it in the aggregate, it was a very large one. With respect to the Irish Volunteers, he would ask, who they were-what they {MAY 10} himself, and hence great dissatisfaction in the island. Now we ought to have the island at peace; for we had been at large expense for its protection, and all that ex-were-and what they did, or were doing? pense would be thrown away if we had not the inhabitants cordially engaged on our side. He wished to know, whether it was true that a dispute had taken place between the Governor of the island and the local Parliament, and if a dispute had taken place, whether it was likely to be soon stopped? If not, it was likely to lead to further disturbances, and those disturbances would lead, as a matter of necessity, to increased establishments in that island. Mr. Lamb had not expected such a question as this to be put to him upon the Army Estimates, with which it was not very naturally connected, and he was not prepared to give it a positive answer. The decision of which the hon. member for Middlesex complained, was not the decision of the Governor of Jersey, but the decision of the Privy Council, to which the matter had been referred. The Governor had only been the medium of communicating it to the local authorities. That decision, he understood, was strictly according to the law of the island. He should like some of the Irish Members then present to inform him, where these Irish Volunteers were, and what was their number? He should move, that the vote be reduced one-half; this would give the Volunteers six months' pay, and would afford the Government an opportunity of inquiring into the necessity of continuing such a force; and, if it were deemed advisable, of totally disbanding them. Mr. Ellice said, that with respect to Ireland, there were a number of men permanently employed as sergeants and drummers. If these men were now dismissed, there would be a very considerable expense incurred for allowances and pensions. He wished much to reduce the expense; and, if the hon. member for Middlesex would leave the matter with him, he would use his best endeavours to lighten the burthen. Mr. Jervis said, the Volunteers of Ireland had been very useful. They had come forward in times of great alarm, and well deserved any trifling remuneration that was given to them. Mr. Hume was sorry to find, that reform Mr. O'Connell declared, that he did not here had prevented reform from being estab- understand what was meant by "Volunlished triumphantly in the Island of Jersey. teers" who received pay. They were, in The disturbances between the local and the his opinion, not "Volunteers," but labourers imperial government would lead to the in- for hire. They were like some conscripts crease of our military establishments in of whom he had read. A traveller seeing Jersey, as similar events had led to the a number of them linked together, inquired, inerease of them in other colonial depend-" Who are these men thus manacled ?" encies of the Crown. He hoped that, on "Oh," said his informant, "they are volunanother occasion, the right hon. Secretary teers-going joyfully to serve their counwould lay before the House the reasons try." why the Government would not accede to the very salutary Amendment proposed in the meetings of the assembly of Jersey. The grant was voted. Mr. Jervis: Did the hon. and learned Member never" volunteer" his services for pay? Mr. O'Connell: Certainly not; never; that is exactly the distinction. SUPPLY-VOLUNTEER FORCE.] On the Mr. Ruthven declared, that he knew, question, that the sum of 103,318l. 13s. 2d. that those situations of permanent serbe granted to defray the charge of Volunteer geants and drummers were given by perCorps for the United Kingdom of Great sons in authority to their menial servants Britain and Ireland, from March, 1833, to-to whippers-in, and huntsmen, and stable March, 1834, followers. Mr. Hume said, he would oppose the Resolution. He appealed to the country gentlemen of England, and he would ask them, whether they could not call out the active and steady loyalty of the country, if they were menaced by insubordination, without resorting to this paltry payment of 41. or 5l. It appeared, he knew, in the details, to be a very small sum; but, take Mr. Ellice said, he would cause inquiry to be made into the whole subject, especially with respect to the points which had last been noticed, and the evil should be corrected. Mr. Shaw was of opinion, that the yeomanry of Ireland were well worthy of every assistance which could be afforded to them. Mr. Hume wished to know, whether those who were denominated "Volunteers' had ever been enrolled, and had done service? He thought that this vote ought to be postponed until the right