Sitting of 16 June 1808

FINANCE COMMITTEE.
Mr. Whitbreadrose for the purpose of putting a question to an hon. gent. in his eye, the answer to which appeared to him necessary for the satisfaction of the public. As the session was drawing to a close, it was desirable to ascertain, whether or not the house and the country were to expect a report from the committee, at the head of which that hon. gent. so worthily presided. Rumours were afloat, that a Report of a very important nature had been decided upon in the committee. He was sure that the hon. gent. would not take it ill to be thus questioned on the subject.
Mr. Bankes, while he allowed that the question put by the hon. gent. was a perfectly fair one, declared that really he hardly knew how to answer it. He could only say, that for his own part, nothing had been wanting to enable the committee to lay before the house their report. During the present session almost every hour which was not occupied by his duty in the house had been devoted to his duty above stairs. So far back as before the Easter recess, he had laid before the committee the materials of a report which was complete as far as it related to himself to make it so. Unfortunately, a considerable difference of opinion existed in the committee on the subject of that report, and the discussions upon it had proceeded to a much greater length than could have been expected or foreseen. Those discussions still continued. He could only repeat, that nothing should be wanting on his part to bring them to a speedy termination; that in his opinion the report might be laid oil the table of the house to-morrow; and that he should very much lament that the circumstances which he had mentioned should operate to delay the presentation of it beyond the present session.
Mr. Whitbreadthanked the hon. gent. for his candid explanation, and disclaimed
908
the slightest intention to impute any blame to a gentleman, who, by the anxiety which he uniformly manifested for the public service, was entitled to the complete confidence of the house and of the country.—Mr. Whitbread was proceeding to express the regret which he felt at learning the probability that no report from the Finance Committee would be presented during the present session, when he was cal led to order by the Speaker, who observed, that there was no question before the house.

COMMUTATION OF TYTHES IN IRELAND.
Mr. M. Fitzgerald, (knight of Kerry) in what he was about to say, disclaimed all idea of any wish to embarrass government. In at all touching on this subject, he was anxious chiefly for two things; first, that ministers should not suppose, from the paucity of petitions, that the question was not one of very general interest in Ireland, or which they were on that account entitled to undervalue; secondly, he was anxious to prevent the people of Ireland from feeling any thing like distrust in those who were to bring forward these petitions. He felt himself bound to refute the calumnies which had been propagated, alleging that the disturbances in his county had been occasioned by the meeting to consider of the petition in question. It might be sufficient, in answer to this calumny, to state, that these disturbances had existed for years before, and that, after the meeting to consider of the Commutation of Tythes, they had abated rather than increased. The same he could also state as to other petitions. Another stigma attempted to be fixed on the favourers of this measure was, that an improper advantage was sought to be got for the land owners, at the expence of the church. For his part, he disclaimed every idea of the kind. He wished that the church and clergy should have their rights preserved entire; but that the present mode of levying the tythes should be commuted for one more equal and less burthensome. This was no catholic question; it did not partake of a religious feeling; it was supported by the county of Armagh, than which no county in Ireland was more, or rather so completely, protestant. It was a measure wished for by all classes, and even by the protestant clergy. He did not pretend to say that the petitions were so numerous as to entitle him to allege that it was at the moment a measure of necessity; therefore he should not urge referring the petition to a

