Abbildungen der Seite

fupply, but want to render your means fufficient for the supply. You have been told that it was an English parliament that fixed your establishment at 12,000 men, and no more, that army in King William's reign was thought sufficient, but a greater number might have endangered the liberties of England. 12,000 men were sufficient to oppose King James, the lawful King of Ireland, who had not only a large party in the kingdom bound by their allegiance, but a much larger number, almost the whole kingdom on his side, from religious principles. A large army was then necessary, but not at this time, when you have taken the catholics to your arms, when you are all on one side ; and is it be'cause the occasion of having 12,000 men has ceased, that you must have 15,000? Arguments founded on such propositions are balderdalh, unfit for a national assembly. This filly talk of gratitude to England; I have heard the same in this house when you were bending under her yoke. We hear every sessions of ministerial virtues; curse on such virtues that undo the country!

A gentleman fays we chearfully made the augmentation; it passed by a majority, but have majorities been always in the right?

Shall we, if we have a real affection for England, exhaust ourfelves without occasion in such a manner as to be unable to assist her when there is ?

We are to have wars, and rumours of wars; one gentleman tells us the tempest of war rages at the north pole; the Crimea is in arms, and the Black Sea is hoftile. England is not going to war; if it was the case, it must now be a maritime war, for The has no American provinces to conquer ; but the calamitous condition of Britain will prevent a war though she desired it.

We have heard from our late administrations of economy, but all we have seen of that æconomy is the offices of an attorney and folicitor general to the Queen.

The retrenchment of the military establishment we are told is the last that must be effected, because the only one eficient. Every thing is too late or too early. We are told of the distress of England, and we are plunging in the same ruin. If we fall into the diftress we were some time since in, shall we go to England for relief; where a minister amidst the ruin of his country stands aghaft, but talks big ? Shall we inherit ruin at home and reproach abroad?

· The Volunteers who have saved the land, ardently call on you for economy and reform; if therefore by a direliction of your duty, you stimulate them to innovations, blame yourselves; do your duty, and they will be quiet.

The people stood at your back when you demanded your rights, now stand at theirs. You have a number of young men among you, and it may be expected the old leaven will not be so prevalent.

Let me not hear precedents adduced from times when you had no liberty, nor of a parliament trepanned into an augmenta


I shall now leave my motion among you ; let facts, but not speculation direct you, and you will find no other practicable retrenchment.

Mr. Grattan.-I rise, Sir, to speak on this subject, which has been frequently before the House aiready. The question is, will you withdraw from the common cause, that quota of troops which hitherto you have maintained ? Are the circumstances of the country such as you think demand it, and if you are crazy enough to think so, will his majesty afsent to that opinion ?There never was a time when he could make reduction with a worse grace, because this country is now as eminently happy in trade, as Britain is the reverse.

In 1769, England possessed, almost unrivalled, the trade of all the world. She possessed America, and owed one hundred and fifty millions less than she owes at present. Ireland had no trade at all, and her constitution was denied; yet at that day it was thought wise to augment the army; and shall we reduce it now when we have obtained a free constitution—a free trade-when we have obtained a judges bill—a limited mutiny bill—an habeas corpus bill-when every thing that we have demanded, has been conceded ? Shall we in that moment withdraw our quota of troops ? Before she obtained those advantages, we said to Britain, that provided we would acknowledge our constitutional and commercial rights, we would stand or fall with her. And when they have been acknowledged to the full fatisfaction of every man, it is proposed to withdraw the support of our army. Suppose instead of saying we will stand or fall with Britain, we had laid, “ and “ when those things shall be done, (when our rights Jhall be acknowledged and eltablished) we will then in return, withdraw “ from you the support of our army;”—and yet in effect, this is the proposal at present made. I do not entirely agree in all that has been said of gratitude; we owe no gratitude but for the plantation trade, but this we owe to England, and to our own honour, that we jhould not depart from an old covenant. The navy of England protects our trade, and we, as an equivalent, pay 70,000l. a year to maintain the troops destined to serve in the plantations. This is not a dear purchase for partaking that which has cost England so many millions. Has success made us niggardly, and shall · we become unkind to England, just at the moment she has thewn kindness to us? We have indeed held out the language of magnanimity to England, and shall we fail in the performance ?-no, there are many other places to make retrenchment; we grant a pension list of 80,oool. a year, yet complain of 70,000l. paid to an army-paid for the protection of the British navy. We may

indeed make very great reductions in the army extraordinaries. We may make great reductions in the revenue department, and in others.' Those reductions will, I trust, far exceed the pay of our augmentation. These are retrenchments that ought to be made-but the number of our forces ought not to be diminished.

Mr. Conolly.--I am against a reduction of the army. The augmentation was my child, and I hope to see it go on and prosper. The question was then put, when there appeared,


132 Majority against the question

Tellers for the ayes, Mr. Molyneux and the Hon. Denis Browne. Tellers for the noes, Sir H. Langrishe and Mr. O'Hara, Adjourned to Wednesday.

