Submitted by Rob Doragh. (with Notes) Transcribed from The Londonderry Journal Tuesday August 07 1838 Note: renamed ‘The Derry Journal’ in 1880
THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
GROCERS’ SPIRIT LICENSES (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. E. TENNENT moved the second reading of the spirit licenses bill. In 1836 Mr. PERRIN brought in a bill to regulate the granting of spirit licenses in that country, and in that bill was inserted a clause prohibiting the granting of a retail license to grocers. At the very moment when this clause was carried it was found so objectionable that it was almost simultaneously counteracted by another enactment. The first bill passed on the 28th of July, and on the 4th of August the Chancellor of the Exchequer found it necessary to introduce into another bill then passing a clause suspending its operation for two years. That suspension would terminate at the close of the present session of parliament. He (Mr. E. TENNENT) had confined his motion to a further suspension for twelve months, in the hope that, in the interim, some comprehensive and effectual reform would be introduced into the entire system of spirit licenses in Ireland, than which no department stood more in need of a thorough and searching amendment.
Mr. SHAW had the greatest objection to this bill, which, if passed, would convert all the grocers into spirit dealers.
Mr. O’CONNELL contended that the grocers, as a class, were more respectable than the publicans, and were deserving of the spirit licenses.
Lord STANLEY said that the provision with respect to the grocers was not new. Parliament decided the point two years ago, by imposing this restriction upon the grocers.
Mr. HUME contended that all restrictions, so far from effecting anything towards the doing away of drunkenness, had quite the contrary effect.
Lord MORPETH felt himself in a peculiar position with respect to the bill. In the former measure it was proposed to insert a clause prohibiting the sale of spirits on the premises by grocers, but a deputation of that body having been sent over from Ireland to remonstrate on the point, the clause was abandoned. A similar clause, however, had been introduced by way of rider to the bill, and as he (Lord MORPETH) had not divided the house upon it after the deputation had left London, he felt almost as if he had broken faith with them, and would not therefore attempt to influence any votes upon the question.
The house then divided, when there appeared – For the second reading, 43; for the amendment, 15; majority, 28.
WEDNESDAY AUGUST 1
The Irish Poor Relief Bill, which is to form an important epoch in national history, has received the royal assent.
IRISH ESTIMATES, EDUCATION AND OTHER MATTERS
MONDAY, JULY 30. IRISH ESTIMATES FOR EDUCATION
It was then moved that a sum not exceeding £50,000 should be granted to her Majesty, to enable the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to issue money for the advance of education in Ireland.
Mr. S O’BRIEN called the attention of the committee to the unequal distribution of this grant, and expressed a hope that the committee would come to the conclusion that the fund at present given was not distributed in those parts of the country where assistance was most wanted.
Mr James GRATTAN was not by any means prepared to increase the grant; he thought the sum was quite adequate; but he strongly objected to the whole proceedings of the board of education, who appeared to look to the quantity rather than to the quality of schooling which they afforded. A better system of education ought to be established. The expenses, too, of the board were far beyond what they ought to be. The establishment in Dublin was on a most extravagant scale, and ought to be reduced, both in the number of persons employed and the amount of salaries given.
Viscount MORPETH begged, in reply to his hon. friend the member for Wicklow (Mr. J. GRATTAN) to inform him that the main part of the expense of the board in Dublin was for fitting up training schools for masters, which was more than anything else requisite to maintain an efficient system of education in Ireland. He was glad to say that hostility to the board, which at one time was very great, was gradually disappearing; and he believed that the more the operations of the board were known, and the more their proceedings were watched, the more they would be found to have met the beneficent views of parliament in extending religious instruction to persons of all persuasions.
Sir E. HAYES said, that the complaints as to the conduct of the board, which had been made by hon. members on that (the Opposition side of the house) justified the objection entertained by hon. gentlemen near him.
Sir C. STYLE considered that the salary given to the teachers was too small to secure the services of competent men.
Colonel PERCEVAL said, that the scheme had been a perfect failure, so far as the joint education of Protestants and Catholics was concerned.