909
committee at present. He left it with ministers, assuring them that the commutation of tythes was necessary, and that no time was to be lost, after the commencement of the next session of parliament, in bringing it forward. He then moved, that the petition from the county of Kerry be referred to a committee of the whole house.
The Chancellor of the Exchequeravailed himself of the opportunity afforded him by the right hon. gent.'s motion, distinctly to state that it was the intention of his majesty's government seriously to consider this business, of the importance of which they were completely convinced. He had already paid considerable attention to it himself, but he regretted to observe, that the further he went into the examination, the more arduous did the task appear, and that the undertaking of applying a remedy to the evil, appeared to be beset with difficulties almost insurmountable. He repeated, however, that every effort should be made to remove them.
Mr. Parnellexpressed his satisfaction at the sentiments which the house had just heard from the right hon. gentleman.
Mr. Ponsonbyconsidered this to be a question of importance to the well-being of Ireland. Any new mode of levying the tithes did, indeed, present numberless obstacles: he hoped, however, they were not insurmountable, but such as might be overcome to the satisfaction of all parties by time and patience. He reposed all confidence in government that every means would be adopted to accomplish this object.
General Mathewstated, that he held in his hand a Petition on the subject from the county of Tipperary, but that after what had fallen from the right hon. gent. he should refrain from presenting it.
Sir G. Hillwas anxious to know whether or not his majesty's government intended to take into their consideration the commutation of tithes in England as well as in Ireland. He deprecated any interference on this point in the one country which did not extend to the other.
Mr. Herbertrecommended, in strong terms, the measure of a commutation, which he was convinced would not be attended with any insuperable difficulty, and which he was satisfied would be as acceptable to the clergy as to the laity. He knew several instances in which clergymen had declared to him that they would be willing to abate a sixth of their clerical revenue, if it could be collected with more facility,
910
and in a manner less repugnant to their feelings.
Mr. Burtonwas by no means of opinion that this was an easy subject. In that part of England, where for many years he had been engaged in the discharge of his professional duties, the adjustment of tithes had ever been attended with more complication and difficulty than any other matter which had fallen under his notice; and he had just been told by an hon. friend near him, that in the county of Devon a very vigorous attempt which had been made to arrange the commutation of tithes had been abandoned, on the experience of the impossibility of success.
Mr. Sheridantrusted that the people of Ireland would not relax in their petitions to parliament on this subject, fully convinced as he was that whatever might be said by his majesty's government, it was to parliament alone that eventually they must look for redress. He completely differed from the hon. and learned gent. who had just spoken, with respect to the nature of the difficulties by which this subject was surrounded. In his opinion they were difficulties which a little attention might obviate. In cases of inclosure they were obviated at present, and he could not conceive why the principles which applied to inclosures might not be generally diffused over the whole system of the country. While he was on his legs he would say a few words on a subject in which he was more personally concerned. At the close of the last session of parliament, in consequence of the passing of two bills, which as they were now legislative acts, he would not characterise in the terms of abhorrence which justly belonged to them, he had given a solemn notice of his intention early in the present session of parliament, to move for a committee to examine the general state of Ireland. On the meeting of parliament, however, he had been induced by the recommendation of those to whose advice he must ever listen with deference on all subjects, and more especially on every thing which related to Ireland, to postpone his motion until after the discussion of the Catholic Petition; a discussion, the good effects of which on the general feeling of the house and of the country, were very plainly discernible. Since that discussion he had been induced still further to delay his motion by various motives, of which the approaching consideration of the subject immediately before the house, was one of the

911
most weighty; and as that had been postponed until so late a period, he should abandon all intention of bringing forward his motion during the present session.
Mr. Ponsonbythanked his right hon. friend for his condescension; stating that he had made the application, from an unwillingness again so suddenly to agitate a question which, so far from tranquillizing the people of Ireland, must have had a contrary effect.
Mr. Rose, Mr. Bastard, sir W. Elford, and Mr. Lockhart, each said a few words; after which, Mr. Fitzgerald obtained leave to withdraw his motion.

