Sitting of 18 April 1823

ROMAN CATHOLIC QUESTION.
General Gascoyne,seeing the attorney-general for Ireland in the House, wished the right hon. gentleman would have the goodness to inform him, whether it was his intention to renew the measure which the House had under consideration last night. He was anxious to learn something certain as to the course which the right hon. gentleman intended to pursue. At present, the question stood in the nature of an adjourned one. [Cries of "No, no."]
Mr. Plunkettsaid, that although the result of last night's discussion was not what he could have wished, yet certainly the question was not an adjourned one, and, therefore, could not be renewed without a notice. He had every disposition to satisfy the hon. member but he was not prepared in answer to a question thus suddenly put, to state what his future conduct with respect to it might be. That would, in a great degree, be influenced by the judgment of others. He had little discretion to exercise upon it. It was confided to his care by those who felt the greatest interest in it: and he stood, therefore, with respect to it, in the nature of a trustee, whose actions must be governed by the opinions of those whom he knew to be the friends of the measure. For his own part, he would say, that he saw nothing to induce him to renew the notice this session.

MILITARY AND NAVAL PENSIONS BILL.
On the Order of the day for the third reading of this bill,
Mr. Grenfellopposed it, as an improvident bargain for the public.
Sir J. Newportcontended, that this bargain with the Bank was a direct violation of the statute of William and Mary, which prevented the Bank from becoming a dealer and jobber in public securities.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerdefended the bargain made with the Bank,
1124
and contended that if it had been made with the commissioners of the sinking fund, it could not have been made on more advantageous terms. He likewise, maintained, that there was no difference of operation between the Bank's dealing in exchequer bills, as it now did, and its dealing in funded stock to the extent which this measure authorised.
Mr. Humewished to be informed, why this bargain with the Bank, had been made in a hole and corner, secretly, and without any public competition. The right hon. gentleman's predecessor in office had given the public a pledge, that any bargain which he made for the sale of these annuities should always be made publicly, and be opened to the widest competition. Why had the right hon. gentleman abandoned that pledge? The price at which the bargain had been completed was detrimental to the public. He thought that, except in that House no 133 reasonable beings could be found to sanction it. He, therefore, called upon the House to reject it, and to break off the secret contraband trade, which at present existed between the chancellor of the exchequer and the Bank. He would move, "That the bill be read a third time this day six months."
Sir J. Yorkesaid, that as he did not understand more than the four first rules of arithmetic, he would not pretend to compute the profit or loss which was likely to accrue from this bargain. What appeared strange to him was this—why the bargain had ever been made at all. As the dead charge was to extend itself over 15 years, was it intended that at the end of that period, every spectre of it should be defunct? And if so, what was to be done with those persons who were daily coming upon the half-pay-list? He could understand the policy of the plan, if at the end of the 45 years every man on half-pay was to be as dead as Julius Cæsar. But that was not likely to be the case. There was a constant supply for the half-pay list. Scarcely a day passed without some officer coming on the half-pay from the 200 admirals, 800 captains, and 3,000 lieutenants, who had rank in the British navy.
Mr. Ricardodid not blame the Bank directors for making as advantageous a bargain as possible for their constituents. It was, however, an extremely improvident one for the country. He thought that there was also a constitutional objection to the

1125
contract, founded on the nature of the charter of the Bank, and the manner in which the capital was made available to the public. It seemed to him highly impolitic, that the Bank should be allowed to make speculations in the funds. At all events, ministers ought to have delayed the conclusion of the bargain, until they had laid the papers regarding the late negotiations upon the table: had they so waited, the bargain might have been more favourable to the public. He wished to know whether the Bank was to be allowed to charge for the management of this transaction, as well as for the management of the public debt.
Mr. Huskissonanswered, that the Bank was to be allowed nothing beyond the terms of the contract which were before the House. He contended, that the bargain was advantageous for the public, and that the Bank were permitted to deal in public securities. The manner in which they had allowed the power to lie dormant, so that, even the hon. member did not know it existed, proved how harmless it had been.
Mr. H. Gurneysaid, he thought that in all the debates on this bill, the greatest evil had been the least, if at all, touched upon; namely, the extremely improper and dangerous investment of the funds of the Bank; this being a species of transaction contrary to every sound banking principle, and one which, drawn into precedent, must inevitably endanger the ultimate security of that establishment.
Sir F. Blakeopposed the bill. He said he could not express his hatred of the sinking fund in better terms than by the words "Delenda est Carthago."
Mr. Moncksuggested, that the contract was in violation of the act of William 3rd which prohibited the Bank from lending money on crown lands or public securities. As it was a matter in which they were pecuniarily interested, the directors and proprietors of the Bank who were members, ought not in delicacy to vote.
The House divided. For the third reading 140. Against it 91. The bill was then read a third time and passed.