hon. Gentleman had received further and more explicit information on the subject. He should like to know on what ground a corps of yeomanry had been recently raised at Hud dersfield. Mr. Lewis Fenton declared, that he knew of no intention to raise such a corps. There was not, at present, any corps, either of cavalry or infantry, at Huddersfield. He had commanded a yeomanry corps in that district from 1829 to 1831, which had not cost the Government one farthing. If there were an intention of raising a corps of yeomanry at Huddersfield, he would say, that there was not a place in England where such a corps would be more useful. In the last winter the conduct of some of the operatives was calculated to excite the most unpleasant feelings. Mr. Lamb said, it was only necessary to draw the attention of the House to the state in which the country was placed at the latter end of 1830, and the beginning of 1831, to prove that the Government had not acted injudiciously in calling on the better sort of yeomanry and farmers to come forward for the protection of life and property. Those individuals had obeyed this call; and it would be most ungracious conduct on the part of his Majesty's Government now to turn on them and say, "it is true you have put down these disturbances, and the expense was trifling, but hereafter you must serve without pay or allowance." In fact, that which the yeomanry received was not pay; it merely went to cover a variety of expenses incidental to the service. Sir Edmund Hayes said, that he thought his Majesty's present Ministers had themselves given the most ample refutation to the unfounded and unwarrantable assertions made respecting the yeomanry, by the member for Dublin, and echoed by the member for Middlesex. He could appeal to the late right hon. Secretary on that subject; it being well known that he, in conjunction with the noble Lord at the head of the Irish Government, in a moment of panic and apprehension, excited by the agitation of the repeal question, put arms into the hands of those very men who are now reviled, thereby proving that they knew their value; and acknowledged, though reluctantly, that in time of danger, they were the men to be really depended on for courage, loyalty, and true friendship to British connexion. Every man who did not participate in the ignorance of the member for Middlesex, knew that to be the case. The present right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary at War, had not been long in office, but it was to be hoped that he did not come forward so profoundly ignorant of the constitution of the service for which the vote of money was asked, as to lend any credence to the wicked and untenable assertions which had been made. Mr. Andrew Johnston said, it would be very satisfactory for him and his constituents to know some good reason for raising such a corps as he had heard was about to be raised in Fife. Mr. Robert Wallace said, it appeared to him that an attempt was set on foot to get up a system similar in Scotland and England to that which prevailed in Ireland, where one class of men was opposed to another class. It was just like the system of Orangemen of Ireland, who were opposed to, and oppressing a different class of people. Colonel Perceval said, the hon. Member who spoke last had shown his ignorance of the state of Ireland. What that hon. Member had advanced was calculated to lower the character of the Orangemen of Ireland. He described them as being unfriendly to those who possessed a different creed. He, as an Orangeman, denied that they entertained any such feeling. The Orangemen, on the contrary, held out the hand of friendship to well-disposed persons of every creed. Mr. Walker declared, that, in his opinion, the yeomanry of Ireland were a party corps, and most active in attempting to put down liberal opinions. They were the chief cause of all the disturbances which took place. Lord Belfast defended the Irish ycomanry, than whom a more respectable body of men did not exist. Mr. O'Connell observed, that in the town (Belfast) which the noble Lord represented, a Catholic could not be buried without the followers of the corpse being brutally fired at by the yeomanry. Mr. F. O'Connor asserted, that the yeomanry force of Ireland had contributed to disturb the peace of the country. Mr. Ellice defended the items of the vote, but expressed his willingness to consent to a deduction, on account of the Huddersfield corps, if his hon. friend insisted on it, after the explanation of the hon. Member in the gallery. Mr. Hume did not say, that he would go so far as to put down the yeomanry force, but wished to withhold the public money from them. The Committee divided on Mr. Hume's Amendment, that the vote be reduced one half: Ayes 53; Noes 205-Majority 152. List of the AYES. ENGLAND. Aglionby, H. A. Wason, R. IRELAND. Beauclerk, Major Bewes, T. Briscoe, J. I. Brotherton, J. Chichester, J. P. B. Divett, E. Faithfull, G. Fancourt, Major Fielden, J. Fryer, R. Grote, G. Guest, J. J. Hall, B. Hawes, B. Hutt, W. Lennox, Lord G. Lloyd, J. H. O'Connell, C. Molesworth, Sir W. Blake, J. O'Connell, D. O'Connell, J. Roche, W. TELLER. Hume, J. HOUSE OF LORDS, Monday, May 13, 1833. MINUTES.] Petitions presented. By Earl FITZWILLIAM, from the City of York, against further Restriction on Savings Banks; and from Leeds, for the Repeal or Revision of the Corn Laws.