timents. He understood, however, that he was a captain in a new yeomanry corps of cavalry, raised by Mr. Cholmondeley, who, it was said, expected to be made a peer. He hoped, however, that the House would consider the importance of the question, and the danger of allowing a high sheriff to follow the dictates of his own inclination on such occasions. In our happy and legal constitution, every thing was strictly laid down and defined. Where discretion in a public officer began, law, and the liberty and safety of the people ended. The power of a high sheriff, though indefinite, was not indefinable. No law or privilege could give to a high sheriff, or to any other man in the kingdom, a right to infringe the rights of others. The Bill of Rights declared that it was the right of every Englishman to address and petition the king. That right had been materially obstructed in the present instance; and the people had in consequence been prevented from conveying their petition and sentiments to the royal ear. A great additional power had been placed in the hands of high sheriffs by the bills lately passed. He denied, however, that a high sheriff had a greater right to preside at a county meeting than any other individual. The very circumstance of his being called to the chair was a proof that he was not entitled to it as a matter of right. When he did sit there, however, he sat merely in a ministerial capacity. His duty was, not to act on his own opinion, but solely to collect the real opinion of the meeting. If such conduct as that of the high sheriff of Cheshire were tolerated, those who intended to make motions, or any remarks at a county meeting, would be obliged to send them over to the high sheriff for his approbation and signature. This was the more to be deprecated, because gentlemen knew there was such a thing as "a pocket sheriff;" but that was illegal. When a sheriff was appointed, it was always during the king's pleasure; and no sheriff retained his situation longer than until the appointment of a successor. It was true, that the usage was, to make a regular arrangement on the subject every year; but still the House would feel the importance of having the duties of a high sheriff distinctly defined. They all knew well that a corrupt government (he did not speak of the gentlemen opposite, but made the observation generally) always attempted to acquire a power proportioned to their deficiency of virtue. A corrupt sheriff and a corrupt ministry might co-exist; and then, unless the duties of a sheriff were distinctly defined, the right of the people at public meetings to complain of their grievances would be entirely eut off; because the sheriff would not put any proposition which had not previously received his signature; and because he would refuse to affix his signature to any proposition complaining of grievances, since that would be to impugn his friends. He sincerely thanked the House for the indulgence with which they had listened to him, and begged leave to bring up the petition. Mr. Egerton said, that although he was present at the meeting, he was not sufficiently near the high sheriff to hear all the proceedings. He was sorry to observe, that those proceedings were not so quiet as it could have been wished they had been. At the same time, if any thing illegal had occurred, he thought the proper mode of redress would have been to appeal to the laws. He could answer for the independence of the present high sheriff of Cheshire, and that he would not be swayed in the discharge of his duty by any party feeling. That gentleman exerted himself as much as possible to keep order at the meeting, but in vain. With respect to the amendment which had been proposed by a noble earl, and to the consequent proceedings, he repeated, that he was not near enough to the chair to form an accurate opinion. Mr. Bright declared, that of all the rights possessed by the people, the right of addressing the Crown and of petitioning parliament was the most valuable; and that while he had a seat in that House, he would never allow an attempt to be made to infringe that right without reprobation. Some years ago, certain bills had passed with reference to the subject of public meetings, which were considered by the majority of that House to be necessary for the tranquillity of the country. At that period he had not the honour of a seat in parliament, or he should have expressed his opinion in hostility to those bills-They had considerably limited the right of petitioning; for they left to the high sheriff, the lord lieutenant, or other constituted authorities, to call meetings of the people. He would not now ask if a high sheriff was bound to call a meeting, on a requisition to that effect being presented to him? He allowed that legally he might, perhaps, not be so. But this he would unequivocally say, that if the high sheriff did actually call a meeting, and such meeting were assembled, it was his bounden duty to discharge his office with fidelity and impartiality. The high sheriff was bound to collect the sentiments of the meeting over which he presided. Was it to be endured, that a sheriff'should fraudulently dispossess the people of one of their most valuable constitutional rights, by calling them together, and then, when placed in the chair, refusing to ascertain their real sentiments? The hon. gentleman had recommended leaving the subject to law. To what law? When was that law to be administered? When the people had been deluded in so gross a manner, were they quietly to wait until the judges went the circuit? And even then there might be no law, or only a law applying constructively to the subject. The true remedy for the people was an application to that House. Here, then, had been a public meeting called —an individual had placed himself in a situation to guide the proceedings of that assembly-and instead of honestly discharging his duty, he had deprived the people of one of their most valuable rights. Was not that a topic for that House to discuss? Ought not the high sheriff to be called to their bar to account for his conduct? If there was any one privilege for which our ancestors had fought and bled, and which he trusted neither we nor our posterity would tamely surrender, greater and more valuable than any other, it was the right of the people to represent their grievances by petition. It was a right which ought to be most carefully watched, for it was the very life-blood of the country. He begged to apologise for having expressed himself so warmly; but the result of all his constitutional reading was, to impress him with the highest veneration for this most invaluable privilege of the people of England. Mr. Bootle Wilbraham, while he allowed that it was the bounden duty of that House carefully to watch over the sacred right of petitioning, denied that the present was a case which called for its interference. What were the facts of the case? The high sheriff of Cheshire, in compliance with a requisition made to him, had called a meeting of the county, at which he himself presided, as he had a right to do; for he was surprised to hear the noble lord term the sheriff's being called to the chair a matter of courtesy; it being a notorious fact, that in all public meetings at which a sheriff was present, he invariably took the chair. The case at issue between the noble lord and himself, however, was simply this: if the high sheriff had acted harshly and with intentional partiality, then, undoubtedly, he was deserving of censure. But where was the proof of this? The noble lord had allowed that he did not know what were the political feelings of the present high sheriff of Cheshire, but appeared rather curiously to infer that he must be inclined to support the present administration from the fact that he was a captain in a corps of yeomanry. Would he say, that lord Fitzwilliam, or lord Spencer, or any other noblemen and gentlemen who held commissions in corps of a similar nature, must therefore be concluded favourable to the present administration? [Lord Belgrave observed, across the table, that it was a newly raised corps.] He was at a loss to understand what difference that made. He was not acquainted with the high sheriff; but he understood that he was a young man of independent character and fortune; and that he had never publicly committed himself on any political question. The noble lord and others thought that that gentleman's conduct had been incorrect. Although he (Mr. W.) was not present at the meeting, he had received an account of the proceedings from persons whom he had examined and cross-examined, and the result left no doubt on his mind, that the conduct of the high sheriff had been perfectly impartial. It was too much to impose on a high sheriff the responsibility of answering for the conduct of every person at a public meeting. The truth was, that at all public meetings there was occasional excess and riot. This sometimes took place among those who ought to know better. He had heard of a great public assembly of high character, some of the members of which, on its separation, degraded themselves by noise and hissing, and other symptoms of riot [cries of Hear, hear! from both sides of the House]. He was glad some hon. gentlemen seemed to take the hint, and he trusted they were by this time ashamed of their conduct. With respect to the question before the House, he could not consent to take any step upon it. All that the House knew was on one side; and he was persuaded they would not proceed on an ex parte statement. Mr Stuart Wortley, although he did. not think that the privileges of the House were endangered on this occasion, must fairly say, that he condemned the recent conduct of several high sheriffs. Those gentlemen could not do any thing more detrimental, or more contrary to constitutional principles, than to refuse to call a county meeting on a requisition properly signed, and when there were no circumstances which could induce them to consider such a meeting as likely to be attended by consequences dangerous to the public peace. He trusted that it would be a lesson to sheriffs, whatever might be their political opinions, not to endeavour to prevent the people from exercising one of their most valuable privileges. Mr. Creevey said, the sheriff having been requested to call a meeting, and having complied with that request, and an amendment being proposed at the meeting by earl Grosvenor, the matter for consideration was, did he refuse to put that amendment, or did he put it in the negative? If he did, there certainly was no law to punish him, and the only course was to call him to the bar of the House a proposition which, if the noble lord, or some other member, did not introduce, he would himself submit to the House. The hon. gentleman had alluded to a scene which took place in that House at the close of the last session. Lord Belgrave explained, that the high He had stated that hisses were resorted sheriff had the command of a corps of to on that occasion. Now, he was pre- Yeomanry embodied soon after the 16th sent, and could affirm that there were no of August, 1819. He merely mentioned hisses. With respect to other demon- this because, at the period to which he strations of feeling, such as cries of alluded, the same care was taken in "Hear! hear!" and "Shame! shame!" making these appointments that was now he was happy to be recorded as one of taken among the professors of exclusive those who used them; because, never loyalty in keeping every thing for themwas there