Upon the motion of sir John Newport, that the Irish Quit Rents Sale amendment bill should be read a second time.
Mr. J. Fitzgeraldopposed the motion, on the ground that the bill proposed to dispose of, for ever, a large proportion of the hereditary revenue of the crown. This bill, the right hon. gent. observed, passed the Irish parliament in 1798, and was meant to produce a certain sum for the supplies of that year, but it produced nothing; and it was rather odd to have it proposed now, when the supplies of the year were provided for. Such a measure could not be acceded to, without, in his opinion, doing great injustice to his majesty's successors; and he begged the house to consider that the practice had never been heard of in England, of disposing of the hereditary revenues of the crown, without allowing an hereditary conpensation, which was not the case in this instance.
Sir J. Newportwas surprised at the opposition made to this bill, which Was introduced solely to amend a verbal inaccuracy in the Irish bill passed on this subject in the war 1798. The right hon. baronet denied that this bill was meant for an immediate supply to the finances of Ireland; for, from its very nature, its produce must be progressive. No minister could calculate upon the sale or. a revenue of 60, or 70,000l. within one year. This revenue was, it must be recollected, commuted for an adequate increase in the Irish civil list; and gentlemen must be aware that those great risks. 873 produced more arrears and insolvency among collectors than any other branch of the public revenue.
Mr. Fosterconcurred in the opinion of his hon. friend (Mr. Fitzgerald), and maintained that, as the sum proposed to be raised by this means was one million, the object could he attained on cheaper terms, as the late loan sufficiently proved, He recommended the postponement of the proposition till next sessions. —The further consideration of the bill was agreed to be put off till Monday.