The Sun. — London, England, 1819-05-06 00:00:00

;IY 'ye 11 9 e%"; 401, 'fry' (i.e CIO ) 00 r .,01 jiro 6 ;00! r ift fr ri tligs r 3 •7 • (14 tt , t l )1 ) t 4; •10e4" 1 coi; e 11 . 1 ; ty 5' gl j , 0 c!," be' . , P n" ro• e ci ! , , ar r(s er., "Frio, I Iron! ( 10! be 44it' .;‘rt•;:'• 411; 4 • 4.; )4 anti thr. r.ptirt • • L•.e ."at "Pe • • 'd nor be, eliabled to get rtl , . it.et es too the evidence by file day filed, viz- the Ith Of M ay. i:Nirt PRltsloosa opposer! the P etition ; the ap 11)04catian t 0 th pposee ll.l tisc h a d b een ma de 0 11 tae he or Mat c h , eil was nearly eight t° Match, which ii he tihrnitT ell was rittitelnng en°";-:h anal obtain the evidetn.e.—The Petition was feud, orderer!to be laid on the table' • I air. VV. DOUGLAS then moved, lor t , •that the older ' a lng it into consideration should be ,dis -darged, whet:, tl , l B l ll. J. NIACKINTOSII contended, that no rounds at ever ha i l b een adduced to j ust i fy any d elta titre from the usual course of p riweedsli g• Ac leiw,j• i ng to the pueseut ease, every Men:her . for hail only to ascertain ON . (h the: r : iiitance flout e N-eti. "l' ol ls, and noon that c l a im exten -13441 of tim e ; without softie distinct cause assign ,!ti, the liouse could not eutertatut tile motion ; should, therefore, give it Ills decided opposi tion. , a Lanni CA• h Ttaa EAGH thought sufficient ground d 11 0 1 been siiew o its delay. ai „r 'ti' 0t,.„ •Jo4L , %, • att •uns f„,;., Mr. WYNN and • uitUGLAS i.it Prtittwit erms t vi 0H11 : 4 " l • FERGusso.4.: est ed a petit ion from I• ie incorpornied Trades of Burnt Island, 1"'"Y -in ne 's t , "r , a the System of Royal Burghs lr,--`)l"ni , —Order Ordered to lie. on the .1. a hle• s -•- .v.oItTLEV };resented. several Atetittpus 4411 Yo • " - Settlement Bill. 1 ) llte t h e oot °l . 4 e'ed t lie oq the table, li s p a. Citt A ' irAm preseitiscl 1 petition from Cur trup i a ""lst the foot' Settlement Btu --()a the , )11 that it lie on the.table, to o C UßWENuxpressed his regret, that on this dj,l l i eti d;lferCil fl'om his Constituestis. Ile ':(4)e, however, that the tern: of seven years 4.°""-1 b e bill••:itwed in the But for thtee : 'ITCH oroered to he )roiled. C lIA kvey post 4 toned until ki r edllesd 4 y 1% ! --lit)11 tor leav to bring in a Bill to disable tr, i ,: h e i ,'"'ets trout Witnesses in Suits for th , , Parish. ltl r PUBLIC-HOUsE LICENCES. Let H UMS prese.; eda Pi.tition from T. B. p o i v " 4 " 11 f1 enniplaining of the iireweis mono ,.,'"R"ad and ordered to be laid On the table. HF4"llowing. is ,the petition : HbRooRABLE THE COMMONS OF THE fi ° f GREAT BRITAIN AN!) IIttLAN 0, IN FARLIAMEN PETIT/ON of .liniv THOMAS BARBER BEAU ; 51.,„ MoNT, F.sq Cillfi,"!,ll--That your utitioner is Suffering' a virtual demo- , tit% Ills properiY ag P ailist which the laws of this coitoto f Wii r 'thess ; and his case being that of a nqu!titode . o let "414,1ittioig, •citizebs, he - humbly appeals for that pi willelt loyal subjects may expect from a just Goren Vetill,al,Ynth' petitione r is ground landlord of upwards i ?ifissecsi 4thris".''!"-'s, at Shepherd's Bush, a village of t . n . tve , t at Prt.,s? uses, through vow- petitioner's exertions.. , , the ie wan,';ti desir e of is'te•tants, and to supply their reasond . b uilt a si:peri:n• public-house or inn in the centre ih4 ii .te,•A here two great cross roads meet, and at a i f fis T ,a - Ort b t.of on inns road, and of three quarters o . atly licensed adhouse. Tnat srven t an s" 1- 1 1 " .14 ; t ' lieen me to the Licensing . its lo'r a license to open the house, hut, Ile 1 4:14 t •r h a s been always. refused. 'T hit 4 three )Tars sOter, grante d 41 '' , 1: 1 •: ' " l for mean a ' eki ‘ ir; t!. filched hoose, standing annost to . t;tiunl 16 6 .1 I , $Ollll • 'hundred yards distant tram y , ctn t i . v 4 g I Liddittaio fur proem nig which license d to the vestry eh, k, when the LIP 'Judge ° s v olicensed beearo, covered with . houses, (--! Pslitiot t's land' *bent , ' denied th e convenience . 