a scene so injurious to the dig- selves. To the high sheriff of Chester he nity of the Crown, so disgraceful to the had imputed no motives, but merely character of the administration that sanc-related a plain fact. His conduct had tioned it, or so insulting to the members led to a protest on the part of several of that House. gentlemen who were present. Mr. Philips observed, that from what he had heard of the conduct of the meeting, the high sheriff had acted with partiality, and the parties who were the cause of the uproar which prevented a noble earl from being heard, had acted in a manner extremely disgraceful to themselves. He hoped the House would vindicate its privileges, and order the high sheriff to attend at the bar. Sir. J. Newport was of opinion that the House had a right to interfere in a case of this nature. If sheriffs were to be permitted to invest themselves with this authority over county meetings, and to refuse, on the ground of their own will and caprice, to put any reasonable proposition which might be offered to them by those who were duly qualified to attend, there would at once be an end to those privileges, the exercise of which was reserved to the people by the first principles of the constitution. It would be idle to talk of the right of petition, if such proceedings were permitted to pass without receiving the censure of the House: VOL. IV. Ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed. DETENTION OF A BRITISH SUBJECT AT GHENT-PETITION OF W. M'DOUGALL.] Mr. Denman rose to present petition, which he had received by that day's post, from a person who was perfectly unknown to him. The petitioner, whose name was W. M'Dougall, stated that he was detained a prisoner at Ghent, by the foreign authorities upon a charge of forging a letter of credit in the name of a bank in Scotland, and obtaining money thereon in France. The petitioner denied the charge, and stated that, by being detained a prisoner at Ghent, he was deprived of the means of proving his innocence. He thought the subject worth the attention of the authorities at home, and entitled to immediate inquiry. Mr. Goulburn asked, whether the petitioner had applied to the British authorities abroad? Mr. Denman stated, that applications had been ineffectually made to lord Clancarty and lord Castlereagh. 20 The petition was then read. It set forth, that the petitioner was a British subject, who had resided for some time on the continent-that he had resided for nearly twelve months in Paris, and had left that city with regular passports in last July to recruit his health at the Spa of Aix-la-Chapelle, from which place he repaired at a subsequent time to Brussels, where he had resided, become acquainted with several English persons, and had a running horse at the races. The petitioner further stated, that he was arrested at Ghent by the local authorities upon a charge transmitted by the police of Paris, of having raised money in that city upon a forged letter of credit of a bank in Scotland. He also stated that he had ineffectually sought redress through lord Clancarty, who informed the petitioner's wife, in reply to his application, that the local authorities detained him on the charge already mentioned. The petitioner, as a British subject, sought the interposition of his own government. Mr. Denman said, he was quite aware that the full extent of the prayer of the petition could not be complied with. He thought, however, the case ought to be looked into. Ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed. COMMITTEE OF WAYS AND MEANS.] The House having resolved itself into a Committee of Ways and Means, carried on, they had this proof, that it had not increased during that time. Under these circumstances, he had no farther explanation to offer at present, except to propose that the House would allow 5,000,000l. voted on the aids of 1820, to be applied to the service of the year 1821, the effect of which was merely to allow the treasury to apply the produce of the taxes of one year either to the service of that or the succeeding year, as might appear most beneficial to the interests of the country. He concluded by moving a resolution for the continua-, tion of the duty of 1s. per bushel on malt, imposed by an act of last session until the 5th July, 1821. Mr. Creevey said, he had come down to the House with the intention of opposing any supply, had it been proposed by the right hon. gentleman. He had not opposed the Speaker's leaving the chair, because he did not suspect that any vote of public money was intended; but seeing now the drift of the right hon. gentleman's resolution, he should propose, as an amendment to it, that the chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again. The House would recollect the grievances which had been stated last night from all quarters of the country, particularly from the great and formerly flourishing town of Birmingham, In the conversation which that petition had produced, opinions had been elicited which had never before been heard in that House. A most honourable and The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, respectable country gentleman had prothat he had only one alteration to propose. posed to deprive the fundholder of part In the year 1816, several excise duties of his rights, calling him " a devouring which had been granted during the war, monster of consumption." Another hon. were continued for a term of five years and, friend of his had hailed with joy this would expire in July, 1821; and his attack on the fundholder, and had exobject was, to renew these duties for one pressed his anxiety to be at it. The year. The duty he proposed to continue chancellor of the exchequer might laugh thus from year to year was that on foreign at this, but