EXPIRING LAWS BILL.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the order of the day for the house going into a committee on the bill for remedying inconveniences resulting from the expiration of certain laws.
Mr. Sheridanobjected to the Speaker's leaving the chair. Why did not ministers prevent those inconveniences which they now called upon parliament to remedy? It was in their power to have prevented the evil, and why had they not done so? They knew what laws were about to expire, and why had they not provided in due time? It appeared to be a bill which might be well entitled, 'A bill for the better encouraging the laziness, indolence and neglect of his majesty's ministers.' It was too uniformly assumed that the bill would pass. The act which was to be continued might have expired before the bill for reviving it had passed, and thus the offence proscribed against cease to be criminal, or on the other hand, what was infinitely more serious, that which had ceased to be criminal, might, by a sort of latent revival, become suddenly penal, and thus a man might inadvertently be guilty of a crime, and hanged in a parenthesis. He thought the bill replete with absurdities, and no consideration would incline him to yield to the motion for the Speaker's leaving the chair, unless it was that of having the advantage of his high authority and parliamentary experience in the committee.
The Chancellor of the Exchequercontended, that this measure was not a violation of the usages of parliament for centuries; because the session of parliament, according to parliamentary usage, was considered but as one day. It was only a few years ago that an act was passed to provide that acts of parliament were to have effect from the day of passing; whereas, antecedently, all acts had reference to the first day of
912
the session in which they were passed. The right hon. gent. seemed to think that it was the duty of ministers to attend to the acts that were likely to expire, but did not seem to be aware that a committee was appointed at the commencement of every session to inquire what bills were likely to expire, and if any neglect took place, it was the act of the house. But in the view taken by the right hon. gent. he did not seem to be aware that this bill was not to have effect by imposing penalties, confiscations, or forfeitures; it was only to continue authorities to maintain jurisdictions, until the enactment of the continuing bill. Therefore the execution in the parenthesis alluded to by the right hon. gent. could not take place under this bill. It would do much good, and could do no injury.
Mr. Ponsonbythanked the right hon. gent. for having attended to the suggestion made by him respecting the inexpediency of continuing penalties by this bill, when he had first mentioned the subject. The objections of his right hon. friend would have been unanswerable against the original bill, if it had not been for the proviso introduced by the right hon. gent. for excepting penalties. But, certainly, the introduction of that proviso removed a great part of these objections; and, with this proviso, he thought that the bill might be productive of benefit in certain cases.—The house then went into a committee.
Mr. Sheridanrenewed his objections to the principle, and thought it was an admission of the indolence of his majesty's ministers.—The bill then passed through the committee.

BANK OF IRELAND.
Lord Grenvilleadverted to the bill then before the house for renewing the Charter of the Bank of Ireland, and expressed his surprise that the former charter of the bank had not been laid before, the house. He would, however, shortly proceed to state the grounds of his intended motion. At the time of granting the charter of the bank of Ireland, in 1783, the penal laws against the catholics, that horrid code which all men now joined in condemning, had been happily repealed. There remained, however, disqualifications which prevented catholics from holding any office either in the state or in corporations. In the year 1793 the greater part of these disqualifications were repealed, and with the exception of a few offices, they were allowed to hold generally, offices in the state, and also in lay corporations. They were allowed to be colonels of regiments, governors of fortresses, and to rise to eminent stations in all the professions. The question here was, whether, in allowing them to hold any of these important offices, it was intended to exclude them from the office of governor or director of the bank of Ireland. There was a contrariety of opinion amongst men eminent in the law upon this subject, and thus a considerable doubt had arisen. By the act of 1793, Roman-catholics were allowed to hold the offices mentioned, notwithstanding any statute or bye-law; the word charter was not mentioned, and from this omission it was argued by some eminent men, that catholics being ex-
902
cluded from the direction of the bank under the original charter, were not eligible under the operation of the act of 1793, in consequence of the word charter not being mentioned in that act. Other men of eminence in the law were of the contrary opinion, that the intention of the legislature to admit catholics was evident, and that they were eligible under that act, the omission of the word 'charter,' being of no consequence. This doubt was not remedied in the bill before the house, it being there left as it was. That house had the superior advantage of calling for the opinion of the Judges, and he thought this was a case in which that opinion ought to be called for. A doubt existed as to the law: and what was the proper course to take to solve that doubt, but to put a question to his majesty's Judges? This was so plain and obvious, that he was at a loss to anticipate any argument that could be urged against it. If it was said, it was of no importance, a question must surely be considered of importance which related to the privileges of four millions of his majesty's subjects. If it was said, there was no doubt, the doubt was acknowledged in the bill now before the house; and it was, in his opinion, of great importance that it should be set at rest, particularly when it was considered that this bill was to continue for 31 years. His lordship concluded by moving to refer a question to the Judges for their opinion as to the point, whether under the operation of the act of 1793, combined with other acts, and the Bank Charter act, Roman-catholics were eligible to hold and exercise the office of governor or director of the bank of Ireland.
Lord Hawkesburythought such a mode of proceeding as that advised by the noble baron wholly unprecedented, or at least highly inconsistent with the usual practice of the house. The bill before their lordships was strictly and directly a financial measure, and on such measures were it necessary to take the opinion of the Judges, the public business would be at a stand, or be protracted to an insufferable length of time. The point which the noble baron's motion involved was only an incidental one, and left the law as it now stood. He was therefore at a loss to conceive with what practical good effect his acceding to the noble baron's motion could be attended. It was open to a catholic, should the proprietors of the bank think proper to select him, to bring his