MERCHANT VESSELS APPRENTICESHIP BILL.
On the order of the day for reading this bill a third time,
Mr. H. Gurneysaid, he held in his hand a statement from the town of Yarmouth, in which they complained of those
1126
provisions of the bill which compelled coasting vessels of a certain description to take apprentices, not increasing thereby the number of seamen, but throwing them out of employ.
Mr. Ricardoopposed the measure, as imposing injurious restrictions on a particular trade, and interfering with the private rights of the individuals connected with that trade. The right hon. gentleman opposite was bound to show, that there were some circumstances in this particular trade which ought to take it out of the general rule. He had, however, not only failed to do this, but he had failed to prove that the measure would afford any protection to private seamen. He should therefore move as an amendment, "That the bill be read a third time that day six months."
Sir I. Coffincontended, that good seamen could only be obtained by educating them as apprentices. If men were not bound apprentices, they would be as ignorant of the profession at the end of seven years, as at the commencement of their service. The best sailors in the navy were those who had served in the coal trade. The protection given by the bill to second mates was a most beneficial provision.
Mr. Huskissonsaid, the measure had given universal satisfaction to the shipowners, and he believed there was scarcely a man in the House, except the hon. member (Mr. Ricardo) who was not satisfied of its utility. The measure was unquestionably one of relief to merchants, and of essential benefit to the maritime interest.
Mr. Ricardowithdrew his amendment; and the bill was read a third time.

MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES—WESTMINSTER ABBEY—CALEDONIAN CANAL.
The House having resolved itself into a committee of supply, Mr. Lushington moved, "That 449 l. 18 s. 3d. be granted for the repairs of Henry the Seventh's Chapel."
Mr. Humewished to know whether any arrangement had been concluded to facilitate the admission of the public to Westminster-Abbey? The monuments erected in commemoration of public services were defrayed by the public, and that public were entitled to see them without being taxed 2s. per head whenever they wished it. At all events, if the Dean and Chapter of Westminster were

1127
so poor, after the numerous grants already made to them, as not to be able to pay the persons who attended to the care of the Abbey, it would be better for the country to give a certain remuneration for such services, than to continue the present system of taxing visitors. In no other country but this did this revolting practice exist.
Mr. Lushingtonsaid, that the fees were now the property of a person who had purchased of the dean and chapter the privilege of showing the monuments.
Mr. Crokerentertained great doubts of the legality of demanding money from persons visiting the abbey. He had searched with some care, but he had not been able to find any authority by which the churches were closed. He was aware that the clergyman was said to have a freehold right in certain parts of the church; but he believed he had no right to shut it up. He regretted to say, that the dean and chapter of Westminster had, on the occasion of the coronation, been so ill-advised, or so greedy, as to cut down some very fine old trees of fifty years growth, with the view of disposing of additional ground for erecting scaffolding. The loss of the ornament to the public was great; while the profit to the chapter did not, perhaps, amount to 10 l.
Mr. Wetherellsaid, that whatever doubts might exist as to the right of the public to admission to the abbey, it was a question which he should not wish to see pushed to its legal extremity, as the consequences might be mischievous.
Mr. W. Smithcontended, that the dean and chapter had no right to exact money front then public, to defray expences which ought to be met out of their own funds.
Mr. Humesaid, the public either had or had not the right for which he contended. If they had, he had no idea of a compromise. That was a course which might suit lawyers; but he did not approve of it. Was the secretary for the Treasury disposed to try the question. If he would supply the money, he (Mr. Hume) would soon set the affair in motion. If the decision of a jury should be against the public, they would only be reduced to the necessity of buying the privilege; for the dean and chapter who had sold trees and stones, would sell any thing.
The resolution was agreed to. On the resolution, "That 25,000 l. be granted towards completing the works of the Caledonian Canal,"
Mr. Humeexpressed his regret, that, session after session, they were called on to grant money for this object. Three years ago 20,000 l. were voted; the year following 20,000 l. was called for, and he, wishing to cover the whole expense, advised ministers to ask for 40,000 l. Last year, however, they called for 25,000 l. more, and now a fresh 25,000 l. was demanded. From the way in which they proceeded 200,000 l. would not meet the expense. He wished to know when there would be an end to disbursements under this head.
Sir H. Parnellcould not concur in the remarks of the hon. member. He could say, from having seen this canal, that he had taken a very erroneous view of this question. No grant had ever been voted for completing this canal. The grants which the hon. member referred to were specially required and given for opening the canal, and this had been accomplished last October. The present grant was for deepening the canal. It was now of the depth of 12 feet, and it was necessary at some places to deepen it eight feet more in order to obtain a depth of 20 feet throughout the whole line. The locks were of the depth of 20 feet, and the whole of the navigation was constructed for the same depth, except at the entrances of the lakes, and along a short part of the summit level. The hon. member had made a great mistake in saying the bottom of the summit lock was stone, and that it would require a very large sum to cut it out. The fact was, the bottom was gravel and mud, and could easily be deepened by dredging. The hon. member had made another mistake in saying that this canal would be of no use, and that only two or three vessels a year would navigate it. In place of this it appears that 218 brigs and sloops had passed along the Eastern division of 22 miles between last April and October; and that between the opening of the canal in October and the present month, 130 brigs and sloops navigated the whole line from sea to sea. Some of these vessels came from the coast of Ireland and Liverpool on the Western side, and from as far as Yarmouth on the Eastern coast. The trade from the Westward consisted of coals, slates, and lime. Flax was also brought from Ireland to Aberdeen. Herrings were sent from the Eastern coast of Scotland to Ireland; grain to Liverpool, and general cargoes to Glasgow. Twenty-

