Lords Sitting of 22 June 1808

CURATES' RESIDENCE BILL.
The Duke of Rutland presented a petition from certain of the clergy of Leicestershire, against the provisions of the Curates' bill; and lord Brownlow presented a similar petition on the part of the clergy of Lincolnshire. —Ordered to lie upon the table.
The Earl of Lauderdalerenewed his objections against the bill. It was a bill of the utmost consequence, both as it affected property and the established church; and above all, as it went to extend the power of the bishops, who already possessed too much. It was, moreover, brought into the house at so late a period of the session, that it was impossible to give it a full and minute consideration. It was yet only read the first time.
Lord Hollandperfectly coincided in the observations of his noble friend.
The Archbishop of Canterburyobserved that the prints of the bill were not yet on the table; but when they were, and he hoped it would be to-morrow, he should then, for then only would it be regular, move that the bill be read a second time on Friday.
The Earl of Lauderdalecomplained of the shortness of the notice, and again entered more fully into the mischievous consequences of the increased power which it would confer on the bishops; only one of whom, he believed, would be found to have the spirit to oppose it.
Lord Harrowbycalled the noble lord to order, as allowing himself to degenerate into personalities.
The Earl of Lauderdaledenied that he was out of order; and said, that he should take the next opportunity afforded him of proving that he meant nothing personal to the most reverend prelate who had spoken on the present occasion.

BANK OF IRELAND.
The order of the day was then moved, for the house to resolve itself into a committee on the bill for renewing the charter of the Bank of Ireland, and lord Grenville, who was to have made a motion on the subject, not being present, a conversation ensued between the lord chancellor, lords Holland and Stanhope, respecting the propriety of discharging, or passing over, the order of the day, when
Lord Grenvilleentered the house, and soon after rose to make his motion; but first presented a petition from the catholic merchants and bankers of the city of Dublin, praying that they might not be excluded from acting as directors and governors of the Irish Bank; which petition was ordered to lie on the table. The noble lord then began by apologising for the delay which he had unintentionally been the cause of, and proceeded to open the proposition which he should have the honour of submitting to their lordships. He begged leave, in the first place, to observe that the house was going to legislate on a matter respecting which they were wholly in the dark; the charter which they were going to renew, not so much as being before them, nor even the terms upon which government were prepared to grant the favour of that renewal. The charter was to be renewed for above twenty years, and what was the return to be made to government for the concession? The band of Ireland was to land one million and a half to government, at a

977
higher interest than government borrowed money at in this country; and the bank was, moreover, to manage the public debt of Ireland. Now, what was the expence of managing that debt? It appeared from official documents, that it did not amount to 8,000 l. per annum; so that, for the sum of 8,000 l. government granted that to the bank which he was confident that many private individuals would advance ten times the sum for. The bargain, therefore, was, in the first place, most improvident for the country. He should next proceed to consider more immediately the question to which he was anxious to call the attention of their lordships. It was a question by no means of the magnitude of the question of the Catholic Claims; nor was it, in his mind, at all connected with the grounds and reasons upon which that great question was professed to be opposed. On a reconsideration of these grounds, he might for a moment bring himself to say that they were just, liberal, and politic, when compared with the reasons for which the claim he was now going to make in the name of the catholics, was to be resisted. On the general question it was said, that by granting the higher claims of the catholics, you would confer upon them a degree of political power which might be incompatible with the security of the constitution in church and state. But by allowing them to act as directors of the Bank, you gave them no degree of political power; for it was not with the bank of Ireland as with that of England: the bank of Ireland had no connection with government as the bank of England Lad. Besides, not only different sects, but men of different religions were admitted as directors of the bank of England. In Ireland, however, you would exclude those from that distinction, who formed the larger portion of the monied interest of Ireland, and who possessed the greater share of the commercial capital of Ireland. You thus deprived them of the means of managing their own property, than which nothing could be more unreasonable; you so far discourage them from entrusting their property to the Irish funds—than which nothing could be more unwise and impolitic. There was no point of view under which it was possible to consider such an exclusion, in which it must not appear to every unprejudiced mind, illiberal, unjust, ungrateful, and impolitic. These, he trusted, would be sufficiently powerful motives with their lord-
978
ships to induce them to concur in the motion, which he should now submit to their consideration. The noble lord then concluded, with moving, That it be an instruction to the committee upon the bill, that they do make distinct provision for admitting the catholics to hold and exercise the offices of director and governor of the bank of Ireland.
Lord Hawkesburyopposed the motion, on the grounds he had already so often insisted upon. It had already abundantly appeared to be the sense of government, and of parliament, to make no further concessions to the catholics of Ireland at the present moment. Indeed, he would go so far as again to repeat, that he should make his stand on the law as it stood at the union. What had been conceded up to that period he was ready to abide by; any thing further he would oppose. No man could deny that admission to the office of bank directors must confer influence, which influence would generate political power. If, therefore, parliament, was wise in opposing claims of higher and more extended power, they would act with equal wisdom in opposing the present claim, which, if granted, must have the tendency it was the desire and determination of parliament to counteract; for these reasons, he must oppose the motion.
Lord Erskinecontended that their lordships, by refusing the proposition of his noble friend, would violate the spirit and meaning of the act of 1793. By that statute it was particularly provided, that all Catholics might be elected to the offices of every lay corporation, any statute or bye law to the contrary notwithstanding, excepting the University of Dublin. His lordship argued, that at the time the statute was framed, the legislature must have had in their contemplation charters also; but by their omitting to mention that word, in his opinion (he might be wrong), Catholics could not be admitted under the old charter to the different offices of the Bank of Ireland. But the very reason, be urged, was, that the legislature had not extended this right to Catholic proprietors of the Bank, under the old charter, because the charter having already been granted before that act of parliament, it was not consistent for the legislature, nor agreeable to Magna Charta, that they should alter or destroy a charter which they had already granted. If any man would seriously attend to the preamble of this act of 1793, he would find that it was