0 , f ,. , deserted. That 013 the last liceirstit., "- 'ee ' ude i the tenant to the following 1411e"-":"Ve:tti'irin'ultn g a r li a d i ' it e' :Uu ( . l i ti.ense, bitcause 'your ccrti- Jhst,fied Pair: t.. ),, q.;i.'es this, and we should nut re .4 1T 'l g' 4ll l. l*.l i n g ".u l• r - . . -, ;:qe . wi;hoor their ce:rtificate l' e tt t oat "that was the only reason of l Xhiii..„ ef r' 4l . • ilia. th e ' Act ' of Parliamont :`named stic k 7 , go,a ^ .hipet a ti ve. . nor I,d th e Nii,oister sant .a,te Publican's c ' estificate r th irty years. 1 ite licensers b"ritsil" ae hnowled. , el upon oath, that they had deter nbin. "t . p e tit Tuner's Inut3e before any neense jour !i . e. , Minister's certificate was . meat limed ; and, to t - `l l , i ceti • an hour's time of their refusing to . deli i ve_r , t ' l ru.e,„ " : " 3 ' juor petitioner's laicise, on the above ground qtr v, rtcetlr "t . I !).,. e•ineurrent act of the minister, they gran ted irr favour's& 'a brewer in the neighhour hum , s';'ssei: '! O r for two lowti 'dint , houses, which had been sop -Y Eniner Magistrates " as disorderly, each halo; it► P a rish, and Situated within a few yards of simil a r ‘)1. Ilia ' ,N . ,!' 44 Y iicenced, not only ,vittuott any concurrentact. ( cuttt . l ister ht ill. opposition to Lis earnest entreaty Manse,Li""h letter read at the*:ilerting', that one of these y ob rt paicular not hr licroierd. f re that in this country no relief Rit h fur i u• iiestiffe v ;:r under the most corrupt refusal Cr t . o t : t t he' , still tln , ught that some forth - eloper might . be Kalßtaorl justice, - by bringing the illative. cose 'hefene e a_ tuffittinel, p0vi,,,,, therefore, the deceit and il d l the rea '"h assigi ' ied by the iicencers for their de - ;q far eoutrastiii, ' the facility of their grants ot . lteences ui 116741'1y houses"in clusters in favont - of one interest, "r seven y e ar''. refusal o f licence:of a very superior suck; st iinsagainst another interest, he 41 0 , 1 t!n ned 1 4 l i t nit t E o 'l crine why a crionnal Ki n ,, , '..not be against them the Court Prtted6l.lt although the above facts were full? , • 4 hd ree the affidavit- of inn. petitioner and his tenants, I ' l i n the affidavits of the defendants, 140 11 " That, was tio legal proof of a corrupt t ti "..e ' r e t ? , t r . h ! Ithie ti ' st as ti t t: t a r l e oalo tied, all which your r4 ttuti (4 ' 1 3; to prove b - evidence. In this state or pro. l ' i thsel ‘ f " c ivil rights to ) arbitrarv‘wills, your petitioner for i" ( 1 fur hi s fellow-sob 44jects, humbly claims such pro ' to 1 ,, 4 4 the inutlensive occupation of his and their estates, 4 . l l l gnourabl e H o use shall seem Meet, and sour pc , - l e" r p ray. I'. B. J. BAiti;L 8EA1. 4 ) , 10N1. ..v!,I4NET presented a Petition from between . :4-a1n, 10) "u 0 Licensed Victuallers iti the Cities of walk and AVSlntinster, and Borough of Soot il ,gainat t h e present Licensing System, and der sf I°E. r elict. The Petition, m etition, the Hon. Me lit,tB-‘4l, contained noloy strong and stubborn by th e ' 'v , . cutiiii not be refitted, as corroborated 40 1 e most mideoiabl e evid ence . th e .Petition was read, and ordered to lie on „ Ar ottli BEr3IaET theri, as an introductiOn to his teshecae.d tnotio n for an Amendment of the Law • the Itng LketisiD g Public Houses, stated, that • Pres e n , .t:1 1, 35, ot Act was that of the 26th George 11. • 4 "..an nut i l lY w hich the Licensing System became Aisti m ork, under tlte eon:rout of the Ma ts ttl i i •It WaS not, as formerly, that the li e shout te ogui ( 1 be co nt i nued till the forfeiture of the aQom' !'