension of the usual facilities between them and the treasury. "The name of your majesty's royal progenitor, (say these addressers) the many virtues which enriched and adorned his character, were but so many pledges that in his immediate successor, the first object of his anxious solicitude would be the preservation of external peace, and internal tranquillity. On the assumption of the regal character, your majesty openly manifested such desire, and the voice of gratulation, which on that occasion was first heard in the centre, struck upon the heart of every faithful subject, and was quickly reverberated from the remotest extremities of the empire." Pretty well this for oyster-sellers! "Lawless and designing men have, however, since availed themselves of extrinsic and adventitious circumstances, and with unceasing vituperation sought to disturb your majesty's repose, to deride your councils, to trample under foot our holiest institutions and to undermine the fabric of our happy constitution. Enlinked with blasphemy, disloyalty dares to rear a shameless front, and under the feigned terms of reform in parliament and amelioration of government, means only to level all orders among men, to dissolve the social compact, destroy the grand palladium of British freedom, and to institute in their stead a reign of terror and confusion."—This address was transmitted to the chancellor of the exchequer, who, from some feeling as to the eulogium it contained upon himself and his colleagues, might

815
have declined to present it. But, notwithstanding the absurdities with which it teemed, he had no objection whatever that it should be framed and glazed, for the edification of ministers and their advocates. All he desired was that such men as lords Grosvenor and Crewe should be allowed to give public expression to their sentiments, as well as the loyal, rotten borough of Harwich. He knew nothing of the gentleman who was high sheriff of Chester. All he knew was, that if the petition was true, the sheriff had done wrong, and he hoped that the House would prevent the repetition of such wrong. The hon. gentleman then moved, "That the said petition, complaining of the conduct of the sheriff of the county of Chester, be referred to a Select Committee, to examine the matter thereof, and to report the same, with their opinion thereupon, to the House."
Mr. Davenportsaid, that not having been present at the meeting referred to, he hoped he should be excused for offering a few observations. The sheriff was as independent in character and fortune as any man in the county, and if he had acted wrong it was only an error in judgment. He had never heard that he was a party man. Was it to be said that he was a party man because he was connected with a yeomanry corps? That yeomanry corps had been raised by a subscription at a county meeting convened for that purpose. A committee had then been appointed, not only for the management of the funds, but the nomination of officers. If it was a party corps, it was an extraordinary party, for whigs and torries had subscribed. The House should recollect, before they agreed to 6uch a motion, that it was no trifling matter to drag the high sheriff up to attend a committee of that House. The office of high sheriff was an arduous, and generally a thankless office.
Mr. Egertonsaid, that as soon as the petition was known in the county, the high sheriff had written a letter explaining his conduct, which, with permission of the House, he would read. The letter was hastily written, as little time was left for explanation of the circumstances. [Hear the hon. member read the letter] The high sheriff admitted that he had acceded to earl Grosvenor's proposal to adjourn the meeting to the fields, believing the Salt-house to be too small: but that, on a representation by others that the place
816
that might be fixed on would be previously occupied, he resolved to hold the meeting in the Salt-house, but in the mean time insisted on all persons, of whatever party, being removed out of it. Having exerted himself alike for each party, he regretted to say that he had been unsuccessful in obtaining them a hearing. He denied that he had refused to put the amendment. From his ignorance of the parliamentary manner of putting such questions, he had not been aware that the amendment ought first to be put, and he had therefore put the address. The address having been carried by a large majority, there was no room to put the amendment. He was not so presumptuous as to think that he had not erred; but he was sure that he had acted according to the best of his judgment. This was the statement of the high sheriff, and many who had been present at the meeting were ready to prove the same facts, if required to do so. It had been objected that "freeholders" had been substituted for "inhabitants" in the requisition. Mr. Potts, the under sheriff, had written an explanation of this matter. In the original requisition it had been "nobility, clergy, &c." The high sheriff, when he directed a meeting to be called, wrote to Mr. Potts—"You will take care that the &c's. be filled up in the usual way." Mr. Potts stated, that he had been many years in the habit of making up such documents, and had used always the same terms. If there was any blame it rested with him, not with the high sheriff.
Mr. Gippshoped the House 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 appeared was, that lord Grosvenor and the petitioners 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 to some other place and voted counter-resolutions?
Mr. Philipssaid, that the only object of his hon. friend was, to make some provision against the recurrence of such conduct as the petitioners complained of. As to the approbation of his conduct, upon which the high sheriff professed to rely, that approbation came only from one quarter. There was not a single individual on the other side whose appro-