903
case into a court of law, or to take the opinion of the Irish judges upon it in the exchequer court; or if their decision did not satisfy him, to bring his case before that house by writ of error. Then would be the moment to discuss and decide the point of law, and not on the present occasion. Otherwise it would be prejudging the question, now to take the opinion of the Judges upon it. Besides, were the Judges to say the catholics were eligible, would the house immediately proceed to alter the law? Was that the object which the motion of the noble baron had ultimately in view? If so, he did not imagine the house was prepared to go that length. For his part, he had often stated what were his sentiments with regard to the claims of the catholics, and he would now again repeat them. His opinion and determination was, to make his stand at the act of union; to maintain the laws as they stood at that period; to abide by the concessions that had been made up to that period; but not to accede to any other that had since been called for. Concession, in his opinion, had gone as far as was compatible with the security of the constitution in church and state; and nothing should bring him to endanger that security, by yielding to the further claims of the catholics.
The Duke of Norfolkcontended that the noble secretary was doing that which he himself was reprobating in others; for he was prejudging the question, by the tone he assumed in ultimately deciding on the claims of the catholics. If the Judges decided that the catholics were eligible, he would move that the law be altered on the subject, if his noble friend who made the motion should not think proper to do so.
The Earl of Lauderdalethought it most extraordinary that the noble secretary of state should wish to keep the house in ignorance, as to what was the law. It was said of catholic priests, that they wished to keep their flocks in ignorance, and prevent them even from reading holy writ; and it might almost be supposed that the noble lord, in wishing to keep the house in ignorance, really cherished and acted upon the same principles. Those noble lords, however, who saw the greater danger in offices being held by catholics, must surely concur in endeavouring to ascertain the law upon this subject, as, if catholics were eligible to the direction of the Bank, the greatest to the state must in the opinion of those noble lords ensure.
904
Instead of the plain and obvious way of ascertaining the law proposed by his noble friend, the noble secretary of state had recommended a law-suit; first, there was to be all the heat and animosity attendant upon a contested election, where catholic and protestant were directly opposed to each other; then a suit in a court of law; then an appeal to the exchequer chamber; and lastly, an appeal to that house, when the opinion of the Judges might be had: and thus there was to be a tedious litigation, for the purpose of arriving at the very point now proposed by his noble friend.
The Lord Chancellorcould not agree to ask the opinion of the Judges unless it was proposed to legislate upon that opinion. It was, besides, a matter of great doubt with him, whether, supposing such a question to be put, the Judges would not tell their lordships that they did not know what was meant by a Roman-catholic; they knew that persons were excluded from certain offices who did not take certain oaths, and it should not be disguised from the public, that this, after all, was the real question in all the discussions on the Catholic question; namely, whether persons who did not take certain oaths should be disqualified from holding certain offices? With respect to this subject he thought it right to declare his opinion, that it would be an event deeply calamitous if the protestant ascendancy were weakened. He held the opinion which had been held by Russel, Somers, lord Hardwicke, and other eminent men; that the support of the protestant church was intimately connected with the maintenance of our civil and religious liberties. He would not say, that under no circumstances ought further concessions to be made to the catholics; but he could not foresee the circumstances in which such concessions would be politic. It should never be forgotten, in considering this subject, that the guards which were necessary to maintain our religious liberties were not the less necessary for the support of our civil liberties. He could see no ground for putting this question to the Judges, unless it was first ascertained that some legislative proceeding was to be founded upon it, nor had he heard of any doubt upon the subject of the interpretation of the act.
Lord Hollandexpressed his surprise that the noble and learned lord had declared opinions now which he did not do when the general question was under discussion,