Mr. HUTTON said, that one source of the expenses in these schools was incurred in providing books and maps, which were of so good a description that they had been brought over to England, and were used in many schools here. He thought the present system laid the foundation of a good education throughout the country.
Mr. WYSE said, that this system had been introduced only as an experiment, and he trusted that its success in providing an intellectual education, would induce the government at some future day to originate a measure enabling districts to provide for the schools by public assessment.
Several votes in which Dublin is interested, were then agreed to.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER having next moved a vote of £8,928 for the Roman Catholic College (Maynooth,) for the year ending 31st March, 1839.
Colonel SIBTHORP opposed the grant, as being exclusively applied to one religious persuasion.
Colonel PERCEVAL said that this grant had caused much excitement in England, and he had no doubt that if the estimates had been brought forward at a different period of the year the opinion of the counties in England against the grant would have been made manifest. The conduct of the gentlemen educated at Maynooth, the Roman Catholic priests, had been such as to show the necessity of some amendment in the system of education pursued in that college. Instead of being the promoters of peace and harmony and good-will, they were only the instigators of revolt and tumult.
Colonel VERNER considered that this was an institution subversive of morals and good faith; and surely before the grant was agreed to an inquiry ought to be set on foot.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that it was not competent to the hon. and gallant member to make the motion to which he had alluded in the committee of supply; for they could not enter into such a question. They might vote against the grant, but they could not obtain a committee to inquire into the general subject. In reference to the grant, it was one of old standing, and not one which it was sought to introduce now for the first time. It had been established by Mr. PITT, on the recommendation of Edmund BURKE, and it had been besides supported by men of all parties, and by men of the greatest weight in Ireland and in this country.
Mr. ELLIS opposed the grant.
Colonel VERNER said that, to show what it was that came from Maynooth, he would state t them what had occurred at a meeting which had taken place in Ireland. It was a tithe meeting – (hear, hear.) – and was held at a place in Kilkenny, and the Rev. Marcus DOYLE, the parish priest, presided. About 150 persons were present, and sat down to dinner together – (hear, hear) – and he would state to the house that this meeting was held on a Sunday. The priest, Mr. DOYLE, in a speech which he made, declared his intention to oppose the new tithe bill, and all other measures which did not go absolutely to extinguish tithes, and he said that if the proposed bill should pass he would agitate the question of the rent-charge. He would state that Mr. HAWKSHAW, a magistrate of the county, was present at this meeting.
Mr. O’CONNELL – He did not hear that “The Battle of the Diamond” was given there as a toast; the magistrate only sat by, and he did not hear that he said any thing. With regard to the vote before the house, he disliked its principle. It was in violation of the voluntary principle, which he supported; and, if the three gallant colonels, whom he looked upon as the church militant of the house, would divide upon the question, he would divide with them against the grant. But they did not divide – they only talked. (A laugh.) There now, there was a council of war being held between them. [The hon. and gallant members at the moment had their heads together, and the observation of the hon. and learned member was received with loud laughter.] He would attempt a parody on the subject;
“Three Colonels, in three distant counties born,
“Did Lincoln, Sligo, and Armagh adorn;
“The first in face, the next in jollity,
“The third excelled in dull sobriety;
“The force of folly could no further go,
“To beard the first she shaved the other two.”
(Roars of laughter.)
Mr. W. GLADSTONE said that if the house would allow the grant to be made they would stultify the principles on which the Irish church was established.
