Commons Sitting of 11 April 1823

RIOTS IN THE DUBLIN THEATRE—PETITION OF THE GRAND JURY, COMPLAINING OF IMPUTATIONS ON THEIR CONDUCT.
Mr. Wetherellsaid, he had been requested to present a petition from the Grand Jury of the city of Dublin, in the absence of the members for that city, one of whom was attending, his duties in Ireland. He had only yesterday received a letter requesting him to present the petition. There would not have been time to write to Dublin, and to receive an answer before Tuesday next, which was the day appointed for the motion of the hon. member for Armagh (Mr. Brownlow), otherwise he should have felt it is duty to inform the parties from whom he had received the petition, that he could do no more than merely present it to the House. The conduct of the grand jury to which the petition referred would form a distinct part of the debate on Tuesday next; and therefore he should be unwilling to anticipate the discussion upon that subject. The petition having, however, been placed in his hands for presentation, it would have been uncourteous on his part to refuse to bring it under the notice of the House, although he would not pledge himself to any particular line of conduct hereafter. The petition complained of some observations which had been made by the attorney-general for Ireland upon the conduct of the grand jury of Dublin, after they had thrown out the bills which that learned gentleman had preferred against the rioters in the Dublin theatre.
The petition was brought up, and read, as follows:
"To the Right Honourable and Honourable the Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled.
"The Petition of the Grand Jury of the County of the City of Dublin, at a Commission of Oyer, and Terminer, held at Green-street, on the 1st of January, 1823,
"Humbly Sheweth—That your petitioners having been impanelled and sworn on the 1st day of January last, were charged by Mr. Justice Moore, the senior and presiding judge at the commission, and were by him apprised, that in the course of their official duties bills of indictments would be preferred to them against persons charged with having participated in the Riots which were alleged to have occurred at the Theatre Royal on the 14th of December, 1822, in the presence of his excellency the lord-lieutenant. That his lordship did most particularly impress on your petitioners the imperious necessity of confining their attention to the evidence that should be submitted to them, and discharging from their minds any impression which they might previously have received from the public rumour. That bills of indictment were on the 1st day of the commission preferred to your petitioners against ten persons, by which they were charged with a conspiracy to riot, and assault, and insult his excellency the lord-lieutenant, at the theatre royal, and by which they were also charged with having committed a riot in his excellency's presence.
"That, in support of those indictments, a great number of witnesses were sent to your petitioners, who, not being able to close the said examination on the 1st, adjourned to the 2nd of January, when, after examining other witnesses, and deliberating on the evidence, they ignored the bills for a conspiracy against all the parties, and ignored the bill for a riot against all of them, except George Graham and Henry Handwich, as to whom they found the bill.
"That your petitioners are informed, and will be able to prove, that as soon as the proceedings were communicated to his majesty's attorney-general, who was then in court, and engaged in an important prosecution, he rose and addressed the bench, in substance, as follows:—'My Lords—Upon a case the most interesting that ever occurred in this country, two bills of indictment have been sent up to the grand jury of the city of Dublin against five persons; one set of bills charging a conspiracy to cause a riot at the theatre, in which the person of the lord-lieutenant was outraged and insulted, the other bills charging a riot generally. Upon the first indictment the grand jury of the city of Dublin have ignored the bills against all parties. Upon the second indictment they
814
have found a riot committed, implicating two of the persons in the indictment, Graham, and one of the Handwiches; it is needless to observe to the court, that according to the technicalities of our law, a riot cannot be committed by only two persons; had even the bills been found for a riot only against all the parties, I would have then felt it to be my duty to adopt the line of conduct I am about to intimate in the presence of the court. I will not arrogate to myself the office of arraigning the grand jury of the city of Dublin; they have discharged their functions in the presence of their God; under the sanction of a solemn oath, taken in the face of their country; to that God alone are they accountable. But I have also a duty to perform—I will, without anticipating the guilt of any individual, state solemnly, in the presence of this crowded audience, that in all my readings—in all my experience—in all the annals of this unfortunate country—I never did find a case so fully demonstrated, of the foulest conspiracy to riot, of so much atrocity, as scarcely to be heightened by the aggravation, that that ill-avowed object was to insult and outrage the representative of the king's majesty in the public theatre. I will exercise the prerogative that the law and constitution have given to my office; I will discharge that duty honestly, and with the blessing of God, fearlessly, unintimidated by that gang which have formed themselves into a faction to beard the king's government, to overturn the laws of the country, and even to insult and outrage the very person of the king's representative in Ireland, and pursuing the course of outrage and violence from the hostility that they had taken up against that venerated nobleman, for zeal and firmness in carrying into effect the king's intentions towards Ireland, of allaying the dissention, and healing the wounds that have afflicted this unhappy country. The course of conduct that my duty directs me to pursue, will be in the execution of the prerogative annexed to my office, to file ex officio informations, and speedily to bring before the country all the parties charged in these indictments.'
"That the petitioners were not present at the delivery of the Address, nor were they until Saturday, the 4th of January, able to satisfy themselves that the above statement of it was substantially correct.
"That they heard that one of the learned judges had, on Friday, the 3rd, expressed

815
surprise at their decision, and they felt that it no longer became them to remain silent, and that they owed it to themselves as individuals, and as a body, engaged in the administration of justice under the sacred obligation of their oaths, to remonstrate against imputations, the severity of which they felt the more keenly, as well because they seemed sanctioned by high authority, as because they were precluded from the power of refuting them.
"That the petitioners, though fully satisfied that the language of the attorney-general was calculated to impress every one who heard it with the conviction that he intended to impute to them, not an error of judgment, but a violation of their oaths, did yet believe it possible that there was some mistake in the Report of his observations, and they, therefore, determined to address the court in terms of remonstrance, which, at the same time that they should unequivocally repel the charge of corruption, should leave room for explanation, and enable the attorney-general to do them the justice of withdrawing the heavy charge which his address, as reported, was manifestly calculated to convey.