-By Earl CAWDOR, Lords KENYON, BARHAM, and ROLLE, and the Bishop of LONDON, from several Places,-against Slavery.-By the Duke of their Lordships were most zealous to support the high character which they had hitherto maintained. He could not find language to express the deep indignation which he felt at the slur cast on their Lordships' House by the report of a trial which he had seen in the newspapers The Lord Chancellor begged pardon for interposing to prevent the statement which the noble Earl was about to make, evidently under feelings of the most natural and praiseworthy nature, and in which he himself, with the House generally, perhaps, was inclined to concur. But he prayed the noble Earl to remember, that the noble Lord who was a party in this case stood at present in a peculiar situation. He was not yet properly convicted. A verdict had passed, it was true, but it remained suspended as to its operation. It might never have any, or it might be moved to be set aside. Until the four first days of Term had elapsed, it was quite impossible to tell whether the noble Lord would be convicted or not. Had he known the intention of the noble Earl, he would have taken the opportunity of asking for a few minutes' private conversation on the subject, for the sake of making to him that communication. The noble Person in question must in fact be considered as still on his trial. The Earl of Winchilsea bowed with submission to the noble Lord. He certainly felt strongly upon the subject. The Duke of Cumberland felt excessively happy at the explanation which had taken place. He certainly entered the House under a belief that the noble Lord had been convicted. The Earl of Eldon said, that until the Court of King's Bench had either refused or granted the trial, the case was still in a course of adjudication; therefore, at present, their Lordships were scarcely in a RICHMOND, from Bexhill, for the same System of Tithes situation to form any judgment.* to England that is about to be granted to Ireland.-By CONDUCT OF A PEER.] The Earl of HOUSE OF COMMONS, Monday, May 13, 1833. MINUTES.] Papers ordered. On the Motion of Mr. TOOKE, an Account of the Number of Certificates taken out Annually by Attornics and Solicitors practising in England and Wales, from the first Day of Easter Term, 1819, to *It was understood that the case referred to in the text was that of Lord Teynham, who had been found guilty in the Court of King's Lord subsequently moved for and obtained a Bench of a conspiracy to defraud. The noble new trial. the same Day, 1833: of the Number of Articles of Clerkships of Attornies, and of Assignments thereof, filed in his Majesty's Court of King's Bench in each year for the same Term: also of the gross Annual Amount of Stamp Duties paid upon Admission of Attornies and Solicitors to practise in his Majesty's Courts of King's Bench, Chancery, &c., from the seventh Day of May, 1819, to the same Day, 1833. New Writ ordered. On the Motion of Mr. ABERCROMBIE, for Tiverton, in the room of Mr. KENNEDY, declared unduly elected. Bills. Read a third time :-Sewers. Committed :-Dower; Curtesy of England; and Inheritance. Petitions presented. By Mr. GOULBURN, from the Clergy of Kilmore, from several Places in Cornwall, and from the University of Cambridge; and by Sir ROBERT PEEL, from the Clergy of Middlesex, and other Places,-against the Church Temporalities (Ireland) Bill.—By Sir ROBERT PEEL, from Plympton, St. Mary, for making the prociples.—By Colonel LEITH HAY, from Forres; and by Captain WEMYSS, from Queensferry, against the Assessed posed Commutation of Tithes on Fair and Equitable Prin Taxes. By Sir ROBERT PEEL, by Mr. SANDERSON, General SHARPE, Mr. FORSTER, Mr. ASSHETON SMITH, Mr. STRUTT, Mr. PRICE, Mr. RICHARDS, Mr. W. A. WILLIAMS, Mr. WILSON PATTEN, Mr. GRANVILLE, Mr. H. VERNON, Mr. CROMPTON, Captain WEMYSS, HAY, Captain DUNDAS, Mr. J. H. VIVIAN, General Mr. BARNARD, Mr. BYNG, Mr. BRISCOE, Colonel LEITH PALMER, Sir W. FOLKES, Mr. PARKER, Lord ORMELIE, Mr. C. TYRELL, Mr. THROCKMORTON, Captain ELLIOT, Sir C. J. GREVILLE, Mr. CHILDERS, Mr. STRICKLAND, AGLIONBY, Sir C. LEMON, and Mr. EMERSON TENNENT, Mr. HUDSON, Mr. BENETT, Mr. HARLAND, Mr. ROBERT GRANT, Mr. J. W. BULLER, Mr. WARBURTON, Mr. from a great Number of Places,-against Slavery. By Captain ELLIOT, from Kelso, against any Legislative Enactments for the Better Observance of the Lord's Day. Civil Disabilities of the Jews.