Viscount MORPETH said that it was not incumbent on him to defend the origin of this grant. It was recommended by BURKE, was established by PITT, and it received the Royal Protestant assent of GEORGE THE THIRD. (Hear, hear,) The grant itself was most paltry and parsimonious, and he was surprised, when the other day he had heard of a grant to the Protestant church of £900,000 being advocated, that this grant of £8900 to the Catholics should be opposed – (hear, hear) – considering the extent of the responsibility cast upon the priests. (Hear.) Honourable members talked of objectionable doctrines being taught at Maynooth, but let them recollect, also, that some objectionable doctrines were taught at Oxford. A book had been published lately which certainly would be likely to make disciples of a new school, and which he was given to understand proceeded from Oxford. (Cries of “name.”) It was a work called “The Remains of the Rev. R. H. FROUDE,” and was published, he believed, by Mr. NEWMAN, who was the principal of one of the colleges in Oxford. Mr. FROUDE, said, “You will be shocked at my avowal that I am every day becoming a less and less loyal son of the Reformation. It appears to be plain that in all matters which seem to us indifferent or even doubtful we should conform our practices to those of the church, which has preserved its traditionary practices unknown. We cannot know about any seemingly indifferent practice of the Church of Rome that is not a development of the apostolic Ethos, and it is to no purpose to say that we can find no proof of it in the writings of the first six centuries – they must find a disproof if they would do anything.” * * “I think people are injudicious who talk against the Roman Catholics for worshipping saints, and honouring the Virgin and images, &c. These things may be idolatrous; I cannot make up my mind about it.” * * * “P. called us the Papal Protestant church, in which he proved a double ignorance, as we are Catholics without the Popery, and Church of England men with the Protestantism.” * * * “The more I think over that view of yours regarding our present communion service, &c., as a judgment on the church, and taking it as the crumbs from the apostles’ table, the more I am struck with its fitness to be dwelt upon as tending to check the intrusion of irreverent thoughts, without in any way interfering with one’s just indignation.” * * * “Your trumpery principle about scripture being the sole rule of faith in fundamentals (I nauseate the word) is but a mutilated edition, without the breadth and axiomatic character of the original.” * * “Really I hate the Reformation and the Reformers more and more, and have almost made up my mind that the rationalist spirit they set afloat is the pseudoprophetes of the Revelations.” He called upon hon. Gentlemen to look at home before they threw missiles of this kind – (hear, hear) – and he wished them to look at the errors of others with something like a spirit of reciprocal kindness. (Cheers.)
The grant was agreed to. Several other Irish grants were agreed to; among others £1,500 to defray the expense of the Royal Belfast Academical Institution; £31,719 for the expense of non-conforming, seceding and dissenting clergymen in Ireland; and £12.700 for the expense of the commission to inquire into the best system of railways in Ireland. In reply to a question from and Hon. Member.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that the labours of this commission would be the means of saving a very great amount of expense. The report which had been furnished afforded a great deal of the most valuable information.
Mr. O’CONNELL observed, that if such a commission had in England it would have saved the house a great deal of trouble. The report of this commission amounted, in point of fact, to a condemnation of all railroads in Ireland. It declared that no railroad in that country could produce more than three and a half per cent., and that declaration amounted, of course, to a total condemnation of them.
Lord CLEMENTS said he regretted very much the result of this railway commission. The calculation they had gone into must prevent the formation of railways in Ireland for years. He had approved the appointment of the commission, but they had gone into an inquiry which he thought was quite foreign to the purpose.
Mr. LUCAS thought the expense incurred in the commission was perfectly justifiable, inasmuch as it would prevent ruinous speculations.
Mr. WYSE said the policy adopted by the Government was a enlightened policy – it was similar to that adopted in France and Belgium. Surely the hon. And learned gentleman would admit it was desirable that capital should not be uselessly expended, particularly in Ireland.
After a few words from Sir R. A. FERGUSON, Mr. M. J. O’CCONNELL, Mr. SHAW, and Lord HOWICK, the vote was agreed to.
WEDNESDAY AUGUST 1
The Irish Poor Relief Bill, which is to form an important epoch in national history, has received the royal assent.
Note: The British government from 1835 to 1841 was led by the Whig politician Viscount MELBOURNE.
Note: In the UK the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a Member of the House of Commons and is the equivalent of the Chief Finance Minister in other countries. In 1838 the Chancellor was the Whig MP for Cambridge, Thomas Spring RICE.
Note: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Patrick%27s_Pontifical_University,_Maynooth
Note: In 1834 the first railway was built in Ireland, the Dublin and Kingstown Railway (D&KR) between Westland Row terminus (now Dublin Pearse) and Kingstown (now Dún Laoghaire), a distance of 10 km (6 mi). The D&KR was the earliest dedicated commuter railway in the world.
