Commons Sitting of 16 February 1819

CORN LAWS.
Sir C. Moncksaid, he held in his tend a Petition, which, whatever might be the general opinion of the country on the subject, he was able to say was signed by several hundred of as substantial and respectable individuals, as were to be found of the same description and profession in any part of the united kingdom. They were occupiers and owners of land in the county of Northumberland. He knew the signatures of most of them, and could bear testimony to their being most respectable and substantial farmers. The petitioners alleged that the sale and productions of this country were sufficient to support its present population, and would be sufficient to support a greater population; and they therefore submitted to the consideration of the House, the impolicy of permitting the importation, free from duty, of the productions of foreign countries of a nature similar to that of our own; because such permission tended to disable the agriculturists of the country from paying the taxes and expenses imposed on, and belonging to, the employment they followed. The petitioners prayed the House to take the subject into consideration, and refer it to a committee, before which they might adduce what evidence they could in support of their allegations, and if those allegations should be proved to be true, they prayed that the House would take such steps as might afford to the cultivators of the soil protection similar to that which the merchants and manufacturers of the kingdom enjoyed in the practice of their occupations from the existing laws.
Ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed.

WINDSOR ESTABLISHMENT.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, that the order for going into a committee of the House on the Prince Regent's Message, and that part of the Speech of the Lords Commissioners, which related to the Royal Establishment at Windsor, had been fixed for Thursday, the 18th. He understood the report of the committee up stairs would be ready to be laid before the House on Wednesday; but as the interval between that and the following day was not sufficient to permit members to examine it, he thought it expedient that the former order should be discharged, and a new one made for Monday.
Mr. Tierneysaid, that he should then on Monday take the sense of the House on the grant, which he understood was to be recommended, of 10,000 l. a year to the Duke of York, as custos personœ.

BANK OF IRELAND.
Mr. Grenfellobserved, that the accounts for which, in pursuance of Ins notice, he was about to move, were of three descriptions. The first related to the issues of paper by the Bank of Ireland; the second to deposits of the public money in the Bank of Ireland; the third, to the remuneration on the part of the public to the Bank of Ireland for the management of the public debt and other services. With respect to the first subject, the issues of paper, he believed it would appear that those issues had increased since 1797, in a much greater proportion than the issues of the Bank of England; for that, being in 1797, only 600,000 l. they were now four millions and a half. With respect to the second subject, the deposits of public money in the Bank of Ireland, those deposits were of the same nature as the government deposits in the Bank of England. They had, however, very considerably decreased during the last three or four years. That decrease was in the proportion of 15 to 3; the Treasury the Chancery, and the Exchequer being the only departments of the Irish government deposits from which were placed in the Bank of Ireland. On the 1st of January last, the aggregate amount of those deposits did not exceed 700,000 l. It was his wish that all those who transacted the public business should be rewarded liberally. He had combated the emoluments derived from public balances by the Bank of England, not because they were liberal, but because they were profuse rewards of the services rendered to the public by the Bank of England; and he had no hesitation to say, that the Bank of Ireland was fairly entitled to the advantages derived from the deposit of the sum he had mentioned. With respect to the third subject, the remuneration which the Bank of Ireland received for the management of the public debt, he should say little for this good reason, that the Bank of Ireland received no such remuneration. The Bank of Ireland charged nothing for that or any other service to the Irish government. Without wishing to make any invidious comparison between the conduct, on this point, of the Bank of Eng-

441
land and the Bank of Ireland, he might be permitted to commend the liberality of the Bank of Ireland, and to express Ms hope that the result of he investigation, for the institution of which he had given notice of a motion, would be to set up the example of the Bank of Ireland as that which the Bank of England ought to follow. The hon. gentleman then moved for the said accounts.
Mr. Manning, notwithstanding the side-wind attack which the hon. gentleman had just made on the Bank of England, hoped the House would abstain from forming any opinion on the subject, until the hon. gentleman should make the motion which he had given notice of his intention to make after Easter, when he trusted he should be able to satisfy the House that the charges made by the Bank of England for the management of the public debt, and for other services to the public, were perfectly reasonable, and such as ought to be allowed.
The motions were then agreed to.