"That, under the influence of those feelings, they on Monday the 6th of Jan. addressed the court by their foreman in the following words:—
"'My lords;—We the commission, grand jury of Oyer and Terminer of the county of the city of Dublin, have learned with deep regret, that the discharge of our official duties with respect to certain bills of indictment has been made a subject of animadversion by his majesty's attorney-general, and has been pronounced by this high court to have been a matter of surprise; we hope, that neither the court, nor, with its sanction, his majesty's first law officer, intended to convey an imputation that our judgment was influenced by fear, favour, or affection. A charge of such a nature, without adverting to the enormity of the crime which it would impute, would be essentially unjust, for our oath of secrecy which forbids the disclosure of the grounds of our judgment, would render the vindication of that judgment, and if necessary the satisfactory refutation of such a charge, impossible. It must be recollected, that to us exclusively is the evidence known on which our judgment was founded, and they therefore trust, that
816
this high court will receive the declaration which we now solemnly and unanimously make, that our decision was the result of a laborious scrutiny of the evidence, of a conscientious consideration of its weight, and of a sincere anxiety to adhere to the direction of the learned judge, who so fully and clearly detailed to us the nature of our duties, and the principles by which we were bound to be regulated in discharging them.'
"That the presiding judge, Mr. Justice Moore, having been pleased to express his approbation of the manner and substance of their remonstrance, and to declare, that, as far as related to what had fallen from the Bench, the language of the court had been grossly misrepresented, your petitioners feel themselves no longer entitled to impute to his lordship any intention of censuring their conduct.
"That this remonstrance, thus publicly made in open court, has, as your petitioners believe, been communicated to his majesty's attorney-general, whose omission to notice or reply to it, induces them to conclude that the charge intimated by his observations is persisted in: and, under the circumstances, your petitioners are advised that a petition to parliament is the only course by which they can constitutionally obtain any sort of redress. They do, therefore, humbly submit, that the address of his majesty's attorney-general, though it professes not to arraign, does, in fact and in substance, arraign your petitioners; that it does most distinctly declare, that the case was one in which the foulest conspiracy had been fully demonstrated; that these unwarrantable reflections of his majesty's attorney-general press with the greatest severity and weight on your petitioners, because by the law of the land they are deprived of the means of demonstrating their injustice; bound by the solemn obligation of an oath to the observance of secrecy, they are not at liberty to divulge the nature of the evidence they have heard, or the reasons of the judgment they have pronounced. That the address of the attorney-general, in addition to the general charge of corruption against your petitioners, contained an insinuation that they had found bills for a riot against two only of the prisoners indicted, with a knowledge that by the rules of law such finding would be abortive, and with a criminal design of defeating any further proceedings thereon.

817
But your petitioners not only solemnly deny the justice of such an imputation, but utterly disclaimed that knowledge of the law which it supposes, and have since found upon inquiry, that the technical difficulty suggested by the attorney-general, presented no obstacle to the prosecution of two persons, against whom the bills were found, and that the Crown might have proceeded to trial, and obtained judgment against them, although the bills preferred against the others had been ignored. That your petitioners having no other mode or means of redress, have at length reluctantly been compelled as an act of duty not only to themselves, their feelings, and their characters, but to the free and due administration of public justice, to submit the consideration of their case to the wisdom of your honourable House, in full reliance that whatever shall be deemed necessary or expedient, to prevent the recurrence of such an evil in future, will be adopted and applied. And your petitioners will ever pray. For and on behalf of self and fellow-jurors,
(Signed) "GEORGE WHITEFORD.
"Dublin, 7th of April, 1823."
Mr. Plunkettsaid, he could not, in justice to his own character, allow the allegations of the petition to pass without observation. The petition contained a statement which was calculated to produce an impression upon that House, that he, in the discharge of his duty as a public functionary, had imputed corrupt motives to the grand jury. It might, perhaps, be sufficient for him to leave that part of the charge against him, to the consideration of those who had heard the words imputed to him in the petition itself; for he was sure, that all who heard them must see that they conveyed no such meaning as that which the petitioners had ascribed to them. He would very shortly state the facts to the House, as they had really occurred. An indictment was presented to the grand jury for a conspiracy to cause a riot at the theatre, by which the person of the lord lieutenant was outraged and insulted; that indictment, the grand jury, acting upon their oaths, did not find. Other indictments were then presented to them for a riot and assault generally. These indictments contained two counts: the grand jury refused to find bills on the first count, but found them on the second, in such a manner, however, as to render their finding totally inoperative. When the
818
grand jury returned with that finding, he happened to be in court; and the statement made in the petition was, that his filing ex officio informations against the different parties arose from a hasty and resentful spirit excited by that finding, and not from that cautious deliberation which he ought to have used in the conscientious discharge of his public duty. He felt it due to his own character, to give to that statement the most unqualified contradiction. The bills of indictment were sent up to the grand jury on the 1st of January. The grand jury separated on that day without coming to any determination upon them. On the evening of the same day he was made acquainted with that fact. He was likewise informed by the solicitor of the Crown, that the witnesses, from the manner in which they had been treated in their examinations by the grand jury, were almost unanimously of opinion that no bill would be found. He was at the same time informed of several other facts which he had never yet stated, and which he would not be induced to state, even on the present occasion. Those facts were, however, of such a nature as to lead both himself, the solicitor-general, and another gentleman of the bar, of the name of Townsend, to whom they were submitted, to this conclusion—that, both on account of the jury itself, and of the manner in which it had been empanelled, it would, in all probability, become their duty to file criminal informations against the individuals whom they had, in the first instance, endeavoured to punish by means of indictments. It had been said, that, in filing these informations, he had not so much consulted his public duty as he had given way to party feelings. He trusted that those who had observed the course of his public life wood believe that he was incapable of prostituting to party purposes the powers which he had received, and was sworn to exercise, for the benefit of the Whole community. He thought it right, however, to state, that the solicitor-general, who concurred with him in every step which had been taken to enforce the law against the violators of the public peace, differed diametrically from him on that which was commonly called the Catholic question. But, to return: on the grand jury coming into court, he certainly had risen, and expressed himself in terms similar to those stated in the petition. He had said, that

819