817
bation he had received. Under all the circumstances, he thought the motion should be acceded to.
Mr. Bootle Wilbrahamthought that this was not a matter in which the House could constitutionally interfere. In cases where the privileges of the House were concerned, they had the power of calling the party offending to the bar. The sheriff was undoubtedly amenable to the House in all cases of election, but he was not aware that the House could constitutionally exercise any control over the sheriff in other cases. It certainly did not appear from Black-stone, that the sheriff was subject to the control of this House in any matters except those connected with the election of knights of the shire. He begged not to be understood as wishing to abridge the privileges of the House; but the facts of the present case did not appear to him to justify their interposition. The sheriff was a gentleman whose impartiality and purity of conduct were unquestionable, He was persuaded that he went to the meeting with a firm determination to do his duty with impartiality. One of the charges against him was, that he did not summon the inhabitants, though required to do so; another, that he refused to put the amendment, Now, he did not know what law there was to compel a sheriff to put the amendment. As to the other charge, that he refused to divide the meeting, but contented himself with a shew of hands, the usual mode of taking the sense of a meeting was by a shew of hands, and the constitutional appeal from the sheriff's decision was to a poll; but this was a case which did not admit of a poll. He believed the fact was, that the room in which the meeting took place was so full, that it was next to impossible to divide. He certainly regretted that the sheriff had not allowed his noble friend to be heard; at the same time he must observe that some expressions which had been used by his noble friend were received with strong marks of disapprobation, and might account therefore for his not obtaining a hearing. He trusted the House would not yield to this motion, and by so doing afford a triumph to those tribunes of the people who had liberty in their mouths, but anarchy in their hearts.
Mr. Curwensaid, it was of the utmost importance, that the right of petitioning should not be violated, that the country might know whether the noble lord op-
818
posite and his colleagues did or did not possess the confidence of the people. If it were in the power of the Sheriff to refuse to take the decision of a meeting, material injury would arise, both to the people and to this House, as it would prevent them from hearing the sentiments of their constituents. Had the object of this motion been to censure the conduct of the sheriff, he should not have been willing to go that length in the first instance; but, as it went merely to inquire into his conduct, he thought the motion ought to be acceded to.
Mr. Wynnsaid, that the first point upon which the conduct of the sheriff was arraigned, was, that he had called a meeting of the nobility, gentry, and freeholders, and not of the freeholders and inhabitants. Now, he contended, that in so doing, the sheriff had only discharged his duty; for he believed the practice of summoning the inhabitants to county meetings was of very recent date. A county meeting, in the constitutional sense, was a meeting of the freeholders of the county, of those persons only who had a right to attend the county court. As to the charge, that the sheriff did not put the amendment, he really was not aware that the forms of that House, however excellent, were of such high authority, that every public meeting in the kingdom was bound to copy them. It appeared that an amendment to the original address had been proposed by lord Grosvenor, and that the sheriff, instead of putting the amendment in the first instance, had taken the sense of the meeting upon the original address. Now, he really could not see why the sense of the meeting might not be as fairly collected in this way as by following the forms of that House. There was another charge against the sheriff, that he had refused a division when it was called for. Now he had heard of a great many county meetings, but he had never heard of a division taking place at such a meeting. The objection was perfectly frivolous, and honourable members, who knew how much time a division occupied in that House, must be aware that the numbers at a county meeting could scarcely be counted on a winter's day. He thought the sheriff had exercised no more than a legal discretion, and that, whether legal or otherwise, his conduct ought not to become the subject of inquiry in that House.
Lord Belgravesaid, he was present at the meeting, and certainly there was a material difference between the terms of the requisition as it had been read by the hon. member for Cheshire, and the terms which were actually employed. The hon. gentleman had stated it to be a requisition for a loyal address to his majesty; but the words of the requisition were, "We, the undersigned, call upon you to eonvene a meeting, for the purpose of declaring to his majesty the sentiments of loyalty and attachment to the throne which animate the breasts of the inhabitants of this county." He was sorry to hear it denied by the sheriff, that he had refused to put the amendment; for the fact was, that he had distinctly said, "I take upon myself to refuse putting the amendment to the meeting.". He regretted that he was obliged to complain of the conduct of several gentlemen with whom he had the pleasure of being personally acquainted, but without entering into details, he would only observe, that so extraordinary was the behaviour of some of those gentlemen, and so great was the confusion, that though he was close to the chair, he could not hear the vote of thanks to the sheriff. The sheriff withdrew precipitately from the hall, and the whole transaction reflected disgrace upon the county to which he had the honour and the happiness to belong. The two important points were, that the sheriff had first refused to put the amendment, and next, that he had not allowed a division, though in truth there ought to have been little difference of sentiment, since the address and the amendment, rightly viewed, were hardly distinguishable. he was anxious that the authority of the sheriffs of counties should be supported, as he knew that it was as important to a county that its sheriffs should be looked up to with respect, as it was to the city of London that it should 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 carefully at any proceedings that went to make them act as the mere instruments of the Crown. Up to the 9th of Edward 2nd the sheriffs were always chosen by the people, as much as members of parliament were at present. He shewed how this right had fared in different parts of the kingdom. In the county of Westmor-
820
land, it was vested in one noble individual, 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. He was led to this conclusion, from having the other day accompanied a foreigner to the House of Lords, who on seeing the bench of bishops, had asked, "if they were not peeresses who sat there in there own right." If the sheriff complained of, had been in an error, his conduct ought to meet with reprehension. He thought the House ought to reprehend the conduct of the sheriff, and declare that the amendment ought to have been put, and the division called for granted.
Mr. Warrewas convinced that the sheriff of Chester had not acted with any intentional partiality, even if he had erred on a point of form. He must therefore oppose the motion.
Lord Castlereaghfelt that no case had been made out to impeach the conduct of the individual in question. No insinuation had been uttered against the intentions of the sheriff, and his letter bespoke a mind of the utmost candour and liberality. He protested against the doctrine, that whenever a charge was brought forward casting even the remotest doubt, an inquiry ought instantly to be commenced. If the House suffered itself to be dragged into such investigations, they must be interminable. He should be sorry indeed to see county meetings in any way discouraged, because from them the public sentiment was to be collected; but it was to he remembered that, by law, the sheriff was invested with a discretion whether he would or would not call them, and no more effectual mode could be adopted to induce him to decide against them, than to threaten that his conduct as president, however impartial, should be made the subject of complaint and inquiry, provided he were guilty of the slightest breach of the most insignificant forms. Besides, such a jurisdiction did not in fact belong to the House of Commons. If the conduct of sheriffs at county meetings was to be made the subject of the labour of committees, in what way were other assemblies whether convened by lords lieutenants, by magistrates, or in private rooms, to be excluded. The presidents of all these might in turn be brought before the House, whose functions were ill qualified for such a