979
undoubtedly the intention of parliament, to do that which was now requested by his noble friend. And when he considered, that at the time of the union, the Catholics possessed every right which could appertain to them by this act of parliament, he must say it would now be a violation of such rights, on the part of the legislature, if they did not adopt a clause of this description. With respect to Catholic Emancipation, he might possibly be misunderstood; it had been said, that his conduct, upon a late occasion, was inconsistent with the opinions which he had formerly delivered upon this subject. But he would defy any man to fix upon him the stain of inconsistency. His conduct now was exactly the same with that he had pursued upon all former occasions. The Catholic Question was one upon which he had not made up his mind—it was one concerning which he did not possess that information which his noble friends did; for in the course of his attending the other house, he did not recollect that he was once present at the discussion of the Catholic claims. With this view of the subject, it was now, and always had been, his opinion, that their claims should be examined into, in order that he might see, before he voted one way or the other, how far it might be beneficial that their requests should be complied with. It was on these grounds that he had voted with his noble friend that a committee should be appointed to examine into the prayer of their Petition. But had his noble friend, or any other noble lord, proposed that these concessions should be granted without inquiry, he should have refused his assent. It might be wrong, but at the same time, he must allow he did entertain a prejudice against the Catholic religion. Of all the obstacles he could imagine, he knew of none more injurious to the progress of Christianity than popery; but it was now no more; fortunately it had sunk from its extensive sway over the dispositions of mankind. It had been long combated by human endeavour, and what the wisdom and genius of ages could not effect, was at last brought about, apparently by the interposition of God's providence. He considered the Catholic claims, at this time in particular, as demanding our most earnest regard; and if it should be found right to grant them these privileges, it would better become us to do so, when we could perform it as an act of generosity. This country, in his opinion, was
980
never in so perilous a situation; there might be a calm now, but we should do well to consider that it might be succeeded by a dreadful storm. If we looked at the conduct of Bonaparte towards Spain, it must raise the horror of every man who had a spark of feeling for his fellow creatures. If we considered his most atrocious and infernal treatment of the Spaniards, we might think that even the vengeance of Heaven must speedily overtake him. But he was induced to believe that his vicious career might be permitted to go on, and it would become us, by every means, to unite and conciliate our fellow subjects at home, in order that we might be better able to meet the worst and be supplied with every necessary defence.
Lord Harrowbybegan by saying, that although he could not presume to follow the noble and learned lord through his legal opinions, he could not refrain from remarking, what appeared to an unlearned man something like a contradiction. He had stated that the bank direction was not opened, nor meant to be opened, to the catholics by the act of 1793, and had nevertheless agreed that refusing to open it to them now would be a breach of public faith. How did he explain this? Why, he asserted that the only possible ground upon which the parliament of 1793 could have omitted to open it, must have been the persuasion that it could not have been opened without a violation of the Bank charter then subsisting. Upon this point, with all due respect for the legal opinion of the noble and learned lord, he was inclined rather to bow to the legal opinion of the noble lord on the woolsack, who asserted that parliament might at that time, during the old charter, and might at any future time, during the prolongation of the charter, remove the restriction upon the admission of catholics, without any violation of the contract; and he was confirmed in this opinion by recollecting what parliament had frequently done with respect to other charters, and particularly to the charter of the East India company. It being, then, far from clear that this opinion was the only ground upon which parliament had not given this privilege in 1793, it remained at least as probable that it was not then given, because parliament did not then intend to give it; and there was an end at once to the supposition of any breach of faith in refusing it now.—The noble lord then stated, that in the shape in which the question was brought before