"he would not arrogate to himself the office of arraigning the conduct of the grand jury; they had discharged their functions in the presence of their God, under the sanction of a solemn oath, taken in the face of their country; and that to that God they were alone accountable." He had likewise added, "that he, too, had a duty to perform, and that in the performance of it be would exercise honestly and fearlessly, the prerogative that the law and constitution had given to his office." In order to show that he had acted most fairly towards the grand jury, in making that statement, he would beg leave to read to the House an extract of what he had said to the petty jury, when the trial afterwards came on; but before he did so, be would inform the House, that the grand jury, on a subsequent day, when he was not present, went into court and addressed the judge. They stated to him, that they had heard that he (Mr. P.) had imputed improper motives to them; and they complained that he had not sent them any apology for having made what they called so groundless an imputation. He would not stop to examine whether he was called upon to make such apology, or whether it would have been consistent for him, exercising, as he did, the high functions of public prosecutor, to have stooped to such a measure. He would merely say, that the grand jury had not acted fairly towards him, in giving only a partial account of the judge's reply to their application. In common justice, if they stated any part of it, they ought to have stated tile whole; but, instead of doing so, they had suppressed that part of it in which the learned judge had told them, that though he (Mr. P.) had expressed much surprise, he had expressed no censure at their finding; and that in what had been communicated to them, he had been most shamefully represented. The language Which he had used before the petty jury at the trial, clearly proved that point; for in the speech to which he had before alluded, he had used the following expressions:—"In the proceeding which I have thought it my duty to institute, though I have been governed by my strong impression that public justice has not been effected, I do not involve in this conclusion any imputation on the sheriff, who returned the grand jury; still less on the grand jury themselves, who have acted on their oaths in throwing out those
820
bills. For the purposes of the present trial, whatever opinions I may entertain on that subject, I have no right to advert to them. The sheriff who returned that grand jury is not on his trial, and it would be gross injustice to arraign his conduct when he cannot defend it. The grand jury are not on their trials, and it would be injustice equally gross to make a charge against them, where they can have no opportunity of vindicating themselves: a time may come, and an occasion may arise, in which these considerations may be proper and necessary; and most certainly I will not, in that event, be found wanting in the discharge of any duty, however painful, which may devolve on me. But, in the meantime, and with reference to the present proceeding, I wish distinctly to be understood as disclaiming all imputations upon either. I am ready to suppose, for the purposes of this trial, that if the parties and the cause were the exact reverse of what they now are; that if it had been the pleasure of the government to direct, that the statue of king William should be dressed on the 4th of November, and a body of Roman Catholics, feeling themselves insulted, had risen against the law and the magistracy, and had flung a bottle or other missile at the lord-lieutenant's head, and these facts had been before the grand jury, they would have ignored the bills; as, so help me God, I would, under the same circumstances, had I remained the king's attorney-general, have filed my information ex officio. I claim only for myself equal credit for the purity of my motives, and the fair discharge of my sworn duty." Under such circumstances, he begged to ask hon. members, whether they thought him open to the imputation of using the license which his situation gave him to censure a jury for acting upon improper motives?—There was another topic on which he wished to make an observation. In exercising his discretion, with respect to the filing of the ex officio informations after the bills had been thrown out, he must confess that the conduct of the grand jury had formed one of the principal ingredients. But, when he stated that it was his intention to file those informations, he felt that he should not be justified in stating that their conduct had had any influence upon his determination, because they were in a situation to defend themselves against such a charge. But now, when this

821
grand jury came forward with a charge against him, which rendered it necessary for him to examine and discuss their conduct, he must animadvert upon it, not so much with a view of attacking them, as of defending himself against an unjust accusation. He was not to remain unarmed and undefended, when they were using every effort to hurt and to injure him: his lips were not to be closed, when they were uttering all kinds of charges and accusations against him. Whatever doubt he had entertained before, regarding the line of conduct which he should pursue, was entirely dissipated by the petition which had just been presented. He had no hesitation in now declaring to the country and the world, that it was the conduct of the grand jury, along with some facts respecting them which had come to his knowledge, that had induced him to file the informations complained of. What those facts were he had not yet stated: he would not state them at that moment, nor indeed at any time; unless an opportunity should be granted him of having them fully verified. He could not help saying, that all along, and even at the present moment, he had been most unfairly dealt with by the grand jury. Instead of bringing forward a charge against him in specific terms, or in such a manner as would have enabled him to meet it directly, and instead of intrusting their petition to a gentleman who was acquainted with all the facts of the case, they had put it into the hands of an hon. and learned friend of his, who knew nothing of the matter, but who, in pursuance of his duty, had presented it to the House, and had presented it in a very proper and guarded manner. If redress were their object, why did not they complain of some specific wrong? Why did not they intrust their petition to some gentleman who could have stated the injury they had suffered, and have pointed out the satisfaction which they wished to receive? He well knew that the petitioners did not seek for redress in presenting this petition: their object was to lay it on the table of the house as a makeweight to the charges which the hon. member for Armagh had already brought against him. They knew that he must either remain silent under the allegations which the petition contained, which would be equivalent to a confession of their truth, or anticipate the defence which he should have to make on Tuesday
822
next, which would be an incalculable advantage to the accusing party. In such a situation, he had determined to state his opinion boldly at once regarding the grand jury; and, if they thought themselves unfairly treated by it, they ought to recollect, that he had not volunteered the statement, but had been compelled to make it by the gross attack which they had first of all made upon him.—The right hon. gentleman then sat down, but immediately rose again, to describe the technicality which had rendered it impossible for him to follow up the finding of the grand jury upon the second indictment presented to them. That indictment contained two counts; the first was for a riot and assault on the person of the lord lieutenant, which would have enabled them to have found the riot, and negatived the assault, and vice versa; and the second was for a riot generally. In the first count, it was charged that the defendants, cum multis aliis, had committed the riot and assault; and in the second it was charged, that they had committed it with each other, leaving out the cum multis aliis. It was on this second count that the grand jury had found the defendants guilty; but as they had not found them guilty cum multis aliis, and as two persons could not in law be guilty of a riot, their finding prevented any future proceedings from taking place.
