BANK OF IRELAND. (Hansard, 21 August 1839)

§ Mr. Finch
could not allow that opportunity to pass Without expressing his regret, that the rate of interest to be paid to the Bank of Ireland, was not the same as that contemplated in the bill that had been withdrawn.

Mr. Ellis
thought it rather unreasonable, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be called upon to reduce the rate of interest, when that was contingent upon other ar- 467 rangements which had not been carried into effect.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, no one could more regret the unsatisfactory state of that system, and no one could have shown a more anxious wish, or made more arduous exertions to bring matters to a settlement, than himself. But the hon. Member must remember, that the proposition made from the other side of the House, was to arrange the matter of the Exchequer bills this year, and leave the other points for separate consideration. He thought hon. Members must see, that the Bank of Ireland, instead of being open to blame, had, on the contrary, done everything they could to bring about an amicable settlement of the question. When, in consequence of the suggestion to which he had alluded, he had agreed to adopt its principle, he was now again asked to go into the whole of the other points connected with the banking laws in Ireland. He could assure the hon. Gentleman, that no one could be a greater friend, than he was, to a system of free banking, but always apart and separate from the making of money. The point on which he differed with hon. Gentlemen on this subject, was connected entirely with the question of issue, and nothing else. He would take that opportunity of alluding to a statement which had been made yesterday during the debate, by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated, that Mr. Roe, the gentleman who had nominated the hon. and learned Gentleman at his last election, had been excluded from the office of director of the Bank of Ireland, on account of his political opinions, which made a considerable impression on the House. That statement was, however, erroneous. The facts were, that there were in Dublin two brothers, Mr. Roe and Mr. R. Roe, secretary to the Chamber of Commerce, a gentleman of very extensive acquirements, and the best political economist he had ever met. He was the author of various petitions to that House, of great importance, and of one in particular, on the usury laws, which was a model of sound reasoning and correct composition. That gentleman, indeed, stood so high, and was so much esteemed in the city of Dublin, that he had been more than once offered the representation of that city, which he had declined, but he believed all parties admitted, that they would have been honoured by having such a representative. The elder brother was appointed to the direction, and it being contrary to 468 the rules of the establishment to have two brothers members of the corporation, the House would at once perceive, that there had been no exclusion of the younger brother, on account of political motives, from being a director of the Bank of Ireland. These were the precise facts of the case, and he trusted they would be satisfactory to the House.

§ Mr. D. Callaghan
believed, that the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, who was not present, was perfectly aware that he had been led into error, and would have corrected the mistake last night, had he not been told by an hon. Member, that it was scarcely worth while mentioning it again to the House.