. nalty, save the bank of Ireland. But the protestants were compensated for this privation in their eligibility to become bank governors and directors, while to the catholics, thus deprived of their common law rights, no compensation whatever was given. But he should think, that if in any purview of the act it was thought liable to such a construction, it would be the duty of the legislature to restore to the catholic his common law right, or place him on the same commercial footing in this respect with the protestan's. He might be asked, why this question was not brought forward sooner? He would answer, the bank charter was not renewed since 1791, and consequently there was no opportunity of bringing it before parliament. There was a period in the history of this country, when a great portion of the people were known to be disaffected to the Hanoverian succession; and it was then the wise policy of the legislature to stimulate those persons to vest their money in the public funds, in order to attach them to the welfare of the state; and if such policy was wise in that case, was it not equally so with respect to the catholics? He knew, from the best authority, that the great body of the bank proprietors were by no means favourable to their exclusion, any more than other liberal men. If a Roman-catholic was possessed of 50,0907. property in bank stock, was it not a case of injustice that the proprietors could not avail themselves of his talents and abilities in the management of their concern? The house had now before them no complaints against their admission; they had not before them the petition of protestant corporations praying the continuance of the exclusion, like those which came before the Irish parliament in 1696, from the protestant coal-porters of Dublin, complaining that one Darby Ryan, a catholic coal-dealer, employed coal-porters of his own persuasion, to the great injury of the protestant interest; and praying that he might be obliged to employ protestant porters to carry his commodities; which petition was referred to the committee of grievances. (A general laugh.) In 1702 a petition was presented from the protestant mayor and aldermen of Limerick, complaining that papists were allowed to dwell amongst them, and follow their trades and callings, much to the injury of the protestant interest, and praying they might be banished from the city, which was accordingly done; and in 1704 a petition was presented to the same parliament from about twenty catholics, who were suffered to reside in Limerick and Galway, praying they might be allowed to retain with them their wives and children, upon their giving security for their good behaviour; but it was rejected. He hoped he was addressing himself to a more just and liberal parliament, and he concluded by moving a resolution, that catholics ought to be considered eligible to become governors, deputy-governors, and directors of the bank of Ireland, if otherwise qualified. Mr. Foster said, the Irish bank was placed on the same footing with the bank of England, and he did not see why a distinction should take place in one country which was not proposed for the other. He deprecated thus bringing forward old oppressions to countenance new innova tions. In proposing hereafter a renewal of the charter, he did not intend by any means to heap new burthens on the catholics; he would leave the charter just as it stood at present, and if the catholics found themselves aggrieved, they might petition parliament, which they did not do now. He concluded by moving that the house should pro ceed to the other orders of the day. Mr. Windham observed, that as the honourable gentleman said he did not mean to exclude the catholics, he hoped he would support the resolution. As the old penal laws were repealed, why not repeal this? No one surely could say this was so serious a state matter as to endanger the existence of the constitution or the church. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he did not see the utility of altering the law; there was surely no griev ance in continuing the same law to Ireland which was in force here. If any alteration was to take place, the time would be when the charter was about to be renewed, and not now to engraft a new bill on the old bill. He did not désire that the new charter should prejudice the Irish catholics; on the contrary, he had no objection to enter a declaratory clause in future, giving the legislature a power of interfering in their defence. Mr. Martin was glad the honourable gentleman had it not in his intention to re-enact the penal code. He thought our ancestors had as good reasons for their severity as we had now for our exclusion, and he was sure posterity would repay us as we repaid those who went before us. The case of Ireland did not apply to this country at all, where the majority were protestants, but in Ireland