The petition was laid upon the table, and ordered to be printed.

MILITARY AND NAVAL PENSIONS BILL.
On the order of the day for going into a committee on this bill,
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he did not think it necessary on the present occasion to argue over again, the policy of the arrangement which had been made for apportioning the burthen occasioned by the naval and military pensions, and also by the civil superannuations. He deemed it, however, to be necessary to say a few words, regarding the arrangement which had been made on the recent bargain with the Bank. It would not have been necessary to trouble the House at all upon this occasion, had it not been for the imperfect manner in which the act of last session was worded. The words used seemed to exclude the trustees from making a bargain for a longer period than one year; whereas, the meaning of them was, that a larger sum of money should not be brought into the

823
Exchequer than was sufficient for the service of one year. In consequence of this oversight, it had become necessary to call upon the House to amend the act and to ratify the agreement with the Bank. That agreement was to last five years and a quarter, and was to conclude on the 5th of July, 1828. The basis on which it was formed, was an agreement to take the long annuities at the price on which they were on the 1st of March, the day on which they closed. On that day, an annuity of 1l. for 36 years and three quarters, was worth 18 l. 17 s. 9d.; and the calculation was, that the interest on that sum was the same as 4l. 2s. 1d. per cent. The total sum which the Bank would have to advance in the 5¼ years amounted to 13,089,419 l. But as it was not to be advanced at once, but by instalments, it was calculated to be the same as if the Bank advanced at once 11,883, 194 l. If that sum had been advanced at once, then the permanent interest would have been 487,700 l.; but as the plan was to give an annuity for 44 years at the same rate of interest, it would amount to 585,740 l.; and on that arrangement had the treaty been concluded. That arrangement had been made for one year, and it might have remained open from year to year, and so on; but it appeared to the trustees, that if they could make the bargain upon fair and equitable terms, it would be advisable for them to make it for a longer period, because it might happen, in the course of public events, that before five years and a quarter had elapsed, they might not be able to obtain such good terms as 4l. 2s. 1d. per cent. It was upon that principle they had made the present arrangement; and he conceived it to be as fair an arrangement as could possibly be made. The right hon. gentleman then concluded by moving, "That the Speaker do now leave the chair."
Mr. Grenfellsaid, it would be in the recollection of the House, that on the first appearance of this bill, he had given notice that he would propose its rejection and would take the sense of the House upon it. He now rose in pursuance o his promise to move, that the House do resolve itself into a committee on this bill upon that day six months. He was no prepared to quarrel with the terms of the arrangement; but he would say, that the right hon. gentleman was not justified in making such an arrangement with an public body whatsoever for more than one
824
year; for, though the terms were advantageous to the public according to the present price of stocks, they might be still more so in the course of next year. Neither was he prepared to quarrel with the Bank for having accepted them; for as they had been voluntarily offered to the Bank, it could not be said that the Bank had done wrong in accepting them. He quarrelled, however, with the bill altogether; and would shortly explain the grounds upon which he did so. It might be in the recollection of the House, that a great difference of opinion had existed in it last year, when this arrangement was first proposed. At that time he was one of those who had supported the bill which contained it, on the ground that it would immediately lead to a remission of 2,000,000 l. of direct taxation. There was, however, one point in the bill in which all persons agreed; and that was, that that mode of carrying the arrangement into effect ought to be adopted, which was the most simple in its plan, and the least onerous to the public in its execution. Now, he would contend, that another mode might be adopted, that would be more advantageous to the public than that which parliament was now called upon to ratify, Hon. gentlemen might perhaps recollect that last year he had proposed the introduction of a clause precisely similar, in its nature and object, to that which Mr. Fox had proposed in 1786, by which the commissioners of the sinking fund were allowed to be loan contractors to a certain amount. It was unnecessary for him to state, that this arrangement was in every respect a loan. The only difference between it and an ordinary loan was, that money, in the one case, was raised by a permanent annuity of 3 per cent; and that it was now proposed to raise it by a long annuity of 44 years. He had been of opinion, that when the government failed last year in carrying their arrangement into effect through the agency of the South Sea Company, and of the Bank, it had adopted his clause; and he now maintained, f that if they had acted upon his clause, they would have acted more advantageously for the public. Could any man dispute that it would be more advantageous to the public to take this money from the sinking fund than from the Bank? The Bank evidently would not enter into y the bargain, unless it expected to derive a considerable profit front it: and the ad-

825
vantage of carrying on the transaction through the commissioners of the sinking-fund would be just equivalent to the gain made by the Bank. The ground, therefore, on which he opposed this bill was, that it deprived the public of the profit, which it gave to the Bank. There was another reason why he objected to this bill. If they passed it, they would depart, for the first time since the year 1694, from a principle which had then been laid down, that the Bank of England was not to be a dealer in the public funds. But this bill enabled the Bank, not merely to purchase, but also to sell annuities, and authorized it to become not merely a seller, but even a jobber and speculator in public securities. It was for the House to consider whether that reason alone was not sufficient to authorize them to throw out this bill. He thought it was; and should certainly take the sense of the House upon his motion.
Mr. Haldimandsupported the amendment, and contended that the measure was a mere delusion, intended to throw dust in the eyes of two classes of persons—those who desired a reduction of taxation, and those who wished to support public credit by means of a sinking fund.
Sir F. Blakeexpressed his surprise, that the present chancellor of the exchequer should have adopted this ricketty, ill-formed bantling of his predecessor. He would oppose the measure, because it militated against the chancellor of the exchequer's own principle, of not having any sinking fund, but what arose from surplus revenue. It was nothing but a legerdemain trick, to give with one hand and take away with the other. It was called the dead-weight bill; and indeed, it would be found a dead weight, to clog the wheels of government. It was
"a monster of such frightful mien, "That to be hated, needs but to be seen."