`llleto Or till t h e house was pot down as the 111 " n nuis ance for the disorderly conduct of , as "ii application fur a license, it tap "%sar Y that 1 • t he cit tr. petition should be signed • itic ate ergYin3n and Church Wardens, or a 4cer• ‘t ti) that of l cigi rgyihttis tel. In some places, where the aolt:s,stiartilrcote.tsi the scruples of cout•eience, otrae, h". there w t re nu public booties. — tic ate 1., r the Beadle procured the certi iqttrtittisi .7:).41 I les of th e Cl ergyman, Ch urc h of t fie :I Ch et seer s . remedy the objc -1 r gY i llah ) lllC Hon. "Aitnlber meant .ta 'Oita the signaillres iii ~~t};tasirs thotild be at!,!etl to titoti: , . of the Chutett W,,t(!cnt tiversvers ; or th,it the certificate should 11,ive the signatiiies of 12 te§tii.ctablet ihha hirantF,, tvithoot those Of Any of her ant tiori!y : .._ lie tlioo;-4ilt it also necessary that the certifionte should he tram the park!) where the applicant Or petitioner last lived, end not trom ‘vbere be then resided, or was about to reside. lie could Men tion many cases in Which the most partial conduct and injustice had been manifeSteti on the part of the Licensing Magistrate or Niiigistrates. He would prove that lio:iscs had been licensed for those who kept receptacles for thieves, or were occupied as brothels, If, however, they were put down on one side of tie street, they had only to remove to the other side, where they eOulti easily procure a license, and renew their scandalous ca reer. With certain amendments for these griev- anew, he should Propose ►hat there be three (I.e- g l . reel in the forfciture of recognizance. Fur the first offence, he proposed a small fine ; for the se cond, 501. ; and for the third, 1001., or a total forfeiture of the lternse. in noticing these mal- practices, he did not mean to slur or to implicate the Magistracy at large ; he only stated facts, which lie would prove by the most iocootroverti hie proofs or affidavits. In a conversation %vitt' Sir Nathaniel Conant, be had maintained that a Magistrate had a right to refuse the ienewal,of license, without assigning arty cause to the parties interested. For this grievance lie would also pro pose a remedy. He lamented the; in maey cases political influence' had been used in granting and withdrawing Licruces. Lie (mid mention certain towns in which such ieflueoce had been used, and could confirm his allegations by affidavits, it re golfed. It could not - therefore be denied that the power of the Magistrates had thus been corruptly used. Why the old constitutional mode had been abandoned he could not tell, un less for .the sake of tevenue and the command of political influence. In the days of Q.ieen Anne it amounted to Is. only ; by the 26th Geo.. 11. it extended to 20s. • He proposed that the maximum of the forfeiture should he 1001. or sending the case to a Jury. He detailed the gra dual scale of forfeitures. lie also noticed, and severely censored, the caprice or whims of Ma gistrates on granting Licences. To some land lords they saidyou must alter your bar ; to another—alter your tap; to auother— don't put a painted barrel up, for that notifies that you meats to encourage drunkenness ; to ano ther, you look too much like a gentleman, and appear above yt n ir business; to :soother, you are too fat, or dress ton well. 'rhos there was no end of their intolerable asinmp;ion of power. He proposed. that the appeals should in tuture be front the Licensing Magistrates to the Mag is trates of the Quarter Sessiot.s. It was a well known evil, that Brewers took public houses, and forced the landlords whom they pot in them to receive their beer, Ist-tether good or bad, or defi cient in Meastire. There was not a public house in his neighbonrhood which•was not in the hands of - brewers. At Maidstoue, he was informed, (hat no lo s ;hail tot ty belonged to them. e consequence was, that the public ha; t, not Lair play. It Gentlemen tasted good malt liquor, and ,compared it with the trash sold in those houses, they would know the extent of the evil, This arose from Licences havint4 fallen into the hands Brewers, in consequence of the present system. He bopeil there would he no object ion to allow this Bill Jo' be brought in, and that if it reached a COututitree; the House would apply itself seriously to remedy .the evils which be 11;.ideseribed. concluded by asking leave to bring in a Bill for better regulating (he granting of Licences to Pub licaus.