1129
six cargoes of Highland wood, formerly of no use for want of a means of carriage, were sent for the use of the collieries of Newcastle and Sunderland, and coals brought back in return; and from the same part of the Highlands 1,500,000 of barrel staves had been sent within a very short period. So far, therefore, as a trial had been made of the canal, it had proved highly useful; and it was fair to conclude that it would become a very great public benefit. When completed there is every reason to expect that nearly all the trade which now went round the north of Scotland would be carried by this canal; for a voyage of 300 miles would be saved, that was exposed to the greatest dangers. It was proved before committees of the House, that the average loss of large vessels was ten or twelve a year, and that the average value of these vessels was 10,000 l. a vessel, making an average of annual loss of 100,000 l. to which was to be added a great loss of lives. The canal would put an end to all this loss; and certainly this was no small public object. In respect to the execution of the work of constructing this canal, it reflected the highest credit on the nation for the great talent displayed by all those who were concerned in it: the sea locks and the locks at Corpagh and Fort Augustus, were unequalled examples of the perfection of civil engineering. The greatest difficulties had arisen from the nature of the ground in which the locks were constructed, and the expense had unavoidably been very great; but these had been successfully surmounted, and there was every prospect of this canal answering all the expectations that were first formed of it.
Mr. Humesaw no reason why they should form a canal, at the expense of a million of money, for the benefit of certain Highland gentlemen who now came forward and demanded remuneration for damages alleged to have been done to their estates; whereas, in point of fact, 25,000 l. would purchase the whole line of the canal, which was nothing but rocks and bogs. The public had been very badly treated by these Highland gentry; who preferred claims for damage alleged to have been done to their estates; totally forgetting the advantages they derived from the easy mode by which they could now transport their timber and other articles.
Mr. Arbuthnotsaid, that the canal was, in reality, completed, but some alterations
1130
and improvements were deemed necessary.
Mr. W. Smithsaid, that when so large a sum had been already voted, it would be bad policy to stop short now, and refuse a grant which was of comparatively small amount.
Mr. Bennetsaid, the House ought to know how long it would be before this work would be completed. He would grant an additional 25,000 l. to finish the work; but there was a point at which they ought to stop. The question was, whether they were not throwing good money after bad? It was intended that the canal should be navigable for frigates and sloops of war, but this was found impossible; and but for the invention of steam vessels, the canal would have been totally useless. So much for the original intelligence which dictated the plan!
Mr. Humeasked, whether there was any estimate of the sum which would hereafter be required.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he had read the estimate of the engineer with great regret, because, from that document it appeared, that 25,000 l. would be necessary for next year. He felt the force of the observations of the hon. member for Shrewsbury: but he differed from him in thinking that they were throwing good money after bad. It certainly would be improper, having gone so far, to leave the canal in a situation next to useless. He pledged himself, however, not to ask for any more money, until a distinct statement of the whole probable expense was laid before the House.
Sir H. Parnellsaid, that the tolls on the trade would, in all probability, very soon defray the annual expense of maintaining the canal; and that there was no necessity of having steam-boats, because all the voyages he had already enumerated were made without their aid.
The resolution was agreed to.

COMPLAINT AGAINST "THE COURIER" NEWSPAPER.
Mr. Bennetsaid, that there had been put into his hand, a very short time back, the Courier newspaper of that evening, which pretended to give an account of the unpleasant transaction which took place in the House last night. As there were two holydays to intervene before the House would again meet, he took the earliest opportunity of bringing the subject under its notice as a statement in its nature calculated to revive those unpleasant feelings to which

1131
the transaction of last night had given rise, but which had happily subsided. He felt no hesitation in saying, that he knew of nothing so bad, so false and scandalous, or which showed more the malignity of the writer's heart, than the article in question. That it was false, must have been known to the writer; as the report of the debate in his own paper was directly the reverse of his comments.
Here the matter dropped; and the House adjourned.