981
their lordships by his noble friend (lord Grenville), it was impossible to consider the proposal in any other light than as the grant of a privilege of which the catholics were not now possessed, and they were driven to discuss, upon that supposition, the expediency of granting it. Before he gave his reasons against granting it, he begged leave to state, that if it should turn out, upon a legal discussion, that it had been already granted, he should be as decidedly adverse to the revocation of it, as he was, under the present circumstances, to confer it. He wished not only that no privilege should be refused which the Catholics could, by any fair construction of the law, be now stated to possess, but that every act which had been passed in their favour should not merely stand as a dead letter on the statute-book, but should be executed in the spirit of liberality and concession which led to its enactment. He wished also that all those differences in manners and opinions, more powerful, and more nearly affecting the comfort of mankind, than laws themselves, might day by day be softened down, till they at length entirely vanished. Much must depend upon the conciliating conduct of the government, and of the protestant gentry of Ireland; and he knew of nothing which appeared more clearly and obviously their duty than a strict adherence to this line of conduct, in every instance where it was compatible with justice to the protestant interest, whose uniform and distinguished loyalty ought neither to be abandoned nor discountenanced. More, however, must depend upon the conduct of the catholics themselves; and it was well worthy of their consideration, how far a continual repetition of their claims, without any new ground of argument or expediency, and without giving time for the change of those opinions, or, if you please, allaying those prejudices, which were adverse to their claims, did not in fact pledge their opponents deeper and deeper at every discussion, and remove to a more distant period the accomplishment of their wishes. This matter stood now upon a very different footing from what it did when the question was only respecting the repeal of the penal and disabling statutes. In that repeal it was not necessary for the government to consult the temper of its protestant subjects. No man could have a right to complain that he had no longer the power of injuring and persecuting his brethren. The law once passed, the business
982
was at rest. But with respect to eligibility to office, it was far otherwise. If the legal eligibility had no practical effect, where was the benefit to the catholics. If it had, before those feelings which the unfortunate situation of Ireland had naturally generated were softened down and worn away, the protestant would see, with jealousy and distrust, official colleagues forced upon him by government; ill blood and discontent would follow, and the contest would only be transferred from the exterior to the interior. This was peculiarly a case in which the legislature, if it governed wisely, would not far outstep the temper of the people whom it governed. Concessions exceeding those which that temper was disposed to grant would produce feelings not of conciliation but irritation. It seemed to him, therefore, naturally to follow, that while the legislature was of opinion, either that no time could arrive when further concessions, to the full extent of their claims, could be granted to the catholics, or (which was the necessary and the only legitimate parliamentary inference from their votes) that that time was not the present, the legislature was bound in prudence to refuse any branch of those claims, which might furnish the means of enforcing still greater concessions, before the opinion of the country was ripe for them. The privilege of becoming directors of the bank of Ireland appeared to him to fall within this description. He was perfectly aw are that many of the privileges which had been granted fell equally within it; but with respect to those we must take the law as we find it. The revocation of them would not only be an act of gross imprudence, but unless called for by the misconduct of the catholics, an act of gross injustice. There was, however, a material distinction. Those who felt most apprehensive from what had been granted, must allow, that as far as related to appointments by the crown, there was this security, that the appointments vested in that branch of the government which was essentially protestant. The power of election, whether exercised by corporations, or by the people at large, could, as the law now stands, only be exercised in favour of protestants. But suppose the bank direction to be opened (the election, it must be recollected, was in the proprietors), could the catholics, who possessed a large proportion of the commercial wealth of Ireland, be so blind to their own immediate interests (however an attention to

