BANK OF IRELAND. (Hansard, 30 May 1808)

§ Sir John Newport
rose to bring forward his promised resolution for declaring catholics eligible to fill the high offices of the Bank of Ireland. Of all the restrictions which the penal laws of Ireland had imposed upon the catholics, he commented on the absurdity of enacting that the creed of a Director in a commercial establishment should be a bar to the exertion of his talents in promoting the interests of the concern; or that, in appointing a director, the proprietors of such a concern should be bound, in the first instance, to inquire into his form of worship. Ireland was the only country in Europe where this was the case. But, in the act for establishing the Bank of Ireland, no such restriction appeared; and it was only in the charter made out in consequence of that act, that any idea of religious restriction was introduced. By an act of 1793, the Irish parliament had very much relaxed those restrictions which precluded Irish catholics from holding certain offices, and 715 reduced the number to a very few offices of state. But he believed no man ever imagined the office of a bank director was one from which it was intended to exclude them; on the contrary, he had the assurance of a secretary of state for Ireland, that it was meant the catholics should be admitted to the directorship; and, upon recurring to the act of 1793, he found they were eligible to become members of any law body, corporate or commercial, for they were precluded from none but Trinity college, any bye-law to the contrary notwithstanding. The charter, however, ordered it otherwise; law opinions had been taken on the subject, and the counsel on both sides differed. One was of opinion that the catholics were not precluded; but the other thought, that as the preclusion was by a charter, and not a bye-law, the exclusion was valid. By the Irish bank act of 1781–2, it was forbidden to any company, above the number of six, to form any bank or take a public credit, under a heavy penalty, 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 fn 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 protestants. 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 50,000l. 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 716 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. 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 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 innovations. 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 right hon. gent, 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 grievance 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 desire 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 right hon. gent, 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 catholics.

list of the Minority.
Abercromby, J.	Milton, viscount
Anstruther, sir J.	Montgomery, C.
Aubrey, sir J.	Moore, P.
Bagenal, W.	Newport, sir J.
Barham, J. F.	Parnell, H.
Bradshaw, A. C.	Petty, lord Henry
Brand, T.	Phillips, R. M.
Combe, H. C.	Piggot, sir A.
Creevey, T.	Ponsonby, rt. hon. G.
Dundas, R, L.	Ponsonby, Hon. G.
Ebrington, viscount	Power, Richard
Eden, W. F. E.	Russell, lord W.
Elliot, W.	Sharp, R.
Estcourt, J. G.	Shipley, W.
Grattan, H.	Smith, W.
Greenough, G. B.	Talbot, R. W.
Halsey, J.	Temple, earl
Herbert, H. A.	Templetown, visc.
Hippesley, sir J. C.	Thornton, H.
Horner, F.	Tierney, G.
Hume, W. Hoare	Vansittart, G.
Kempe, T.	Vernon, G. G. V.
Latouche, R.	Walpole, hon. G.
Lawrence, F.	Ward, hon. J. W.
Leach, J.	Warnender, sir G.
Lefevre, C. Shaw	Western, C. C.
Lemon, sir W.	Whitbread, S.
Madocks, W. A.	Windham, W.
Martin, R.	Wynne, sir W. W.
Maule, W. R.	Tellers.
Milbanke, sir R.	C. W. Wynne
Miller, sir T.	J. Calcraft.