—Leare granted. PARTNERSHIPS IN 'IRELAND. Mr. A1(4'11)811 WOOD observed, that it was well known that the sufferings of the lower classes in It eland arose in a great measure from want of Ca pital. Mere were ltws in existence to encourage Partnerships, with the view of facilitating the employment of the poor. Those laws had pro duced some good, but they were very imperfect, and he wished that they srould be repealed, and that their spirit should be consolidated in a new Act, supplying their deficiencies and correcting their defects. He should therefore ask leave to bring in a Bill to promote the employment of the pour iu fisheries, trade, and manufactures, in Ire land, by regulating the contracting of partner ships in that part of the United Kingdom. Mr, GRANT was, nntlerstood to say, that he should not oppose the introduction of the Bill, but should not pledge himself - to ita support. Mr. PLUNKkT stated, that an Act had already been in existence for forty years in Ireland, to citable persons to invest certain sums of money in trade, the amount of which was to be-registered with their names, after which the rest of their property was sate; and in the event of any loss, they could noc be made responsible for more than they had lent. But there was this important tiit f.rence, that the persons so investing their fonds were not allowed to engage in the trade them selves, whereas the present Bill gave them the right of appointing the acting partner, and keepiog iu their hands the dnection of the whole. This was against the law of the-country and establish. ed commercial principles. For individuals , would be allowed to trade to an on!imited amount,whilst they would give a limited security to the pohlic. Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN said a few words which. were not audible in the Gallery. • Mr. Alderman Wont, contended that ,nothing cou:d be fairer than that those who entrusted their property should have a right to appoint the active •partner. lie had,' besides, dune nothing more in this than copy the very words of the lot- titer Act. The CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER conceived that the : matter requiree, to he watched with the greatest cautiln, topievent acting partners front ohtaining false credit by pretending that the whole property of their colleagues was engaged in the concern. • The Bill, in fact, went to an unlimit ed creation of small joint stock companies.' Atter a few obt.ervations from Mr. FOSTER, Mr. LESLIE FOSTER, Mr. P,LUNKET, Mr. Alder man Woof), and Sir JOHN NBWPOItT, leave Wtis given to bring in the Bill. 1113NN P,T brought in the Alehouse Licens which ntri read a first I.lw, And ride cci fba' a sCCBnil on night. SCOTCH AC'A'S Of PARtIAMENT. Mr. BOSWRLL, atter a tew observations, rrio - siea for leave to bring in aMU declare Acts of Par. Hameln in Scotlai n passed since the Union, ne: to nave fallen in tistiettitie from non-observance or contrary elision). _ _ The LOSD ADVOCATE, Said, it :vas not under stood that such Acts had fallen into desuetude ; the contrary being always maintained iu Scotland ; and it bras therefore for the CO determine how far this motion 'mai called for.—The motion was agreed to. LORI) JUSTICE nr.NERAL or stInTLAND BILL. Mr. J. P. GRANT polled ild• Friday oext his motion tor the Ilinlse to . resolve itself ;nto a Committee oa the Lord Justice General Of S , :ot.;. land Bill. IRISH WINDONI"fAX. Mr. SilaW had said, on a former occasion, that he had never known any question which had ex cited more interest among the Citizens of Dublin than the Window Tax. Ile t , :;iot now add, that that interest had continued to increase. He now called tor a calm and full investigation of the subject, anti he Was t 011Vineed that if it were given, the result would he favourable tO