821
duty. With regard to relevancy, who was to decide what was or was not relevant? At a late meeting in Middlesex regarding the Queen, that great reformer, the veteran major, had introduced the topic of a change in the representation: and the subject of the Queen and parliamentary reform, to say the least of it, seemed quite as nearly allied as the original address moved in Cheshire and the amendment attempted to be substituted in its place.
Mr. A. Moorethought it of the highest importance, that the House should inquire whether the sheriff in this instance had violated a public principle, or merely deviated from a formal rule. Contradictory statements had been submitted to them, and it therefore became necessary, in order to get at the facts, that the subject should be referred to a committee. That some further explanation was desirable, had, he thought, become obvious. An hon. member had observed, that he should have been more inclined to pay attention to this complaint, had the sheriff refused to convene the county. Now to him it appeared that a refusal to collect and to ascertain the sense of the county when it was assembled, called still more loudly for the notice of that House. It was far from his intention to dispute the respectability of the sheriff's character; indeed, that respectability added to the importance of not suffering his example to become a precedent. It had been urged that the practice of convening counties under the authority of the sheriff was but of recent dale. He agreed that they had no judicial power over such assemblies:—they were in a situation similar to that which they held in their county courts. In the latter case the jury, and in the former the freeholders, were the judges. The office, of sheriff was purely ministerial; when he refused, therefore, to put an amendment, he exercised a discretion with which he was not invested. The persons assembled, and not the sheriff, were to pronounce an opinion on the relevancy or non-relevancy of the proposition submitted to them. It was to that House alone that the people could look for redress of a grievance of this nature. A court of law could afford none; but the animadversion of the House, and a recorded statement of its opinion, could hardly fail to prevent a repetition of the abuse.
Mr. Creeveythen shortly replied. The
822
object of his motion was the encouragement of county meetings. If a sheriff could refuse to put the question upon an amendment, he could not see what occasion he had to call the meeting at all. He regretted that an hon. gentleman (MY. Wynn) should have lent the sanction of his authority to this doctrine—a doctrine by which what was called a loyal address might be represented as containing the sentiments of the county, although it libelled two-thirds of the people, and charged them with the vilest blasphemy and sedition. The sheriff of Derby, and the sheriff of Oxford, had not acted under the guidance of this new light, but had considered it to be their duty to offer amendments to the meeting, those amendments having been regularly moved and seconded. In now pressing his motion he was actuated by no vindictive feeling towards the gentleman whose conduct was the subject of discussion; but he thought the House owed it to their constituents to uphold the sacred right of petition, and to express their disapprobation of the course adopted in this instance.
The House divided: Ayes 65; Noes 122. Majority 57.