983
their permanent interest might dictate a different conduct) as not to see the ad vantage they must derive from getting into their hands the direction of that great establishment? Would they not follow the example of the shipping interest in the East India direction, and make it an object to every catholic to become a bank proprietor for the purpose of influencing the election? Here was no check of any description whatever, from the crown, from parliament, or from the existing body of directors. The object was evident, the means of attaining it easy; the importance of the object once attained, he need not use many words to impress it upon the house. The influence of the bank of England upon the government of this country could be no secret to those who were acquainted with its history. By a singular wisdom in the choice of its directors, that influence, which, in theory, might be regarded as so dangerous, had almost uniformly been exercised in a salutary direction; had it been otherwise, the effects must have been embarrassing in the extreme; and inasmuch as they might affect the public credit, even hazardous to the public safety. He was perfectly aware, that what had been stated by his noble friend, as to the dissimilarity of the influence of the bunk of England upon the government of this country, and that of the bank of Ireland upon the Irish government, was not without its weight; but the influence differed, in his opinion, not in kind but in degree. It was not to be expected that so recent an establishment should already have acquired the influence which, after the lapse of a century, was possessed by the bank of England; this might, however, soon increase. In king William's time our bank already began to be considered as a main support of the Revolution; and its weight in the last years of queen Anne, against her last administration, was severely felt; whether for the better or for the worse was not the point, the only question was as to the power, and not as to the application of it. Could it be said, however, that the bank of Ireland had no influence on the government? To whom did it apply with respect to loans? To the bank. Who negociated all the treasury bills? The bank. Who furnished notes and specie for the payment of the army? The same bank. He was not, therefore, raising a vague and extravagant alarm, when he supposed that the influence of such an establishment might have
984
great weight with the government, in what related to Ireland; and he trusted that he was saying nothing invidious, he was sure that he meant nothing invidious, towards the catholics, when he supposed that they would avail themselves of that influence to further the attainment of objects which were in themselves legitimate, and which appeared to them, not only advantageous to their own body, but to the general prosperity of our common country. Those, therefore, who were of opinion that all ought to be done for them now, or, if not to-day, at furthest on the morrow, without regard to the feelings of the legislature and of the people, were right in pressing a concession which they must consider as a stepping-stone to more. Those who were for ever adverse to all further concession, must, on the same grounds, be most anxious to resist this. But there was a large class of persons who entertained neither of these opinions; there were those who thought that, in the fluctuating state of human affairs, it was not wise to pledge themselves to any opinion which no possible circumstances within the reach of common foresight could alter. There were persons who doubted the propriety and prudence of saying to a large body of the people, that no degree of common danger, no change in the general sentiments of the majority, no loosening of the foreign holdings of the catholics, no practical and continued proof of their gratitude for benefits received, and of their active loyalty in the defence of their country, could ever produce any amelioration of their condition; persons of this description might, with perfect consistency, maintain that they would not grant that which might tend to deprive them of their free option of granting or of withholding the remainder. Were every thing else granted, it would be absurd to withhold this; but as long as the catholics had further claims, for the attainment of which they were stated to be anxious, and to the attainment of which, on their part, the opinions of the legislature and of the country were at present adverse, it was neither invidious nor illiberal, but a mere act of common prudence, to decline placing in their hands an engine of great and indefinite power. Upon the general question, his lordship desired to be considered as giving no opinion whatever, applicable to all times and to all circumstances; he had wished to argue this motion upon grounds entirely independent of the merits of the general