the tiliners and the object of his tuotion. Two prin. Pipit' objections h6d brew urged against tie repeal of the lax, when the subject was last before the flouse.. One was, (kat to repeal the Tax would be brenking our faith to the Public Creditor, by diminishing the security on ►ehich he had ad- vanced his motley. But this argument went too far, and'it it were admitted, no Tax could ever be repealed. The second objection was, that the Tax was not a 'kVA. Tax. But the 4th chapter of the 40A) of the King made it so; and the Act expresvd,that it would be levied for three years, provided' the war lasted so long. Since its crea.;. lion, there had teen an unvaried conviction in the minds of the Irish people that it was only . a War Tax, and would cease with it, and its amount was comparatively so very small, that it would be a poor compensation for the forfeiture of the con fidence of the country, which must necessarily ensue if it were not repealed. He then read an extract of the Debates in the Irish Parliament, when the Tax was first proposed, in June 1800. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Isaac Corry, had then described it as a ‘Var Tax, and. to remove all objections to it, had moved as ail Amendment, " That it should last for three years, provided the war lasted so long." A pledge had till's beets given to Ireland, which it became the House to redeem. He then compared the produce of the Tax during the last four yea's, so show that its revenue had fallen off 157,9031. during that period. Such a Tax was scarcely worthy what all Ireland considered is violation of good faith.— He would also Feudist! the Howse . that England had been relieved of 'l4 millions of taxes since the peace,.whilst its Ireland no hind of local taxation had been removed. He then moved that a Select Committee be appointed, to consider the expe diency of repealing the 26 Is of the King, as far as respects the 1 ax upon Windows to 1.•elasol. The CHANCFLLOR of the ExcustauEa hoped that the libetal view wkieh Partialnem had tares ill a former Session of the elt:4tessiog situa tion of irelatul would .have rendered, it impossible that another appeal should come to the House. on the satire que,tion. Admitting the tax to have 'been a war tax, should it not become permanent when a pe•usanent debt had been founded upon it ? When Mr. Pitt had introduced the Property Tax iu 1793; it was also a war tax ; but when a large funded debt hail beets formed upon i;, it had be come •so permanent, that when Mr. Pitt's suc cessor proposed to give it np,. he suggested other taxes as its substitutes. 41m . we were not more. bound to repeal - the Irish than the English Win= dow Tax. Jr. land. had incurred a debt of one hundred and four millions of capital in .this country, and'its charge arose to 4,500,0001., or about , the whole extent of her revenue. ,The lion. Gentleman had appealed to the great num ber of taxes from which England had been te lieved, but Ireland had also experienced propor tionate relief. If she had not bten rescued, like England, from the enormous burette!) of the Pro pvit y Tax, it was because ,she 1,44 ncver paid it since the peace. Ireland had been relieved in common with England of the tax upon Malt, that upon Stills, and of a portion of the - Assessed 'f ax es , to the amount .of 183,0001. Irish currency. In ISIS, 270,0001. had been taken off the Assess- ell Taxes,•including half the IVindow Tax, and Wiling the last three gnartets of the year. a re duction had been etreced in the Assessed Taxes 'from 480,0001. to 370,000 I: A's to the efleut of the present Tax upon the health of the peo ple, the [Lmonrable Gentleinan had himself af forded an answer, by mentioning the orders issued by the Irish Governmety' for suffering windows to be opened without paying any duty. All :houses having seven windows in Ireland were exempted from the tax, while in England the ex emption only extended to those with six windows. Nearly one million of