905
and when they could have been fairly met. He thought it most extraordinary with respect to this question, that where the law was not understood, it should be argued that they ought not to adopt means for the purpose of understanding it. This obscurity, which was now to be thrown into the science of legislation, reminded him of the metaphysics of Kant, and the poetry of Klopstock; of the former it was said, by one of his ardent admirers, that he wrote most sublimely, that he had written what no man ever understood, and what he himself did not understand. Klopstock wrote, when young, a poem entitled Creation, in which were some sublime passages, and some rather obscure; two students at Leipsic, meeting with one of these obscure passages, which they could not understand, at length agreed to ask Klopstock himself for an explanation; they met him at Hamburgh, and asked the question: his reply was. 'I dare say what I wrote was very good, and very sublime; I dare say I meant something, but I confess I cannot now tell what I did mean.' A similar obscurity was, it seemed, to be thrown over the point which it was now sought to explain.
Lord Harrowbyopposed putting a question to the Judges, on the ground that no practical good could be derived from it.
Earl Spencerthought that in this instance there was clearly a doubt, and that the only way of getting rid of it was to have the opinion of the Judges.
Lord Mulgravesaw no ground for putting the question, unless the house should previously determine to found on it some legislative proceeding.
The Earl of Rosslynthought it essentially desirable, that where doubts existed as to the construction of laws about to be continued, those doubts should be removed. No person could argue against the removal of the doubts existing in the case before their lordships, but those who thought it matter of perfect indifference whether catholics should or should not be directors of the bank of Ireland. To those who were adverse to the admission of catholics to the direction, and to those who were friendly to that admission, the removal of the doubts, confirmed by the very proviso of the present bill, for preserving to the catholics the full enjoyment of the rights granted in 1793, by the act of the Irish parliament, was matter of the greatest importance.
Lord Grenville, in reply, observed, that
906
notwithstanding the ingenuity of the noble lords who had opposed the proposition, they had failed in their reasoning. The arguments against it had, indeed, amounted to all that could have been expected against so clear and obvious a proposition; namely, nothing at all. He was now to learn, for the first time, that they were first to decide what should be law, and then to ask the Judges what was the law; they were first to enact, and then to ask for explanation. The noble and learned lord had said, that he had never heard of any doubt upon the subject; this was most extraordinary; they had heard in the course of the week of a want of communication amongst his majesty's ministers, and here it appeared, that a clause had been expressly inserted in the bill in consequence of this doubt, which stated the doubt, and the introduction of which had been assented to by one of the colleagues of the noble and learned lord, and yet the noble and learned lord had never heard of any doubt upon the subject! It seemed, however, that instead of now ascertaining what the law was, the parties interested in that explanation were to have a beautiful law-suit and a delicious doubt; they were to go into a court of law, and then they were to appeal to that house, where there were already upwards of one hundred appeals undecided, and then to wait till this question could be decided, when it might now be explained without any litigation! The noble and learned lord had talked of disguising the question respecting the catholics; it was perfectly well known that the catholics were excluded because they would not take certain oaths; but in this case, it was the catholics alone who were excluded, and the exclusion did not apply to any other persons. His lordship said, that the noble lord had contended, that the case might be decided in due course of law, and that the Judges might give their opinion upon that case when brought before the house, and if it should be thought adviseable at a future period to open the direction of the bank to catholics it might be done. With respect to the former part of the argument, it went to encourage litigation of the most troublesome and vexatious nature; and considering the mass of appeals now before the house, when could this case be decided? With respect to the latter part of the argument he, for one, was of opinion, that when this act should have once passed, no remedy could be applied to the

907
evil in the course of thirty years, for which the charter was granted. On all these grounds, he was decidedly of opinion that a question ought to be proposed to the Judges respecting the law of the case.
The house then divided upon lord Grenville's motion:

Contents

16;

Proxies

17–33

Not-contents

42;

Proxies

52–94

Majority

—61