Though he wished the debt to be got rid of, he wished it to be known as his opinion, that the public creditor had as good a right, not only to the interest of the money he had lent, but also to the principal, as any private creditor who had lent money on a mortgage.
Mr. Humesaid, he should like to know whether the chancellor of the exchequer had at all considered in what situation the public was likely to be at the termination of this annuity transaction? He had expected the right hon. gentleman to take some pains to show that, at the end of the
826
44 years, the nation would be benefitted in some way or other. He (Mr. H.) insisted, that the plan could at not time be advantageous. In the first place, he wished to ask how it happened that the right hon. gentleman had given his sanction to the Bank of England becoming stockjobbers, when it had hitherto been prevented in every charter, excepting as far as related to certain exchequer bills. As, the matter now stood, the Bank could at' any time go into the market, and at its pleasure raise or depress the funds, one, two, or three per cent, to the utter ruin of private individuals. It was to be remembered also, that at the time the charter was granted, the disposition to speculate was trifling compared with what it was at the present time. He had asked the former chancellor of the exchequer, whether he intended the annuities should be sold in the public market by competition? The answer was, that it was not intended that the commissioners of the sinking fund should buy them; but that they should be openly disposed of to the best bidder. He accused the present chancellor of the exchequer, therefore, of a breach of faith in this respect. He had deviated from the practice of all the governments for the last thirty years; for the present was the only instance in which a loan had been made a private job. As far as regarded the public, he insisted that the bargain was most improvident. The right hon. gentleman ought to have looked to the result at the end of 44 year, and he would, perhaps, have made this discovery. The right hon. gentleman said, that the amount would be equal to the present payment of 11,883,000 l.; but he (Mr. H.) would be glad to know how he arrived at that conclusion. He contended, that on the 10th of October, 1828, when this contract with the Bank would terminate, the amount of money paid would be 11,247,000 l. The chancellor of the exchequer ought to have asked himself this question—"What am I to do with this money?" He did not want it to relieve taxation; and he was bound to tell the House what he meant to do with it. He (Mr. H.) would endeavour to supply some part of what the right hon. gentleman should have stated. If he invested the money in 3 per cent capital, he would be able to buy a perpetual annuity of 449,000 l., instead of which the right hon. gentleman had agreed to pay 585,000 l., or 136,000 l., too much, for thirty-eight

827
years and a half, which, at compound interest, would amount to 12,000,000 l., and would produce a dividend of more than 500,000 l. Thus, instead of relieving the country, a heavy and perpetual loss was incurred. He pledged himself, that the result would be most calamitous to the country, in case of a rise in the funds during the five years. He begged to be informed, also, why the right hon. gentleman had made the engagement for so long a period; or even if it must be made for five years, why he had not gone publicly into the market? If he had sold an annuity of 97,500 l. at the price he had stated, he might have raised 2,187,000 l., the sum wanted for the first year. The public, according to the arrangement now entered into, would lose no less than one million and a half sterling, provided the funds kept up at their present elevation; and there seemed no probability of a decline below 75, upon the reasonable anticipation that peace would be preserved. Had the right hon. gentleman looked at what the long annuities had opened at? They had opened at 19 l. 3s. 9d.; yet the Bank was only to give 18 l. 17 s. 9d. The difference was all clear profit to that establishment. If the right hon. gentleman were at this moment to go openly into the market, he would be able to raise a much larger sum than he had obtained at present, and upon the same terms. He strongly expressed his hope, that the House would reject the plan as impolitic for the country, and unjust towards the public. He called upon all those who professed the slightest regard for economy, to put an end to a system, at once so ruinous and absurd.
Mr. Maberlysaid, he had expected, but in vain, to hear of some bonus and great advantage to result from the measure, from allowing all at once the Bank to become a purchaser of stock. He did think some good reason should be given for departing front this long established principle.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that public competition had been invited and nobody had bid, neither corporations nor individuals. It was only when this attempt had failed that recourse was had to the Bank. There was no reason to suppose that if an offer had been publicly made this year, that it would have been accepted. The transaction was not a job: it had been openly and fairly conducted.
Mr. Baringobjected to giving to the Bank the power of stock-jobbing. He complained that the whole transaction was unintelligible, and that great loss would result to the country therefrom. Setting aside the absurdity of the measure, he believed it was a had bargain, and intended to deceive two classes of persons. The very fact stated by the chancellor of the exchequer, that nobody would bid for the annuities; was a proof of its absurdity. There was no want of capital in the country; there was in fact a great abundance of money; and when the offer of the chancellor found no bidders, it was a proof that his plan was a had one. He had hoped that the candour which distinguished the right hon. gentleman would have induced him to yield to the general feeling which prevailed on this subject he effect of the measure would be, to erect the Bank into a company of stockjobbers, and though he was not prepared to say that circumstances might not exist in which it might be expedient for the Bank to become purchasers of the public securities, yet he thought such a measure ought not to be resorted to without the strongest necessity. Another objection to this measure was, the time at which the government had made the bargain with the Bank. The three per cents were a short time ago, up at 83, but they had subsequently fallen to 73, from the probability of this country being involved in a war; and it was at the period of their lowest depression that the right hon. gentleman had thought proper to make his bargain with the Bank. Nor had the right hon. gentleman contented himself with merely making the bargain for the year; but, to show that the plan was perfectly feasible, and that it involved no bubble or delusion, he had made the contract for five years. The conduct of the government was equally improvident and ridiculous, whether we were likely to be embarked in a war or not. If we were not likely to go to war, there was every reason to suppose that the funds would recover, and the time for making the bargain was most improvidently chosen. If, on the other hand, this country were likely to be involved in the contest, then we were encumbering with this vast operation, the very institution to whose efforts we should look for the means of carrying on the war. In every point of view he could not but regard this measure as the most un-

829
wise, and even the most ridiculous that had ever been presented to the House.