- 58


Wednesday, November 5, 1783. The committee of accounts fat, (Mr. Mafon in the chair) for some time, and adjourned. After which the Speaker having taken the chair,

Lord Kilwarlin presented a petition from the inhabitants of the town of Belfast.

Colonel Rofs, Sir Edward Newenham, Mr. Montgomery, and several other members, presented petitions, praying parliamentary aid, which were received, read and committed,

Several reports were received, and ordered to lie on the table.

The proper officer presented at the bar an account of the beer and ale brewed for some years past. Ordered to lie on the table,

Sir Edward Newenham moved to discharge the order on the petition, complaining of an undue election for the borough of Kilmallock, and to appoint the 4th day of February for hearing the same,

Ordered accordingly,

Mr. Fitzgibbon moved that several persons, burgesses and petitioners of said borough, should be ordered to attend the Houie, on Monday the ad of February.

· The defaulters who were absent at the call of the House, on Monday -last, previous to the ballot for a committee, for trying the merits of the Dundalk election, were called over this day ; Come of whom, on shewing proper causes, on oath, were not cen. · sured; the remainder, to a great number, were committed to the

custody of the Serjeant at Arms.

After which the House being called, and the members told by Mr. Stratford, the doors were locked, and the committee ballotted for, to enquire into the merits of the petitions against one of the sitting members for the borough of Enniscorthy, when the following members were chosen:

H. Meade Ogle, Esq; Right Hon. Barry Yelverton,
Sir Thomas Osborne, Bart. Edward Tighe, Esq.
Arthur Dawson, Esq; John Forbes, Esq.
Peter Holmes, Esq;

Lord Edward Fitzgerald;
Conway R. Dobbs, Esq; Arthur Browne, Etq;
Charles Ruxton, Esq; Denis Bowes Daly, Esq;
Sir Richard Butler, Bart. Charles O'Hara, Esq;
Henry Loftus, Esq;

Ordered to fit to-morrow. Ordered a writ for the borough of Ballinakil, in the room of Sir Annesley Stewart, Bart, who has made his election for the borough of Charlemont.

Sir Edward Newenham moved to discharge the order, on the petition complaining of an undue election for the borough of Swords, and to defer it to a future day, for the convenience of the petitioners, as one of their principal witnesses was in England. The question was put, and there appeared For the motion.---Ayes

3 Againit the motion.--Noes Tellers for the Ayes, Sir Henry Cavendish, and Sir Edward

Newenham. Tellers for the Noes, Lord Delvin, and Mr. Beresford, jun. Adjourned 'till to-morrow.

THURSDAY, November 6, 1783. The call of defaulters was this day continued, and such as did not appear, or for the non-attendance of whom proper excuses were not given, were ordered into custody of the Serjeant at Arms,

The order of the day for trying the petition of Robert Stewart, Efq; complaining of an undue election for the county of Down, the House was called over, the names were drawn, and a select committee nominated in the usual manner; the names of the committee were,

Henry Prittie, Esq; | Honourable William Skessing-
Charles-Henry Cocte, Efq; ton,
Thomas Blakeney, Efq; Henry Alcock, Efq; .
Lord Delvin,

Arthur Acheson, Esq;
Sir Thomas Fetherston, William Pennefather, Efq;
Rogerson Cotter, Esq; Abel Ram, Esq;
Robert Jephson, Efq; Sir Cornwallis Maude,
Captain Thomas Loftus, | Denham Jephson, Efą, '

While the parties were nominating the committee, the order relative to the producing of the lists of persons objected to as voted on controverted elections within a limited time, was discharged, and another order, after some conversation, substituted in its stead.

Mr. Fitzgibbon moved, “That members who are disqualified in any manner from serving on committees on controverted elections, be dispensed attending the House at five o'clock on the days appointed to try the elections.” Passed in the affirmative.

Mr. Alexander Montgomery moved a resolution, " That in all controverted elections, to be brought before the House, the petitioners, by themselves or agents, should deliver to the fitting members, petitioned against, a list of the persons whofe votes they objected to, and their reasons for objecting, four days at least before the day appointed for hearing the merits of the petition; and that the sitting members, or their agents, do the like to the peti. tioners, or their agents.”

Mr. Foster said, he had moved the former resolution, relative to this matter. He observed the material difference was, the adding the objection ; that he had drawn the resolution in the very words of the English house.

Mr. Montgomery, (of Cavan) said its being from England could not be a sufficient reason for embracing it', as it stood, he therefore would move the former resolution thould be rescinded, and the one now moved by the Honourable Member adopted in its room.

Mr. Foster observed that the committees which were ordered to be appointed on Saturday and Monday next, could not possibly comply with the resolution, and ought to be excepted therein.

He therefore moved a small amendment, purporting the resolution to operate on all petitions to be heard after Tuesday next. This being agreed to, the former resolution was refcinded, and Mr. Montgomery's of this day adopted. ?

Lord Delvin moved, " That the clerks of the House do in future give notice to all agents, concerned in contested elections to be heard before committees, that they are to serve lifts, &c. in due time, according to the above resolution ; and that fuch agents as do not obey, be liable to the cenfure of the House.

« ZurückWeiter »