-By Mr. C. H. TRACY, from the Independents of Tewkesbury, for Relief to the Inquiry into the Distress of the Owners of Merchant Vessels; and for the Abolition of the Corn Laws.-By Sir CHARLES LEMON, from St. Keverne, for Removing the Cornwall Assizes from Launceston to Truro.-By Mr. -By Mr. R. GRANT, from Waterford, for Removing the Dissenters.-By Mr. AGLIONBY, from Harrington, for EMERSON TENNENT, from the Presbyterian Seceders of Tyrone, against the Ministerial System of Education in Ireland. By Mr. AGLIONBY, from Cockermouth; Mr. STRICKLAND, from Beominster, and Dewsbury; and by Mr. W. H. WILLIAMS, Mr. WILSON PATTEN, and Mr. BRIGSTOCK, from several Places,-against the Sale of Beer Act.-By Mr. T. F. KENNEDY, from Ayr and Irvine; General SHARPE, from Sanquhar; and by Captain WEMYSS, from Stirling, for Repealing the Duty on Stamp Receipts.-By the Earl of ORMELIE, Captain ELLIOT, Altering the present System of Church Patronage in Scotland.-By Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR, from Chester, for making Extra Parochial Places, contributory to the Support of the Poor.-By Mr. STRUTT, from the Innkeepers and Mr. T. F. KENNEDY, from several Places,-for of Hastings, for placing Innkeepers on a Footing with other Shopkeepers as regards the Assessed Taxes.-By Mr. RICHARDS, from St. Andrew's, Holborn, for Power to Magistrates to Suppress Dog Fighting, &c.-By Mr. WILSON PATTEN, from Maryport, against any Alteration in the Timber Duties.-By Mr. HODGSON, from Newcastle, against the Dutch Embargo.-By Captain WEMYSS, from Perth and Stirling, for granting to the Irish the Preaching of the Gospel in their own Language.-By the Earl of ORMELIE, from Blairgowrie; and Captain WEMYSS, from Stirling, for a Factories Regulation Bill.-By Mr. PARKER, from the Clergy of Sheffield; and Mr. DUNCOMBE, from the Clergy of the Diocese of Chester,-against the Church Temporalities (Ireland) Bill.-By Mr. EMERSON TEN NENT, from the Members of the Savings Bank, Belfast, against the Savings Bank Annuities Bill.-By the Earl of ORMELIE, from the Highlands of Perthshire, against the Reduction of the Malt Drawback; also from the Society of Procurators in Perthshire, for a Repeal of the Duty on Certificates of Solicitors, Attornies, &e.; and from the Burgh of Abernethy, for the Abolition of the Church of Ireland, and Appropriating its Revenues to the Reduction of the National Debt, Mr. BUSINESS OF COMMITTEES.] Benett brought up the Report of the Committee, with the Amendments, on the Bath and Warminster Road Bill, and moved that they be read. Mr. Henry Baring objected to the The Amendments of the Committee. evidence of Mr. M'Adam, Mr. Rennie, and Mr. Mills, went to disprove the necessity for the road, and the propriety of the proposed line. He moved, as an Amendment, that the Report be read that day six months. Mr. Benett supported the reading of the Report and Amendments, and the propriety of passing the Bill, upon the grounds of its being virtually intended to improve the road between Bath and Frome. Mr. Estcourt was convinced that danger would arise to extensive canal property by the proposed line of road. He understood the proposition to be to postpone the reading of the Report and Amendments to that day six months; but he would waive his support to that Motion, if certain clauses in the Bill, which he chiefly objected to, were given up. The proposed road was a wild and extravagant speculation. Mr. Roebuck said, the only real opponent to the Bill was Mr. Vivian; the others put forward were mere men of straw. There was, however, in the case of the Committee upon this Bill, a great public question, to which it was fit that the House should direct its attention, and as early as possible apply a remedy. It was a great public matter, although connected with a private Bill. The Committee was asked by the counsel for Mr. Vivian to adjourn the Committee. He was answered that Mr. Vivian had had twelve months to oppose the Bill, and the counsel then said: Well, Gentlemen, I will tell you candidly what I mean to do. I will examine witnesses who will give you no information; but who will take up your time till the week I want is completed. I will have the week some way or other." He succeeded in his object. Such a power, lodged in the hands of counsel, was incompatible with the due discharge of the duties of Committees of the House, and ought to be put an end