Mr. Huskissonsaid, the observations of the hon. member might have been applied well enough, in point of time, either to the principle of the measure when it was originated by the late chancellor of the exchequer, or to the discussions on the sinking fund which had taken place before the recess; but they were wholly irrelevant to the present question, which merely regarded the ratification of a particular contract with the Bank. He thought, that in the discussions which had taken place on the new-modelling of the sinking fund, the principle of the measure had been generally understood and agreed to by the House. With regard to the power of the Bank to hold stock, it must be in the recollection of the hon. mover, that the Bank held a million of the loyalty loan in the last war. In the present case, the Bank might keep the whole of the long annuities, and divide them among the proprietors of Bank stock, as in the instance of the loyalty loan. As to the time at which the bargain was made, the government could only take the market as they found it, in any transaction of this nature. It was impossible for them to determine whether the funds were likely to be higher or lower at any future period.
Mr. Grenfellsaid, it was true that the Bank held a million of the loyalty loan in the last war; but, a short time after the contract was concluded, it was suggested to them by their own solicitor, that it was made in direct violation of their charter, and they, therefore, divided the whole of the loan among the proprietors. In the present bill, however, there were two clauses; one expressly authorising the Bank to hold, and another to sell stock.
The House divided: For the amendment, 44. For the original motion, 55. The House then went into a committee on the bill.

IRISH MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES—PROTESTANT CHARTER SCHOOLS—FEMALE ORPHAN HOUSE—CORK INSTITUTION—ROYAL DUBLIN SOCIETY—GLEBE HOUSES.
The House having resolved itself into a committee of supply to which the Irish Miscellaneous Estimates were referred. Mr. Goulburn moved, "That 17,000 l. be granted for defraying the expense of the Protestant
830
Charter Schools of Ireland, for one year."
Mr. Humesaid, he had expected to see a considerable reduction in the Irish estimates of the present year. He regretted that he did not see upon the table certain returns for which he had moved, showing the revenue and expenditure of Ireland during the last three years. From those papers, when produced, it would appear that the expenditure of Ireland exceeded her revenue by 2,500,000 l. He found, by the articles of the Union, they were bound not to reduce the allowances for charitable purposes below the average of the six preceding years. The subject had been discussed in 1817; and at that time it was agreed, that the charitable grants ought not to continue at the rate at which they then stood. From this admission, he had been led to hope for a nearer approximation to the average stipulated in the articles of the Union. That average, calculated on the six years preceding the Union, was 47,284 l. This sum went on increasing, until it had reached 205,000 l. in the year in which the committee sat. It had now been reduced to 123,000 l., which he still thought too much. He objected generally to the principle of the public attempting to provide for and manage charitable establishments. A great deal of the money granted for such purposes was diverted from the proper channel. To the specific proposition, he could not assent. He would never grudge money for giving education to the children of the Irish people. On the contrary, he would advise some general system for that purpose; but then he would have it adapted more to the necessities of the whole people: he would have the means secured for imparting education to the Catholic population, which formed five-sixths of the whole people. He would move for a reduction of the vote to 10,000 l., with the hope of seeing the other 7,000 l. applied to some plan of education more consistent with the general interests of the people.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, it was true that this vote was for an establishment for Protestant education; but it was not exclusively for the benefit of Protestants. It was an establishment in the strictest and most general sense charitable. So far from interfering with the duties of parents, the greater portion of the children were orphans.
Sir J. Newportthought there might be a more judicious application of the grants for the education of the Irish people, and hoped to see some beneficial alteration. He thought it would be advisable to reduce the number of scholars on the establishment, which was too exclusive and separate, and apply the grant to one of more general usefulness. Still, the modification must be left to the discretion of the public functionaries.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, he would take the subject into his consideration, with a view to the adoption, if possible, of some more advantageous plan for the application of these grants. He did not think that more than a due proportion of these grants was allotted for the education of Protestant children.
Mr. Humesaid, that in consequence of the explanation which had been given, he would withdraw the amendment he had proposed, and substitute in its stead a resolution, that the grant should be reduced to 13,000 l.
The question upon the latter amendment was then put, and the House divided: For the amendment, 15. Against it, 42. On the resolution, "That 1,930 l. be granted for defraying the expense of the Female Orphan House in Dublin, for one year,"
Mr. Humeadverted to the periodical increase of the sums granted to this institution, as an illustration of the system of charitable grants to different institutions of Ireland. At the time of the Union, the grant was only for 500 l.; it was now 1,930 l. He trusted the expense would only be applied to the support of those who were now actually supported, and that in future the principle of exclusion would be applied, so as ultimately to get rid of these grants altogether. It was a severe burthen on the great mass of the community that it should be burthened with demands for the support of a small part of the population. If the government did not exert itself to accelerate that result, he trusted the House would, in the next session, take up the subject.
Mr. Goulburnprotested against the general principle of the hon. member, that, because it was impossible to support the whole of the pauper population, no support of the kind should be bestowed.
Mr. Dawsonadverted to the great increase that had taken place in the population of Dublin and other parts of Ireland.
Mr. Grattandisapproved altogether of any interference with the Irish charitable institutions: and bore his testimony to the judicious administration of the houses of industry in Dublin.
Mr. Moncksaid, the hon. member for Aberdeen's proposition was perfectly correct. There was no distinction more obvious than that between duties of perfect and imperfect obligation. Nothing could be more unwise than an attempt to enforce, by legislative enactment, the performance of duties of imperfect obligation. The poor laws of England were a remarkable instance of this. His hon. friend did not propose that the children should be abandoned; but that they should be supported by the contributions of the rich, and not by the public purse. If the public performed this duty, it would have the effect of stifling the operation of charitable feeling, and would furnish an excuse to those who could afford it, to withhold their donations.