List of the Minority.

Allen, J. H.

Hutchinson, hon. C. H.

Althorp, lord

Becher, W. W.

Lambton, J. G.

Bright, H.

Lennard, T. B.

Bury, visct.

Lushington, Dr.

Calvert, C.

Maberly, J.

Campbell, hon. F.

Macdonald, J.

Caulfield, hon. H.

Marjoribanks, S.

Clifton, lord

Martin, J.

Crespigny, sir W.

Monck, J. B.

Davies, T. H.

Moore, A.

Denison, W. J.

Moore, P.

Duncannon, visct.

Newport, sir J.

Ellice, E.

O'Callaghan, J.

Farquharson, A.

Ord, W.

Fergusson, sir R.

Ossulston, lord

Graham, S.

Palmer, C. F.

Grant, J P.

Phillips, J. R.

Gordon, R.

Price, R.

Griffiths, J.

Ramsden, J. C.

Guise, sir W.

Rice, G.

Hamilton, lord A.

Robarts, A.

Harbord, hon. E.

Robarts, G.

Heathcote, G. J.

Robinson, sir G.

Hill, lord A.

Rumbold, C.

Hobhouse, J. C.

Sefton, earl of

Hony wood, W. P.

Stanley, lord

Hornby, E.

Taylor, M. A.

Howard, hon. W.

Tennyson, C.

Hughes, W. L.

Western; C. C.

Hume, J.

Wharton, J.

823

Whitmore, W. W.

TELLERS.

Wilson, sir R.

Creevey, Thos.

Wood, ald.

Philips, G.

Wyvill, M.

PAIRED OFF.

Shelley, sir J.

AFRICAN COMPANY.
Mr. Goulburn rose to move for leave to bring in a bill to abolish the African Company, and to transfer to his majesty all the forts and possessions belonging to them. He wished not to be understood, that by making such a motion, he cast any imputation whatever on the company.
Mr. Marryatobserved, that though the object of this bill was not to impute any blame to the African company, the effect of it certainly was, to cast an imputation upon it. The House had heard much of late of the impropriety of prejudging a ease before a trial; but the House, in acceding to this motion, was going to condemn a party which, on a former occasion, had been acquitted by a committee of its own selection. Gentleman would recollect, that after the affairs of the African company had been submitted to the consideration of a committee, the committee had declared itself satisfied with the manner in which they were administered, and had merely recommended that the governor of its settlements should be appointed by his majesty, that the number of its forts should be diminished, and that the number of governors should be reduced from nine to six. What had occurred since that period to show the necessity of altering the manner in which the affairs of that settlement were regulated he did not know. The right hon. gentleman had not stated any cause for altering it, and a. very deserving officer, (sir G. Collier)had spoken in high terms of the internal administration of it. He wished to remind the House, that that company had opened a communication with the king of Ashantee, and with others of the native chieftains, from which there was a certainty of obtaining better intelligence respecting the interior of Africa than any which had been yet acquired; while two expeditions which had been sent out from Sierra Leone, at a cost of thirty or forty thousand pounds to the country, had entirely failed in the objects for which they had been fitted out. He did not see why a company which was acknowleged on all hands to have acted meritoriously should be abolished, without the necessity of the abolition of it being shown to a committee.
Mr. Gordonsaid, he had been a member of the committee to which the affairs-of the African company had been referred, and had been instrumental in the drawing up of the report which it had presented to the House. When the commit* tee recommended that the sovereignty of the settlements on the Gold Coast should be continued to the African company, if had done so from the difficulty of knowing how to avoid many evils which another system of government was certain to introduce. His majesty's ministers had since laboured under the same difficulty; and he was informed that they had considered many plans for the administration of those settlements before they had determined on taking them under their own control and governance. That measure appeared to him to be wise and politic, and calculated to produce the most beneficial effects. He did not see what right the African company had to complain of these forts being taken out of their hands. They were originally placed under their control to support the slave trade: and one would suppose that when the slave trade was abolished those forts would be abolished also. Besides, the country paid from 25,000 l. to 30,000 l. annually for their maintenance, and of this sum he thought the 1,200 l. paid in salaries to nine of its directors might at least be saved. He did not anticipate any increase of influence to the Crown from this measure; for he thought that none of the canditates for office would wish to go out as governor to Cape Coast Castle, and none of the aspirants in diplomacy to live as resident at the town of Tombuctoo, or other capital of the king of Ashantee.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.