houses paid the window duty in England, of one half the number of hott%es, which did not exceed two Millions, whilst in Irelac,d not abuse one-touttir paid the ditty. filar on lotiging•houscs had been re:bleed to tine shilling per window. He must protest against any pretended breach of good faith, and against the fait her reduction of the revenue of Ireland, which had beets already so considerably dinsi- nished. • 1111. VERFEAR Ana Mr. CAREW Were understood to support the motion. ST G. HILL opposed it, notwithstand;n:; the regret which he telt at being,ohliged to act con- trary to the wishes of his constituents. He de nied that atty pledge had been given by Mr. Corry that the Tax would be a War Tax ; but, even it it bad, there had been a vicissitude of war and peace since that time, and the pledge must have been entirely done away. lie dtd not think that Ireland had any claim to a less pressure of Taxes . than was borne by Scotland, who paid nearly at the same rate as Lngland. The ag,rictibutists in Ireland were almost universally exempted from the Window Tax, because it did not reach houses which had three hearths and seven Vtindows. He then compared the charge for the .interest of the debt with tie ievenue of Ireland-. '[he latter ex , ceetietithe bonnet by only 118,0001. But, it the . , eitietieeig of the ad:lett to thd charge for the debt of Ireland, the stho'e would antoont to 9.229,7691., leaving a suit' of 4,657,7921'; to be Itnied in thk coon!iv. In thred vekirs Irehisid hii4 been relieved of Taxes to the amoont of more thati One terling. lie should therefore object to any further reduction. Mr. Coftv. contended that Mr. Corry had -pro posed the Window Fax as a war tat, and thAt the words of the Act justified that inferprettitior.—:. The tax wes most seterely felt in Ireland. 'Dili was proved by the fact of 3'2,000 notices of dis- continuance been received wil;in a very limited period. it the ditties on windows we!6 made perinanent; they would operate as a tzot. upon fivWZation in Ireland, and tend to perpe 'route that state of things which every. friend u the Sister Country must feel anxious should no longer exist, if it were possible to afford relief. I'LLiNxef said, in no inst3nce hid he known a revenue qoestiim affecting Ireland to be ciiscus.!ed in that House but with the Inmost con- sideration for the Sister Country. tin the pre- , sent occasion he expected the motion beiore the House would be rtc . eiiretl with the utmost kiud— ness by the English part of the House, rsntl tat that part of it he should most particularly address himself. He was of opinion such a tax would oppose the improvement of Ireland ; and heath-, jected to it, that one-tourth of it would fall on thd City of Deb;hi, which had been miserably impo verished by the Union, and which was not in condition to bear the burden. He showed that the tax was fast &dinkier ; and,theretore maintained that it woula be policy to substitute another for it. It appeared that 34,424 notices of discon tinuance of windows had been given, of which 3501 cone from Dublin Moue, and . it might be interred that the distress - was great which would thus drive men to deny themselves the light of heaved, and a free circulation of air. In behalf of the sufferers he now appealed to the genero sity of Englishmen. and he telt that he should not appeal in vain. The Right Hon. Gentleman posite had said those who proposed to repeal this Tax ought to be prepared to name a substitute for it. This, however, was not their duty, but that of the Chancellor of the Exchecpier, aud if the Right Hon. Gentleman It'll himself unequal 10 the task, without meaning any thing disrespect ful, he would say that he ought to resign his si tuation to some one more capable of filing it with advantage to the country. ' Mr, C. GRANT had not been able to discover that any pledge had been given that the Window. Tax teas only to continue tinting the war. lii proof of this, he gave the history of the 