Sir J. Newportsaid, that the Union having withdrawn the rich proprietors, prevented their charity from having that effect in Ireland which it would otherwise have. If the three millions annually brought over to England from Ireland, were expended in the latter country, not only would the poor be relieved, but every charitable establishment be adequately supported.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, he could, from his own knowledge, assert, that more liberality, or a greater portion of charitable feeling, did not exist in any community than was to be found in Dublin. The hon. baronet had spoken of the disadvantages under which Ireland laboured, in consequence of the absence of many individuals of wealth and rank, whose duties obliged them to reside principally in this country. But there was another point which bore particularly hard on the city of Dublin. A great number of persons, from every part of Ireland, proceeded to Dublin, on their way to this country, where they hoped to procure a livelihood. The consequence was, that the poor of all sorts congregated there, and the ordinary sources of charity were inadequate to their support. He had himself officiated on charitable occasions in Dublin, and he never knew larger funds to be raised in any place for purposes of charity and benevolence. He had seen from 600 l. to 800 l. collected at a charity sermon. These donations supplied, in some degree, the place of the poor laws.
Mr. Humesaid, it was very true, that many Irish gentlemen came over to this country; but did their land come with them? Why should they not apply a portion of their revenues to the support of these charities? Why should the public be called on to supply the funds? Such charitable grants were really not beneficial. If we wished to make Ireland happy, we must give them education, revise the existing tithe system, and discourage, as much as possible, the tendency to become absentees.
Mr. Dawsondefended those Irish gentlemen whose public duties compelled them to remain in this country, from the imputation thrown out in so general a manner. If charities were to depend merely on individual bounty, we should soon have but few efficient charitable institutions. The resolution was agreed to. On the resolution, "That 2000 l. be granted for defraying the expense of the Royal Cork Institution,"
Mr. Humeasked why, if such an institution were good in Cork, it would not be equally good at Limerick, and other places? Why not, instead of burthening the public with the expense, let the persons who attended the lectures pay for them.
Sir J. Newportdefended the institution, and said it had done great service, not only to Cork, but to other parts of Ireland. When first established, however, he allowed it was expected that it would eventually support itself.
Mr. Humecalled on government to say, why the institution had not supported itself, and why the public were still called upon to support it.
Mr. Goulburncontended, that the institution had greatly tended to the improvement of the various manufactures of Ireland. It was impossible that it could maintain itself, because the subordinate classes of the people who received instruction from it, had no means of allowing any remuneration for the advantage.
The resolution was agreed to. On the resolution, "That 7,000 l be granted to the Royal Dublin Society,"
Mr. Humesaid, he had last year taken the sense of the committee on this vote, because he conceived it to be money actually thrown away; and he was now more and more convinced, that the sum demanded, could not, as laid out by the society, operate any benefit to the coun-
834
try. The society was founded in 1731. It was intended not to promote one, but several objects, the chief of which were, agriculture and manufactures. Now, there were other societies established for the same purpose; and why should they divide the public funds in this way? Last year, the right hon. gentleman had expatiated on the useful publications which had emanated from this body. He should be glad to know what great literary productions the society had sent forth in the last year? He believed it was more a political club, where gentlemen met to read the newspapers, than a literary society.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, the society was not merely founded for the purpose of preparing literary works, but to patronize lectures on different branches of art and science. There were six professors, who lectured on chemistry, botany, natural philosophy, &c. Those lectures were extremely well attended. Since professors had been appointed, many improvements in the useful arts had been effected, the benefit of which was felt by a large class of persons. There was another branch of the institution which had for its object the cultivation of the fine arts; and many individuals who had attained to great proficiency in those arts, owed their first advance to the instruction which they had received in that society. As soon as their funds allowed it, two students would be selected to prosecute the study of the fine arts in Rome.
Mr. Humesaid, the right hon. gentleman, when this subject was last before the committee, had appealed to the valuable publications that had been sent forth by the Dublin society, as a proof of the utility of that body. Where were those publications? He had indeed picked up some of their proceedings, and they certainly were the most childish proceedings he ever met with. He had the minutes of six of their proceedings, and they were really puerile. In one instance, a motion was made to pay 5l. to the clergyman, as tithe of an acre and a half of land belonging to the institution, for the produce of which they only received 8l. He called on any Irish gentleman to declare, what was the opinion entertained of the society in Dublin. Was it not considered a mere job? and were not the proceedings childish in the utmost degree? He saw amongst the proceedings votes of 1l. 10 s., 3l., and 4l. as premiums for the improvement of

835
the fine arts. This was all a mockery. But the right hon. gentleman said, that students would be sent to Rome, to study the fine arts. What had they to do with sending sculptors to Rome? They were already overloaded with sculptors and artists of every description. By proceeding in this course, they would create a greater number than the demand required; and the effect of such an expenditure of money would be, to injure those who were already connected with the arts. Why were not students sent from London to Rome? Why did not the right hon. secretary for the home department move for a sum of money to send young men from London to Rome on the same principle? With respect to the useful publications of the Dublin society, he was not content to lavish the public money on bookmakers. If necessary, many persons could easily be found, who were ready to make them, and whose manufacture would be much better than that of the Dublin society. He certainly should propose a reduction of one-half the grant. No less than 1,271 l. was paid in rent and taxes, for the house of the establishment—a sum which, if applied properly, would be of more use in spreading knowledge through different parts of Ireland, than all that had been done by the Dublin society. He would, by reducing the grant, put it out of their power to send artists to Rome, or to purchase periodical publications; and, if he succeeded now, he would move a further reduction next year. He then proposed that 3,500 l. should be substituted for 7,000 l.
Sir J. Newportobserved, that the efforts of the society had produced a great improvement in agriculture.
Mr. Humesaid, that when money was voted to an institution for one purpose, it ought not to be appropriated to another. If the improvement of agriculture was sought for, they had a Farming society, and why not directly vote money to them for that purpose?