LONDONDERRY ASSIZES – WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 1. CROWN COURT
At half past ten, A.M., Mr. Justice TORRENS entered the court, accompanied by Sir Robert BATESON, Bart., Mayor of Londonderry, when the Commission was opened, and the Grand Jury having been resworn, his Lordship addressed them as follows:- Mr Foreman and Gentlemen of the Grand Jury of the county of Derry, I feel great pleasure in again congratulating you, and communicating to you that the calendar is excessively light. In fact, at every successive assizes I find crime decreasing, and tranquility becoming re-established in your county; and it is gratifying to know that this increasing tranquility arises from your own exertions, unaided by those helps enjoyed elsewhere. Gentlemen, this is the only county in the circuit where there are no stipendiary or police magistrates. I believe there is not one in the county – (Here the Foreman informed his Lordship there was none) – and, therefore, it must be highly pleasing to you that your own unpaid exertions, and the weight and influence of your character, have effected this most desirable result. His Lordship having then inquired respecting the progress of the fiscal business concluded by observing that the criminal business was so light, and the civil, in such a state of advance, that he hoped to be able, in a very short time, to dismiss them.
James DOHERTY was indicted for stealing four wethers and two ewes, the property of Andrew SMYTH; one lamb, value ten shillings, the property of a person named CARLAND; also a wether, the property of
John DEERY. Guilty – To be transported for ten years.
Anne ROBISON, a woman upwards of fifty years of age, was indicted for stealing a gown, the property of Mary HARROL, at Castledawson. Guilty. The prisoner pleaded with great fervency or mercy, on account of her age and infirmity; but his Lordship, on inquiry, finding that she was an old offender, sentenced her to be imprisoned for 12 months at hard labour.
Thomas STEWART and Matthew STEWART were indicted for stealing a cow, the property of Margaret ALEXANDER, at Boveda, on the 5th of December, 1837. There was a second count in the indictment against Matthew STEWART, for consigning a cow to Mr. BUCHANAN of Liverpool, knowing her to have been stolen.
It will be in the recollection of our readers that George MARTIN and Isaac MARTIN were put on their trial at the Spring Assizes, charged with the above offence, when Thomas STEWART appeared as a witness against them. On his cross-examination, however, his answers appeared so vague and unsatisfactory that the jury at once acquitted the traversers; and from certain admissions made by the witness for the prosecution, Judge TORRENS, conceiving him to be implicated himself to be implicated in the transaction, ordered the gaoler to take him into the dock. On the present occasion G. MARTIN appeared as a witness against the STEWARTS, and deposed to the traversers coming to him, when he and they agreed to steal the cow, which they accordingly did, Thomas STEWART, taking her out of the byre, while MARTIN, who is married to a niece of Mrs. ALEXANDER, remained in the house to prevent the dog from giving an alarm; witness was to get the half of the cow’s price. Mrs. ALEXANDER deposed to losing the cow, and George ALEXANDER and Robert M’CAW to going in search of her and finding her in a field at Liverpool, where Mr. BUCHANAN told them he had put a cow which had been sent to him by Matthew STEWART.
William BUCHANAN sworn and examined – Is a salesmaster, and resides in Liverpool; knows the prisoner Matthew STEWART; had sold some sheep for him once; prisoner to send him a cow by the boat on the Thursday following; she was to be marked with the letter M; the cow did not arrive for a fortnight after; she had the mark specified; ALEXANDER and M’CAW came to Liverpool after in search of the cow; agreed with them not to sell the cow till he would hear from them; received a letter afterwards bearing their signatures, desiring him to sell the cow and send the money to the steward of the boat; did so, conceiving the letter to be genuine. – [The letter was here produced when M’CAW said it was not in his handwriting (his signature). ALEXANDER said that the mark was not made by him.]
Another witness deposed to Thomas STEWART putting the cow on board the steamer at Portrush.
