Lords Sitting of 15 March 1838

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a second time:—Residence of the Clergy.
Petitions presented. By the Bishop of LONDON, from the Clergy of the Isle of Man, to continue the See of Sodor and Man.—By the Duke of CLEVELAND, from Baptists of Stockton-upon-Tees, and another place, by the Earl of ALBEMARLE, from Hadleigh, Woodbridge, Sutton, and other places, by the Earl of FALMOUTH, from Truro, by the Earl of DEVON, from Ivy-bridge (Devon), by Lord DACRE, from Bradley, and a place in Hertfordshire, by the Earl of ILCHESTER, from the Dissenters of Highbridge, and from the Baptists, Mariners' Chapel, the Wesleyan Methodists, the Society of Friends, the Unitarian Congregation, and the Independent Congregation of Bridgewater, by the Earl of BURLINGTON, from Mansfield, Notts, two places in Westmoreland, and one place in Lancashire, by the Earl of STRADBROKE, from Stradbroke, Aldeburgh, and four other places in the county of Suffolk, and by Lord BROUGHAM, from many places in England, particularly Yorkshire and Lancashire, for the immediate abolition of Negro Apprenticeship.—By the Earl of ALBEMARLE, from Dromore, against the proposed Poor-law for Ireland.—By Lord REDESDALE, from Lyme Regis, against the system of National Education.—By Lord BROUGHAM, from Herne Bay, and from the Mechanics' Institution at Leamington Priors, in favour of the Bill for establishing National Education; from Dunfermline, the first United Associate Congregation of Paisley, the United Associate Congregation of Paisley, the inhabitants of a parish in the county of Haddington, the Albion-street Chapel (Glasgow), the Sessional Relief Congregation of Dumbarton, and from three places in Lancashire, against additional Endowment to the Scotch Church; from Yarmouth, for the abolition of Capital Punishments; and from the Working Men's Association of Braintree and Bookend, for a repeal of the Corn-laws.

ABOLITION OF NEGRO APPRENTICESHIP.
The Duke of Wellingtonhaving presented a petition for the abolition of negro apprenticeship on the 1st of August next, wished to ask the noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham) what course he intended to pursue on this point, whether he meant to introduce a separate bill to abolish the system, or to propose a clause by way of amendment to the Bill at present before the House?
Lord Broughamsaid, that this was a most proper question to put. He intended to propose an amendment of the Abolition Act by substituting the words "1st of August, 1838," for the "1st of August, 1840," as the period for the determina-
900
tion of the apprenticeship system. He should be able to discuss its merits in a few observations. He would introduce it before the Easter recess, but he did not propose to take any further step till after Easter. There would be no disadvantage in this course, because sufficient time would be left between that period and the 1st of August, even if the Bill were allowed to pass, and if it were not to pass, the delay would not signify.
The Duke of Wellingtonwished to know whether the amendment would be proposed in the present Bill?
Lord Broughamreplied, that the Bill already introduced incorporated all his resolutions but the last, which he considered as the only one of vast importance; this he was determined not to carry out by any side wind, but to bring it distinctly before the House in a separate measure; he should not, therefore, move it as an amendment to the Ministerial Bill.

ELECTIONS IN IRELAND.
The Earl of Wicklow presenteda petition from a barony in the county of Cork, complaining of the interference of Catholic priests at elections. With this part of Ireland he was not immediately connected; but he believed that the petition was respectable, and he knew that it was numerously signed. The petitioners wished him to call the particular attention of their Lordships to the grievances, injury, and inconvenience, to which the petitioners were subject in consequence of the interference of the priests in the elections in Ireland. The petitioners stated, that, owing to the inflammatory language used by a Roman Catholic priest in the county of Cork, an officer commanding a detachment of soldiers was obliged to withdraw his men from the chapel, and the petitioners hoped that the House would pass a law prohibiting the priests from interfering in elections. He was well aware of the existence of the grievance against which the petitioners prayed for protection. At the same time he was of opinion that no one would think of calling on Parliament directly to interfere to prevent this or any other class of men from using the influence which they might possess over their fellows in election matters; but although they could not prevent the evil by direct compulsion, yet he thought that they might do so by indirect means. The evil did not consist in the interference of the

901
Roman Catholic priesthood to influence legal voters in the exercise of their right, but what he most objected to was, their bringing to the poll those who did not possess such a right, and who perjured themselves by giving a vote which they did not legally possess. This was the power which the Legislature ought to interfere with, and give a remedy against its exercise. It was, therefore, with much satisfaction that he saw, by the votes of the other House of Parliament, that her Majesty's Ministers had introduced a measure which would go a great way towards remedying the evil of which the petitioners complained. Of course he could not know the provisions of that Bill at present, but, when it came before their Lordships' House, if its object were to correct the vicious system which now existed, and which had existed ever since the first establishment of a register in 1829, if there appeared on the Bill a bona fide intention to remedy this evil, he would most cheerfully co-operate with her Majesty's Ministers, and endeavour to pass it. But if the Bill should turn out to be the same as a few Sessions ago reached their Lordships, and which, under the guise of amendment, bore the evidence of being a rank and gross job, placing at the disposal of Government the appointment of the revising barristers, he should feel it his duty to do the same with the present Bill as he did with the former, and move its rejection.
Lord Broughamremarked, that the noble Lord had not hit upon one remedy which might be effectual—that a measure should be proposed making a state provision for the Roman Catholic clergy. His belief was, that such a provision would be strenuously opposed by the clergy at first, but would afterwards be quietly received.
Petition laid on the table.

YEOMANRY CORPS.
The Earl of Haddington, in reference to a conversation which took place on Tuesday night, wished to observe, that in the returns of the number of yeomanry corps to be disbanded on the 31st of March instant, he found that no less than six corps were to be dismissed in Scotland, of which four were entire regiments, and two only single troops. Now, the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Melbourne) had stated, that in the selection for dismissal, her Majesty's
902
Government was guided by two circumstances; one was, the fact of their being single troops, and the other was the necessity of reconsidering the constitution of those corps which were raised in a somewhat hasty manner during the incendiary fires of 1830. Now, the last of those reasons did not apply to Scotland, where there were no fires, and where many of the troops were raised before that time. He wished, therefore, to ask the noble Viscount whether a single corps of yeomanry would exist in Scotland after the 31st of March instant?
Viscount Melbournebelieved, that there would; but he was not perfectly aware how the case stood, but at any rate he believed that this force was not likely to be called for in that part of the country.
The Earl of Haddingtonwas afraid that in Edinburgh county, and in the counties of Renfrew, Lanark, and Stirling, where there was a manufacturing population, that force might be required, and they were left entirely destitute?
House adjourned.