'lax, and showed that if that were merely a war duty, other ditties which were regarded as permanent were hi the same predicament. The enactment which the Right t h an. Gent. (Mr, Minket) regarded. as limiting the Tax to three years, lie viewed as merely limiting the peculiar mode of collecting the duties according to the rates of wiroloWs twuses to that period, if the war should conti nue so long. Within the three years the war ceased; the scale was altered, but the Tax conti nued. In 1803, therrnewal of it was proposed. in that House by tlte Right Hon. Gentleman who had first introduced it. Mr. Curry was then re minded of the pledge which he was .opposed to have given. lie denied having gist-u such pledge; and in this lie was borne out by the testimony of malty Members then preaeet, and finally by the House itself. Tastes originally proposed in time of war, had in many iustances been contieued after the war had terminated.. Since the last peace, Excise ditties, amounting to 4.500,0001. had been continued as eermanent Taxi,, and thereforehe must contend, that no principle of good faith towards Ireland was involved hi the p rese nt question. He wished to God, the dis tress of Ireland could be relieved, but the general. interests of the Empire were to be bottle in mind, anti no serer way of breaking down our finance; could be devised than the course now taken of attacking tax after tax, making out a case of (Us• truss, and claimiog exemption from them. The Window Tax did. not !ouch houses that contained fewer than seven windows and four hearths. Consequence of the representations made of the state - of the fever in Ireland, the tax had been re• duced, so that of 440,0001. 235,0001. had in tact been given up. The burdens which 'had fallen on Ireland through the war were unavoidable.— lf she adhered to England as she ought, and as she did, nobly fighting the battles of the Empire, it was impossible fur her to escape the painfu► condition of her greatness and, her duty. Eng land, he maintained, had shown great indulgcnez towards 'rattail ; and after all that had alit ad/ been done in her favour, he could not support the present motion. • Sir JOHN NEWPORT contended, that rite rate was too,high on Ireland from the first. She might as well have been asked to pay 15 as two 17ths. She had already paid more than her share, and was absolutely unable to pay any more. The se veral taxes on Ireland which had been proposed to the House, by different 'Ministers, between the years 1808 and 1817, had been rated at 3,500;0001.. a•year ; taut the amours' of the produce in 1817, beyond that of 1808,, had not exceeded 50,0001. Thus, where an increase of 3,000,0001. lied been calculated on, no more than 50,0001. had been, realized. This could not proceed from the de fective calculations of the Ministers who had pro posed these taxes, for some of them were men of acknowledged tdents. It arose entirely from the inability, not thennwillinguess, of Ireland to con tribute. Lord CASTLEREAGH would go along with the Right Hon, Gentletnap in saying, that evert if the Lintel( had not taken place, Ireland would still .leave adhered to England iu the late glorious struggle ; that she would still have fought and bled in the contest against the common enemy. But let Ireland know that she bad tint only bet it enabled to tight the common battle by the com mon resources of the empire, but that by the ar raug,ement of consolidating the resources nt the two countries, she had also been enabled to get rid of her own huldens. During 18 years of war, the quota which she had furuished h.td been below her proportion in the actual ext,enditure 3 so that this country, not only by tier credit, hilt by actual contribution, bole a part et Ire. hold's burdens. The burden of the taxes, God knew, was severe enough, and it was not fair to lie (s re f is ~ `4 e.‘ fe• egg )rt l tit tal° of beef►' t hey for v re . 00` 0 0, , rdi" t io!li ttt a ~inb r let te 0 11' ; !Oa, rt► ~e~