George FITZMAURICE, Esq., C.C. – Deposed to getting a warrant for the apprehension of Matthew STEWART, and searching for him in his father’s house, but could not find him. Some of the police went also occasionally in search of him, but without effect. Believes he was out of the country for some time.
FOR THE DEFENCE. – John KANE and William LOGUE, policemen, deposed to hearing George MARTIN say, when a prisoner in their charge, that it was he who stole the cow, and that she was his right, in consequence of a fortune promised him by Mrs. ALEXANDER, to her niece. Mr. John ELDER and Mr Arthur CHURCH, two very respectable men, gave the STEWARTS a good character; the latter said that George MARTIN had a very bad character in the neighbour hood. Mr. Archibald FISHER, of Garvagh, also deposed to having dealings to a considerable amount with Matthew STEWART, and that he would credit him to any extent. Guilty – To be transported for ten years.
David ANDREW was indicted for having stolen a quantity of linen cloth, from the bleachfield of Alexander and George BARKLIE; and Hugh TORRENS was indicted for aiding in the robbery, and taking charge of the stolen goods. Hugh TORRENS, not guilty, David ANDREW, guilty – To be transported for 7 years.
John MAGEE was indicted for stealing a cow, on the 21st of May, the property of William WALKER. Guilty – to be transported for ten years.
ORANGE PROCESSIONS
James M’CRACKEN, John M’CAUSLAND, William FINLEY, James WILSON, William BLAIR and Joseph M’MAHON were indicted for walking in procession on the 12th of July last, at Artikelly, with banners and music. They all submitted but M’MAHON who asserted that he had not joined in an orange procession for the last five years. M’MAHON was then put on his trial.
Stephen GRIESON, a policeman, examined – The traverser walked into town with the rest; did not observe ribbons or a sash upon him. To the Court – Believes he was on the outside of a file.
James M’CRACKEN and William FINLEY, two of those who submitted, deposed to the traverser not being in the procession, or meeting with them as an orangeman for the last five years. Not guilty. The others were sentenced next day to be imprisoned for one calendar month, and to give security to keep the peace, themselves in £20 each, and two sureties in £10 each.
The following persons, for walking in procession at Kilrea and Garvagh, were also sentenced to one month’s imprisonment each, and to give the same security to keep the peace, namely, James LAUGHLIN, William KYLE, George EVANS, and James BREWSTER. – The three former submitted – the latter took his trial along with Alexander PATTERSON, who proved that he was not in the procession, and had, in consequence, a verdict of not guilty returned in his favour.
Margaret DUNLEAVY for larceny. To be transported 7 years.
Mary HEGARTY, Anne GALLAGHER, Anne SMITH and Mary MORTIMER, indicted as vagrants. To be transported for 7 years, unless within three calendar months they find bail to be of the peace, themselves in £10 each, and two sureties of £10 each.
Alexander M’LAUGHLIN, Daniel M’LAUGHLIN, William and James M’LEAN were indicted for an assault on the person of George GIVEN, in the town of Limavady, on the 13th of June last. This case was adjourned until next Assizes, in consequence of the absence of prosecutor, whose state of health incapacitated him from attending, and the traversers were out on bail till that time. The facts of the case, as detailed in the information, are these:– On the night in question two individuals named M’GOWAN and CONNOR, Catholics, were attacked by traversers, who are Orangemen, when the plaintiff, Mr. GIVEN, interfered for the purpose of allaying disturbance, and in consequence received a severe beating.
At a quarter past six, P.M., the criminal business terminated, and the jurors were finally discharged.
Note: For a time M’ was used instead of Mc.
Note: renamed ‘The Derry Journal’ in 1880.
Note: Before February 1971 money in the U.K. and Ireland was divided into pounds, shillings and pence. (L or £. s. d.). The currency was decimalised to pounds and pence, £p, in both the U.K. and Ireland on Monday February 15th 1971. Irish punt (pound) coins were withdrawn from circulation in 2002 and replaced by the euro
For a history of Orangemen see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Order
For a history of the UK and penal transportation read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_transportation#Great_Britain_and_the_British_Empire