985
question; and, upon these grounds, he should give his vote against it.
The Earl of Lauderdalespoke in favour of the motion proposed by his noble friend. He considered several of the arguments adduced by noble lords on the opposite side, as strong reasons to induce him to approve of this clause being inserted in the present bill; particularly what had been stated concerning the great share which the Catholics possessed of the commercial wealth of Ireland.
Earl Stanhopeobserved, that by a declaration which he held in his hand, it appeared that the Catholics completely renounced all power whatever residing in foreign ecclesiastical persons. After several other observations, he concluded by giving his assent to the motion.
The Earl of Westmorelandopposed the motion on the general grounds that no further concessions whatever should, under the present circumstances, be granted to the catholics. He was surprised to see such motions so often brought forward by those who, when they were themselves in power, employed every exertion to deprecate and prevent such discussions. They were the real authors of any ill consequences which might arise from a refusal to accede to such claims.
Lord Redesdalecould not but repeat his former objections to such claims. The more we were ready to grant them, the more encouragement we gave the catholics to come forward with fresh claims, and perhaps to insist upon them. The writers among the catholics of Ireland gave repeated proofs of what were their real intentions. In a book published by one of them, a Mr. M'Kenna, (with whom he believed a noble marquis opposite was on terms of intimacy), it was proposed, that provision should be made for the catholic clergy out of the property of the established church. Was there, then, no danger to be feared for our establishments?
The Marquis of Buckinghamdeclared, that he had not even heard of the publication alluded to. He had been for some time past a silent observer of what passed on the subject of the catholics, but being thus alluded to, he felt it his duty to state, that he differed in every respect from the noble and learned lord as to the concessions which should be made to the catholics of Ireland. Their situation was one which he had over and over discussed and well considered, and, on the whole, he was satisfied in his own mind, that they
986
should be admitted to an immediate and full participation of the constitution. He had witnessed a proof of the loyalty of that body while he had the honour of being lord lieutenant. He begged the attention of noble lords to the circumstance, for it was worthy of consideration under existing circumstances. The house must recollect, that twenty-six years ago, Ireland had been not only threatened with invasion, but that the French fleet had been actually off the Irish coast for the purpose of accomplishing that object. It would be granted that such a state of things was of itself highly alarming, but the danger was encreased ten fold, aye a hundred fold: and why? Because the government and the bank of that country were both actually bankrupt at that critical moment. He stated it as an undeniable fact, that there was not a single guinea in the Treasury to pay the regular force, which, by the bye, was very small, not more than four thousand. Their lordships would acknowledge that this was a trying situation; and, God knows, he felt it so under the difficulties of the time, but he was soon relieved from his pecuniary distress by the liberal and generous contribution of the Catholics of Cork, who made up the sum which government wanted. Having heard of our embarrassment, they volunteered not only their lives, but actually lent government the money, which they could not get by any other means, or from any other quarter. He thought it due to the loyalty, generosity, and fortitude of the Irish Catholics, to make this statement to his country, and to acknowledge the importance of the favour which they had conferred, for it was of such a nature as ingratitude itself could not obliterate. This, be it remembered, took place 26 years ago, and were we now to repay that body by a bill of exclusion from the direction of that which they had combated to prop and maintain? Before he entered into the question of the bank, and the propriety of admitting Catholics to be directors, he begged leave to observe, that the person at the head of the Catholics, who so nobly came forward to the relief and salvation of the Irish government, was a person dead long since, but whose memory should not be forgotten, he meant Mr. George Gould, an eminent merchant at that time. Did the Catholics shrink from their allegiance, or act a suspicious part, he would not hesitate to state it. On the contrary, if they chose to strike a dreadful

987
blow, and one fatal to Great Britain, they might have done it; but what was their conduct? It was contained in this answer, that they prevented the regular troops from mutinying, and went themselves into the ranks to oppose the enemy. The Catholics of Ireland immediately swelled the ranks of all the volunteer corps, and in a few weeks, he should be more correct in saying a few days, they formed an army not only willing to fight, but able to conquer. The noble marquis then considered the immediate subject before their lordships, and contended that the bill would only prove a record to future times of our ingratitude, impolicy, and injustice towards Ireland.
Lord Grenville,in reply, observed, that no arguments had been adduced to do away the powerful facts which had been stated. When the question of Catholic Emancipation was brought forward in the Irish parliament, the Catholics were told it could be better discussed in an imperial parliament. This was held out to them to gain their consent to the union, and they were told now that they must not expect to be placed in a better situation than at the union. Was this the way to conciliate the people of Ireland? He was astonished how the noble secretary of state could reconcile such arguments as he had made use of to himself; or how it could be expected that the people of Ireland could be reconciled to them. He felt confident that the majority of the noble lords were in favour of allowing the Catholic claims, but they kept back their real sentiments. He entreated of them to come forward, and to dismantle themselves of their disguise, as the period was not far off when they would be obliged to do it. It would be like the concessions asked by America before the contest; and would any noble lord say, that at the conclusion of that contest we should not have been happy to have acquiesced in all they had asked from us in the beginning? This case was recent in the mind of every person, and he wished to warn the house against the same error, and not to withhold their favours until it became too late, as was the case with America. They should not judge of the people of Ireland by the acts of a few, but by the conduct of the mass of the people. The arguments of the noble lord (Harrowby) might answer for the year 1778, but would not answer for the present day. All that was proposed to give the Catholics of Ireland was bread by the sweat of
988
their brow, and nothing more. The noble secretary said, give them this, and they will require more, and will become wealthy; that the house could not prevent them from: but if it did not give them what they now asked, their lordships had better take from them what they had already conceded. They could not prevent them from acquiring wealth. If they were not admitted to the privileges contained in the proposition, the bank of Ireland would be injured. They would not deposit their money where they were deprived of becoming directors, and had not the direction of their own money. There never was a time more proper to concede to the Catholics than the present, when the entire mass of the Protestants in Ireland were in favour of the concession. His lordship concluded with observing, that if the house rejected this proposition, they would refuse men of proved loyalty, high integrity, and well known respectability, a controul over their own property.
The question was then loudly called for, and the house divided:

Contents

36

Proxies

25

63

Non-contents

45

Proxies

56

101

Majority against the motion

38