to. The proper remedy, in his opinion was, that Committees should The road be empowered to give costs. would not interfere with Mr. Vivian's privacy, and it was nothing but caprice which offered opposition to the general good. It was this view of the matter which induced him to support the original Motion, which was agreeable to the interests and wishes of his constituents. The House divided on the original Motion:-Ayes 49; Noes 37-Majority 12. CHURCH TEMPORALITIES (IRELAND).] On the Order of the Day being read for the House resolving itself into a Committee of the whole House on the Irish Church Reform Bill, Lord Althorp signified to the House that his Majesty had been graciously pleased to place at the disposal of Parliament his interests in the temporalities and custody thereof, of the several bishoprics and archbishoprics in Ireland. The noble Lord then moved that the Speaker leave the Chair. Mr. Lefroy said, in rising to avail himself of the indulgence of the House as expressed at the conclusion of the debate on a former night, he trusted, in the line which he meant to take, he should not prove himself unworthy of their indulgence, for at the same time that he should freely and boldly state his objections, he hoped to satisfy the House that he did not make objections merely for the sake of objecting, as he was prepared at the same time to offer such suggestions as to his mind appeared calculated to counteract the mischievous and dangerous principles which were involved in some at least of the provisions of the Bill. He should have to refer to details which might at first appear to some hon. Members better suited to a future stage of the Bill, but he preferred referring to them at the present moment, in order that the Committee might be the better prepared to consider his suggestions when the particular clauses to which they had reference should be brought before them, and to give to them any weight to which they might be entitled. On behalf of the Church in Ireland he desired nothing but that her cause should be fairly heard. He desired nothing but that the House should legislate for her upon principles of justice-upon the ordinary and avowed principles of legisla⚫tion-upon such principles, in fact, as the House would legislate on for the Church in England. He was aware, on entering upon the subject, that he had to contend against the prejudices of two classes. In the first place he had opposed to him the prejudices of those who contended that the Established Church in Ireland was altogether useless; and in the next place the prejudices of those who considered the endowment of that establishment to be so enormous that they were willing to reduce it in any way possible, without attending very strictly to the means by which that object was to be effected. With respect to the first class, he would entreat hon. Members not to allow their prepossessions against an establishment to influence their judgment on the question as to the extent of maintenance necessary for its support-if it were to be continued; and he would beg to call the attention of hon. Members of both classes to the words of the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer on introducing the measure to the House. Speaking of the endowments of the Established Church in Ireland, he said :-" I can say conscientiously that a greater exaggeration has prevailed on this subject, than on any political topic which I recollect. Before I looked more narrowly into the question, I myself, greatly exaggerated in my own mind, the amount of the revenues of the Irish Church establishment.*" The present measure had been called a measure of Reform for the Church in Ireland. On the subject of Reform, he (Mr. Lefroy) did not stand there to contend for the existence of one single abuse-he should little represent the feelings or sentiments of the clergy of Ireland were he to advocate the existence of any abuse that could be fairly proved to exist in the Church. As little did he stand there to resist an equitable distribution of the property of the Church, or the better appropriation of its revenues for the great end of the establishment, the advancement and support of the Protestant religion-but he stood there to resist the alienation of Church property-he stood there to resist the proposition of legislating for Ireland on different principles from those on which the House would legislate for England he stood there to resist legislating upon a principle which must endanger the connexion between the two countries, and which must have the effect of raising a serious question with respect to the Coronation Oath. All these principles were involved in the Bill in its present - * Hansard (third series) xvi. p. 566. |