The amendment was withdrawn, and the resolution agreed to. On the resolution, "That 9,230 l. be granted, for defraying the expense of building churches and glebe-houses, and of purchasing glebes in Ireland,"
Lord A. Hamiltondid not rise to oppose the amount of the sum, but to express his dislike to the principle on which it was called for. The grant was for the establishment of the church of
836
Ireland; and, as they had heard last night, the first fruits, which should be made available for that purpose, had of late never been collected. But, the ground on which he opposed the vote was, that the church of Ireland was already overpaid—that it was remunerated more largely, in comparison with the duties performed, than the church of any nation in Europe. Sorry, also, he was, to say, that the church service was worse performed in Ireland than in any other country. He did not mean to cast odium on those by whom it was so performed: he would let those individuals and the government divide the odium between them. The facts were, however, before the House. They might see, by examining the documents on their table, how many parishes were without clergymen; they might also see, that various parishes were so united, that it was impossible, the duty could be performed. They found a considerable body of persons complaining to lord Blaney, that the rites of the church in their district were not solemnized. And, what was the answer?—that he had, for three years, been ineffectually labouring to remove the evil. It must also be kept in mind, that the whole of the money thus granted by parliament must be defrayed out of the taxes of this country, for Ireland was unable to exceed her present amount of contribution to the public exigencies.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that the noble lord seemed to imagine that this was a vote of 9,000 l. to pay the church establishment of Ireland. It was no such thing; and, until the noble lord could satisfy him that the clergy, both here and in Ireland, were bound to build glebe-houses and repair churches out of their own pockets and without this aid, he must persevere in proposing the present vote. With respect to the noble lord's observation, that no where was the church service worse performed than in Ireland, he must declare, as a constant attendant at that service both here and in Ireland, that in no place had he seen it better performed than in the latter; that in no place had he seen it more efficiently enforced, or in a manner which reflected greater honour and credit upon the clergy engaged in such duties.
Lord A. Hamiltonsaid, that his meaning was, not that the church service in Ireland was worse performed, but that in many instances it was not performed at

837
all; and in proof of this he referred to lord Blaney's letter, and to the parliamenary returns, which showed that in many parishes there was no church at all.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that lord Blaney's letter merely went to show, not that there was no service performed, but that there ought to have been a resident rector as well as curate.
Sir J. Newportsaid, that the recommendation of lord Blaney to the bishop of the diocese appeared to have been made in vain, although backed by the entreaties of 300 of the protestant parishioners. He meant to oppose this vote on two grounds; the first was, that it went to augment the funds of the higher orders of the clergy of Ireland, who were already greatly overpaid, and who, if not bound by law, were yet bound in honour to defray those expenses incidental to the performance of their duties, more particularly when it was considered that the hierarchy of that church received out of the pockets of the people hundreds of thousands more of emolument than was received by any other clergy in Europe. Would the world believe, that the three principal personages of the Irish episcopacy, who had died within the last fifteen years, had bequeathed to their families upwards of 700,000 l. every shilling of which enormous property they had acquired by their sees in Ireland? Such a fact ought to bring down shame upon the episcopal order, when the members of it called for parliamentary aid to repair their glebes? His second ground of objection to the vote was, that by the statutes of Geo. 1st and Geo. 2nd., it was enjoined that every clergyman possessed of a benefice exceeding 100 l. a year in value, should be obliged by his archbishop or bishop, within three years to build a glebe-house; yet, notwithstanding these provisions of the law, he knew instances in which glebes containing 1,500 and 2,000 acres of land, were held for five, seven, and ten years, and no glebe-house ever built upon them. This was the case in the parish of hilly-begs, in the diocese of Raphoe; and the bishop, who was the present primate of Ireland, had not enforced the law, and why? Because the rector was a pluralist and non-resident. It was too hard upon the catholic population of Ireland to be taxed in this manner for building and repairing protestant churches, while they knew that the protestant clergy derived such enormous revenues for the perform-
838
ance of such inadequate services. That a wretched and impoverished catholic peasantry should be oppressed by sesses levied for such a purpose was a disgrace to the established church.
Mr. Humedenied that the Irish government had reformed the abuses of the Irish established church, which he would contend remained at the present day, as notorious as they were when Mr. Grattan brought the subject before the Irish legislature. Since the year 1800, no less a sum than 703,994 l. had been granted for these church buildings. Such a demand, particularly upon the people of England, was monstrous, when the Irish church possessed such enormous revenues. He would take the sense of the house upon the vote.
Mr. W. Smithsaid, that were he a bishop, he would look upon the proposer of such grants as these as the worst friend of the established church, for the effect of such propositions must be, to alienate men's minds from the establishment. He had heard from undoubted authority that in Ireland the number of the catholics was increasing, while that of the protestants was on the decrease. Where, then, were the practical benefits conferred on Ireland by the church establishment, adequate to the enormous amount of its expense, and the contention for the payment of its tithes?
Mr. Grattanconfirmed the statement respecting the numerical decrease of the protestants, which he attributed to the manner of upholding the established church more by the amassing of enormous wealth than the adequate performance of religious duties. It was too much, under such circumstances, to come to parliament for grants which must be defrayed out of the pockets of the people, already too much oppressed by the intolerable weight of a system fraught with the elements of permanent disturbance in Ireland.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that the money for glebe-houses was only called for in advance; it was afterwards to be repaid to the public by the incumbents. The revenue of Ireland might not be equal to all the expenses of that kingdom; but the question ought to be considered with reference to the whole empire. It ought to be viewed, not so much one of a local as of a general nature. Wherever the government had built glebe-houses, and there had been a resident clergy, the effect had been to increase the num-

839
ber of the protestant community, and the object of the vote would be to collect, as soon as possible, the whole of that community in Ireland, under the care of a resident protestant clergy, and thereby to confer a lasting benefit, not upon Ireland only, but on the whole united kingdom.
Sir J. Newportobserved, that, in the diocese of Ossory alone, from 1737 to 1302, there had been an amazing decrease of protestants. So lately as in 1816, there had been an instance in which six vicarages were united into one benefice. He pledged himself that next session he would move the House to go into a committee on the state of the established church in Ireland, and to consider the report of the bishops thereon.
The committee divided. For the resolution, 13, against it, 19.