Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 20.djvu/62

 language according to accents,’ was issued at London in 1820.

[Harwood's Alumni Eton. pp. 336–7; Gent. Mag. vol. liii. pt. ii. pp. 1005–6, vol. liv. pt. i. pp. 180–2, vol. lx. pt. ii. p. 875; Nichols's Lit. Anecd. ii., iii. 24–5, iv. 342–3, viii. 424, ix. 639; Brit. Mus. Cat.] 

FOSTER, JOHN, (1740–1828), last speaker of the Irish House of Commons, eldest son of Anthony Foster of Collon, Louth, lord chief baron of the exchequer in Ireland, by his first wife, Elizabeth, younger daughter of William Burgh of Dublin, was born in September 1740, the date of his baptism being 28 Sept., and was educated at Trinity College, Dublin. In 1761 he was returned to the Irish parliament for the borough of Dunleer, and in Michaelmas term 1766 was called to the Irish bar. In 1769, being returned for the county of Louth as well as for the boroughs of Navan and Dunleer, Foster elected to sit for the county, which thenceforth he continued to represent until his elevation to the peerage in 1821. In parliament he devoted his attention more particularly to the financial and commercial affairs of the country. He became the chairman of the committee of supply and of the committee of ways and means, and was admitted a member of the Irish privy council. In a letter to Lord Sidney, dated 20 Feb. 1784, Lord Northampton, the retiring lord-lieutenant, while recommending Foster for the office of chancellor of the exchequer, stated that ‘Mr. Foster has for several sessions of parliament conducted the business of government in matters of finance with distinguished ability; his knowledge in that branch and in commercial subjects is universally admitted; he is a strong friend to his majesty's government, and his character is highly respectable’ (, Life, iii. 187). Shortly afterwards William Gerard Hamilton resigned, and Foster was appointed chancellor of the exchequer in Ireland on 23 April 1784. In this year his memorable corn law, ‘granting large bounties on the exportation of corn and imposing heavy duties on its importation,’ was passed. ‘This law is one of the capital facts in Irish history. In a few years it changed the face of the land and made Ireland to a great extent an arable instead of a pasture country’ (, History of England, vi. 354). Foster did not, however, long retain the office of chancellor of the exchequer, for on 15 Aug. 1785 he was unanimously elected speaker of the House of Commons in the place of Edward Sexten Pery (Journals of the Irish House of Commons, vol. xi. pt. i. pp. 478–9), and on 6 Sept. in the following year was sworn a member of the English privy council. On 2 July 1790 he was again chosen speaker, though not without opposition, William Brabazon Ponsonby being proposed by Conolly, but Foster was elected by 145 votes to 105 (ib. xiv. 9). On 27 Feb. 1793 Foster, in committee on the Roman Catholic Bill, warmly opposed the measure, being of opinion that ‘the overthrow of the protestant establishment, the dethronement of the House of Hanover, and a total separation from Great Britain’ would be the inevitable consequences of passing the bill. He was for the third time elected speaker on 9 Jan. 1798 (ib. vol. xvii. pt. i. p. 191). Hitherto Foster had invariably supported the English government in their measures, but no sooner were the intentions of the ministry known on the question of the union than he immediately put himself at the head of the anti-unionists. On 11 April 1799 Foster, during committee on the Regency Bill, delivered a very able speech against the union, lasting three hours. He replied to the answers which Pitt had made to his own speeches on the commercial propositions in 1785, and, going minutely into the history of the trade and commerce of Ireland, showed the rapid progress which the country had made since 1782. He maintained the finality of the settlement of 1782, and declared that though he looked upon Pitt as the greatest finance minister that ever lived, ‘in this fatal project of a union I do not scruple to say he is the worst minister Ireland ever met.’ When Burrowes proposed that the principal Roman catholics should meet the leaders of the parliamentary opposition in order that they might act in concert against the union, Foster, unable to sink his religious prejudices, refused to join them, and the negotiations had to be broken off. When too late he seems to have changed his mind on the point, and to have said, in a conversation with Plunket, ‘if the crisis demanded it, he would even go the length of calling in the aid of the catholics’ (, v. 69). On 17 Feb. 1800, while the house was in committee on the lord-lieutenant's message respecting the union, Foster once more spoke strongly against the proposal, and on 19 March following he again opposed the bill, declaring that the ‘noble lord's union will not amend anything but will make everything worse.’ On 7 June he had the mortification of putting the final question from the chair on the third reading of the bill and of declaring that the ayes had it. The house met for the last time on 2 Aug. 1800. Foster refused to surrender the mace, declaring that ‘until the body that entrusted it to his keeping demanded it, he would pre-