« PreviousContinue »
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 righis, 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 50,0001. 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 adımission; they had not before them the petition of protestant corporations praying the continuance of the exclusion, like ihose 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-poriers 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 froin 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 iwenty 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 eli. gible 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 proceed to the other orders of the day.
Mr. Windham observed, that as the honourable gen. tleman 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? Ne 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 grieve ance in continuing the same law to Ireland which was in force here. If any alteration was to take place, the time wonld be when the charter was about to be renewed, and not now to engraft a new bill on the old bill. He did not desire that the new charter should prejudice the Irish catholics; on the contrary, he had no objection to enter a de. claratory clause in future, giving the legislature a power of interlering in their defence.
Mr. Martin was gladl 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 woull 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 be
would venture to say the principal merchants were ca.
LIST OF TAE MINORITY. Abercrombie, Hon. J. Milton, Viscount Anstruther, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Montgomery, C. Aubrey, Sir J.
Moore, P. Bagenal, w.
Newport, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Barham, J. F.
Parnell, H. Bradshaw, Hon. A.C. Petty, Lord Henry Brand, Hon. T.
Philipps, R. M. Combe, H. C.
Piggott, Sir A. Creevey, Thomas
Ponsonby, Right Hon. G. Dundas, Hon. R. L.
Ponsonby, Henry G.
Talbot, R. W.
Thornton, Henry Horner, F.
Tierney, Right Hon. G. Hume, W. Hoare
Vansittart, G. Kempe, Thomas
Vernon, G. G. V. Latouche, R.
Walpole, Hon. G. Lawrence, F.
Ward, Hon. J. W. Leach, J.
Warrender, Sir G. Lefevre, C. Shaw
Western, c.c. Lemon, Sir W.
Whitbread, S. Madocks, W.A.
Windham, Right Hon. W. Martin, R.
Wynne, Sir W. W.
C. W. Wynne
:", 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. Tbis 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 án 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 ad, ininistered had much diminished their influence on the public mind, especially when they were administered in cases where there was every temptation to perjury,
Mr. Windhamn, Mr. W. Smith, Mr. Wilberforce, Sir S. Romilly, Sir T. Torton, and Mr. Stephen, joined with Mr. Wynue, 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 peclared'tlieir conviction of the soundness of the common Jaw principle, which prohibits oaths being taken by persons strongly interested in the cause.
Lord Casi kreagh 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.
Inthetüenty 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 amend. ments were proposed. One was, that instead of the term of exemption for four yeyrs, the exemption should be till the turni caine hy rotation. The other, proposed by Lord Mlton, was, thirt one, who served four years in the local militia should be fur two years, subsequent to the close
of that period, exempt from the regular militia ballot: Both were agreed to.ITOH
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: 1 Ayes
76 Lord Temple objected to the clause subjecting the locat 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 corpoi 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
14 Against it
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 rea spects the new clauses proposed by lord Castlereagh.
The several remaining orders were then disposed of, and the house adjourned,