what would Mr. Pitt have spirits, which would have the effect of said, if he had heard such opinions respectraising this branch of the annual revenue ing the propriety of setting one part of the from 3,000,000l. to 4,000,0007. His community at war with another? Every reason for proposing this annual continua- gentleman who spoke last night on this tion of the duty on foreign spirits, was, subject had pressed on the House the that the subject being thus brought from necessity of retrenchment, but nothing time to time under the consideration of in the way of relief was even hinted at by parliament, they would be able to per- government-they heard no plan for the ceive the result of the measures taken to amelioration of distress-night after night prevent smuggling. It appeared, that they had before them the old story of the consumption of foreign spirits had committees of supply and ways and increased during the last two years; and means; but they heard not one word whatever gentlemen might know respect- about reform-not one word upon the ing the extent to which smuggling was necessity of retrenchment. Under such taxes. 66 These were the persons who effectually prevented any reform in that House. The 72 pensioners, and the independent members," whose families were quartered upon the country, and lived upon the taxes, stood between the people and their rights. Those were the persons who composed the majorities against the people. He was not surprised at those majorities; indeed, far from circumstances, he would not consent to grant a single farthing of the public money he would divide the House upon every vote of supply, until he had some distinct pledge from those who took upon them to manage the affairs of the country, until some plan of practical reform should be submitted to that House. He would call upon the landholder and the fundholder to unite, to unite against monsters-the monsters were not the fund-it; he was only astonished that the friends holders, the monsters were those who held of the country were able to make so good places under the Crown, and sat in that a fight as they had made in that House. House. They appeared in that House under These were the grievances; and the various characters, as lay lords of the Ad- redress of those grievances ought to go miralty, as puisne judges; but they showed before the grant of one shilling of the that they were real pensioners, dependents public money. He regretted that he did on the bounty of the Crown; their presence not see his right hon. friend, the memin that House was useless, it was worse ber for Knaresborough (Mr. Tierney), than useless, for there they were to in his place. He hoped that that right vote on all occasions with the minister, hon. gentleman would lend his authority never with the people. Let it not be sup- to a bill to prevent placemen from sitting posed that he objected to the responsible in that House, whose presence was not ministers of the Crown sitting in that necessary for the public service. By the House; their presence was necessary, introduction of such a bill, his right hon. but it was a monstrous thing to see per- friend would do a great public service. sons holding places at pleasure under the An hon. gentleman (Mr. Hume) to whom Crown, sitting and voting in that House; the country was greatly indebted, had these formed a part of the pack which submitted, during the last session, a new stood firm and united; it was found im- system for the collection of taxes. He possible to break in upon them. There demonstrated, that of the monstrous were 72 persons in that House who held sum of four millions which the bare places to the amount of 120,0001. a year, collection of the taxes cost the country, yet forty members were sufficient to make a saving of at least one million might be a House to vote away the public money, or effected. He also proposed to take some to invade the public liberties? Was such measure to secure the remainder from an abuse to be endured? Was it possible coming within the rapacious grasp of from such men to expect the introduc- members of parliament. What he had tion of any plan of economical reform ? said he believed to be as true as that he There was another body of men in that stood in that place; and then, he asked, House who were called independent mem- were the people, ground down as they bers: there were no greater enemies to the were to the utmost extremity of distress, country than those independent members to be treated without the slightest sym-their votes were with the ministers-pathy or consideration? He believed their families lived upon the taxes-and did any one doubt it could the right hon. gentleman deny it? The brothers, sons, and more distant relations of those members would be found throughout the country, holding places in the customs, in the distribution of stamps, and in various other departments. The right hon. gentleman knew that repeated and daily applications were made to ministers from members of that House. He knew that the steps of the Treasury were daily beset by men calling for what they called their property. The fact was notorious he knew such people, respectable pervery comfortably lived upon the sons, who that a saving of at least four millions might be effected in the collection of the revenue and in the different offices of the state. Such a reduction would lead to the most gratifying consequences. The members of that House would be a different set of men. The most happy prospects of future retrenchment would present themselves; and above all, it would lead to a union with the people, and create the surest omen of public good. He would move, that the chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had reason to hope, that in the estimates of |