he would venture to say the principal merchants were ca◄ tholics. On the division there appeared, 64 61 Abercrombie, Hon. J. Anstruther, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Montgomery, C. Milton, Viscount Aubrey, Sir J. Moore, P. Bagenal, W. Newport, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Barham, J. F. Bradshaw, Hon. A. C. Petty, Lord Henry Brand, Hon. T. Combe, H. C. Creevey, Thomas Dundas, Hon. R. L. Grattan, Right Hon. H. Greenough, G. B. Parnell, H. Philipps, R. M. Piggott, Sir A. Ponsonby, Right Hon. G. Ponsonby, Henry G. Power, Richard Russell, Lord W. Sharp, R. Shipley, Wm. Smith, W. Talbot, R. W. Halsey, J. Herbert, H. A. Hippisley, Sir J. C. Horner, F. Hume, W. Hoare Kempe, Thomas Latouche, R. Leach, J. Lawrence, F. Lefevre, C. Shaw Lemon, Sir W. Maule, Hon. W. R. Milbank, Sir R. VOL. III.-1808. Temple, Earl Templetown, Viscount Ward, Hon. J. W. Warrender, Sir G. Whitbread, S. Windham, Right Hon. W Wynne, Sir W. W. TELLERS. C. W. Wynne J.. Calcraft. 2 M LOCAL MILITIA. The house then went into a committee on the local militia bill. On the reading of the nineteenth clause, allowing vo lunteers to transfer themselves into local militia, Mr. Spencer Stanhope stated that a person might remove from one district to another where there would be no ballot, and where he could not get into a volunteer corps, they being full. This man being perfectly free, would receive, more wages than the other. (Nothing was done on this suggestion.) On the reading of the twentieth clause, providing that an oath shall be taken by every volunteer entering into the local militia, that he had received no bounty except the two guineas allowed by the act, Mr. Wynne observed that in this case a strong tempt ation to perjury existed, and there was every opportunity for evasion; and he therefore objected to the path... He contended that the frequency with which oaths were administered had much diminished their influence on the public mind, especially when they were administered in cases where there was every temptation to perjury, Mr. Windham, Mr. W. Smith, Mr. Wilberforce, Sir S. Romilly, Sir T. Turton, and Mr. Stephen, joined with Mr. Wynne, in his representation of the mischievous ef fects that resul'ed to the community from the frequency of appointing oaths to be taken in improper cases; and declared their conviction of the soundness of the common law principle, which prohibits oaths being taken by persons strongly interested in the cause. Lord Castlereagh agreed that the oath should be left out, and that the clause should remain with the provision that a declaration to the same purport should be signed by the volunteer, with a penalty of 201. if false..: In the twenty second clause, exempting persons who shall have served four years in the local militia from being liable to serve therein again for four years after, two amendments were proposed. One was, that instead of the term of exemption for four yers, the exemption should be till the turn came by rotation. The other, proposed by Lord Milton, was, that one, who served four years in the local militia should be for two years, subsequent to the close 267 of that period, exempt from the regular militia ballot. Both were agreed to. T Upon one of the clauses, Lord Milton moved as an amend. ment, that the officers commanding in the local militia should have the same qualification in point of property with officers of the same rank in the regular militia. Lord Castlereagh having opposed the amendment, the committee divided upon it: Ayes Noes Majority 315 1077 76. Lord Temple objected to the clause subjecting the local militia to martial law, when called out on temporary duty, and proposed that a court martial should have the power of inflicting upon them any punishment excepting corpo ral punishment, which latter should not be inflicted upon them without the consent of his majesty, conveyed through the lord lieutenant of the county. Lord Castlereagh contended, that it would be improper to have one law for the regular, and another law for the local militia. Lord Temple afterwards moved a clause, providing that no sentence imposing a corporal punishment should be carried into execution, till it had received the approbation of his majesty. The clause was supported by Mr. Windham, Mr. C. W. Wynne, Sir G. Warrender, and Mr. Littleton, and opposed by Sir James Pulteney, the Solicitor General for Scotland, Mr. Ellison, and Mr. R. Dundas, On the division the numbers were: For the amendment Against it Majority 14 101 87 Several verbal amendments were made in the progress of the bill through the committee. The house resumed, and the report was brought up, with an understanding that the bill should be recommitted on Friday next, so far as respects the new clauses proposed by lord Castlereagh. The several remaining orders were then disposed of, and the house adjourned. |