SECURITY OF THE LIVES OF SEAMEN, &c
Sir J. Newport Sir J. Newport moved for leave to bring in a bill for better securing of the lives of seamen and passengers wrecked or stranded, or in danger thereof. He observed, that although there were various laws for the recompence of those who saved the cargoes of vessels, there were none for the recompence of those who saved the lives of the seamen and passengers. The consequence was, that the preservation of the latter was frequently postponed to the preservation of the former. His object, in the bill which he now proposed, was, in those cases in which the cargo was saved, to make the recompense for saving the lives of the seamen and passengers, a lien on the cargo, in the light of a salvage, which the parties should have a right to claim; and in those cases in which the cargo was not saved, to provide a moderate recompence for the same purpose out of the public purse. He also wished to incorporate a provision in the bill for the general establishment on the coast of life boats. To the principle of the measure he apprehended there could be no objection. Whether or not he could satisfy the House with respect to the details, would remain to be ascertained. He trusted, however, that as the subject was one so interesting to humanity, the House would allow him to bring in the bill.
The Chancellor of the Exchequercould not imagine that any objection could be raised against a principle equally consonant with humanity and justice. In arranging the details of the measure, there might perhaps arise difficulties, which be should meet with every disposition to remove or surmount.
Mr. Davies Gilbertsaid, that the object of the bill was one highly to be approved of. He had himself brought forward a measure somewhat similar, in the last parliament, and he was glad to see the subject in hands much more able, and much more likely to bring it to a successful issue.
Sir John Newportsaid, that all he contended for was, the principle of the bill: objections might be made to the detail, but he hoped his bill would not be involved in one of a more complicated nature, which had been formerly introduced into the House.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.

GALWAY ELECTION PETITION.
The adjourned debate on the motion made yesterday, "That the time for the right hon. Dennis Bowes Daly and Gyles Eyre, esq. to enter into their recognizances be enlarged till the 12th of March," being resumed,
Sir J. Mackintoshobserved, that by the indulgence of the House he was now enabled to make a short statement of the grounds on which the petitioners prayed for the enlargement in question; in doing which the House would perceive that their equity and liberality were strongly appealed to by the circumstances of the case. The time prescribed for entering into recognizances was 14 days. He conceived, that the effect of the determination of the House to adhere rigorously to the rule in the case of petitions from remote parts of Ireland, would be to shut the door of the House against such petitions. By the provisions of the act, recognizances could not be entered into without giving eight days notice, which eight days were included in the 14 days; and it would be impossible in the remaining time to comply with the rule, in the case of petitions from the extreme parts of Ireland, such as the county of Galway. The question for the House, therefore, was, whether they would pass the utmost verge of possibility, and fix a time for the entering into recognizances in petitions from the extreme parts of Ireland, in which communication

443
by letter could not take place. He had looked into the Journals of the House, and found-two cases bearing an analogy to the present; namely, the cases of Saltash and Dungarvon, in which an extension of time was granted by the House. In the case of Saltash, the time had just elapsed, as in the present case, and an application was made for an extension, on the ground that letters had been mislaid which were sent by post. It was to be recollected, that Saltash was not a fourth part of the distance of Galway; and certainly greater negligence had been shown than in this case. In the other case, that of Dungarvon, the ground of application was, that the petitioner was residing at the time at some distance from the place where he usually resided; and this was deemed by the House a sufficient reason for enlarging the period. Now, he conceived that a petition from a remote part of Ireland was entitled to a treatment at least as favourable as that which the petitioner in this last case experienced. He was satisfied that if the prayer of the petition was acceded to, the petition would not be found frivolous or vexatious. The petitioners were resolutely determined to prosecute their petition, if the House would only keep the doors of justice open to them a little longer.
Mr. Bathurstsaid, that in the view which he himself took of the case, he thought that the House were not called on to consider the alleged hardship. The time fixed by law had been allowed, but the law had not been complied with, nor bad: any thing particular been stated with regard to this case which prevented compliance. The hon. and learned gentleman did not complain of the want of liberality on the part of the House, but he complained of the hardship of the law in general. The hon. and learned gentleman, however, would see, that where the law was distinctly laid down, the House was not in the habit of deviating from it. In each of the two cases which had been cited, there was some reason assigned—some ground for claiming an extension of time; but here there was none. It did not appear that the hon. and learned gentleman, by the examination of the agent for the petitioners, had come to the House to-night better informed as to the circumstances of the case, than he had been last night: his researches on the subject seemed to have been confined to inquiries into
[444
the usage of parliament in similar cases. The right hon. gentleman then examined the precedents which had been quoted and contended that, neither of them was in point. Whether the House would feel themselves called on by a principle of liberality to grant the prayer of the petition, he could not know; but if they were to construe the act according to its obvious meaning, they could not extend the time. He certainly was of opinion, that there was no liberality in contradicting the act.
Mr. Wynnsaid, that in all such cases, he conceived that applications of this kind should be discouraged, unless when they arose out of circumstances of imperious necessity. It was much to be desired, that on all occasions they should adhere as strictly as possible to precedents. Where circumstances, over which a petitioner had no control, prevented a compliance with the law, the House would grant an indulgence, but not in other cases; indeed, the instances in which it had been granted were not many. In two cases it had been extended on the petitioners applying before the time had expired, because that circumstance showed that they had been desirous to comply with the law. With regard to the two' cases cited by his hon. and learned friend, he thought, that had the circumstances of those cases been considered properly, it would not have appeared right to grant the indulgence. The hon. gentleman then cited many instances of time being extended to petitioners, but in all of them it appeared that the petitioners had done all in their power to comply with the act. He concluded by saying, that he was of; opinion, that if indulgence were granted in such cases as the present, a door would be opened to negligence on the part of petitioners.
The motion was then negatived.