The Sun. — London, England, 1824-03-20 00:00:00

PA 111,1 A:11E Ni. !MUSE OF LORDS, MARCH 19. A person from the Treasury presented an Account of the Spirts manufactured in Ireland, pursuent to the Order of the :House. . . Lord CLIF.DEN presented a petition from two parishes in the County 'of ;Kilkenny, against the Tithe Composition Bill. . _ . Lord KING presented petitions from Croydon and Taunton, praying for the abolition of Slavery. Read a third time and passed—The 4 per Cents. Bill, the County Ga , lls Bill, the Army Mutiny Bill, and the Marine ?Mutiny Bill. The Irish Court of Exchequer Bill, and the Sugar Duties Fill, were cJinmitted.—Adjourned to Monday. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Mr ASTELI4 presented a petition from the Licensed Vic tuallers of Bridgewater, praying for a repeal of the Duty on their Licences. Mr. TYNTE presented a petition from the Inhabitants of the same 'Aiwa., playing-for the repeal of the Assessed Taxes. _ _ r..SY IiES presented a petition from the Journeymen Boot and Shoemakers of Bradford again:it thz.Combination Laws. _ . _ `Mr. BRIGHT presented a similiar petition from the Jour neymen shoemakers of Bristol. Mr. BERNAL presented a similar petition from the Jour neymen Shoemakers of Chatham. . . _ Sir T. LE'f HBRIDGE presentedu similar petition from the Journeymen Shoemakers of Bath. The petitions were severally referred •to the Committee on Artisans. NEGRO SLAVERY. ; Sir JOH N.ASTLEY presented a petition from Aylesbury, praying for the gradual abolition of Slavery in the West Indies. Similar petitions were presented by Mr. Cu (LIVEN, from Cockennouth ; by Mr. HONYWOOD, from seven Towns in Kent ; by Mr. C. CALVERT, from two parishes in Suffolk : by Mr. Ham:mu...ND, from Clacvering; and by Sir T. I.F.Tir- BRITSGE, from Glastonbury; and were ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed. .5.1 r: DOWNIE presented a Petition from certain distillers in the county of Perth, praying that the same indulgence as had been granted to Irdand to import whisky into England might be extended to Scotland. Ile stated that English agri culturists are now enjoying great benefit from the reduction that took place last session in the duty on Scotchspirits, as was evident from the immense quantities of barley daily importing into' Szatland from England; and if Scotch spirits were per mitted to be brought into England on such terms as his Ma jesty's Government thought _proper, the measure could not fail to•be most advantageous to both countries, besides, in all pro bability, benefitting materially the revenue; at any rate, it would certainly suppress, in .a great degree, the immoral and disgraceful practice of smuggling. Sir JAMES GRAHAM presented a Petition from the li censed Victuallers of Marylebone ; Mr. 11. DAVIS a similar petition • from Bristol; Mr. BYNO presented similar petitions from St. Pancras and Hounslow ; Mr. WILSON a similar peti tion from the Ward of Portsoken , and Mr. F. Bux'roN a similar petition from Spitalfields.—Laid on the table. Mr. A. CAMPBELL, presented a Petition from the Silk Manafacturers , eff Paisley against the Sill: Regulations Bill. Mr. WORTLEY' presented a Petition from an Indi vidual residing at Northallerton, against the County Courts Bill. • . - Sir T. LETH BRIDGE presented a Petition from the wool manufacturers of Wellington, against the exportation of long wool. IRISH FISHERS. Mr. G. LAMB presented a Petition from the fishermen, fish-curers, and others of Dundalk antlihingarvatt, against the proposed reduction of bonatiesin their trade. The reduction should be at the least gradual, as the parties were taken by sur prise. The lion. Gentleman, in presenting the petition, ex pressed his conviction th a t th e mode in which Ministers pro posed to effect the reduction of these bounties would be produc tive of the most serious and extensive mischief to the poor fishermen of Ireland. Mr. SYKES was favourable to the continuation of these bounties, and supported the prayer of the petition. Sir ISAAC COFFIN thought thAt if the.tratle could not be carried on without bounties, it was not worth while carrying it on at all. He was inimical to the system of bounties altogether. Sir JOHN NEWPORT thought the House ought to con sider whether they would keep down a starving population like the poor of many parts upon the coast of Ireland, by military force ; or would prompt their industry by every species of use ful encouragement. He thought it most extraordinary that his Majesty's Ministers should have so long extended the bounty, and then so suddenly withdraw it. If the fishery in the dis- Aricts alluded to were to fail, 1,100 fishermen and their families would be reduced to starvation. The CHANCELLOR of the • EXCHEQUER said, that with respect to the bounties on fish, they were, in fact', of very recent origin. The ground upon which they had been properly extended to Ireland was that it would be exceedingly unfair for 'Parliament to give bounties to the fishery in England, with out giving to that of Ireland a corresponding advantage.— ( Hear !)—lt was felt by GoYernment, that they were bound in justice to extend the principle of the bounty to the Sister King cow. But he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was at that very time so persuaded that the time must come when it would 1 ; , ;: , proper to propose the cessation of these `ash bounties to Par liament, that lie would not consent to make them permanent; but 7.inlited them, in respect to Ireland, for example, to a cer tain and definite number of years. If he was not mistaken, the Irish bounties would, in their natural course, expire next year ; ant, therefore lie did not see 'bow it could be said that the par ties whose case the Han. Gentleman had been advticating. were Hear —e would ad at the samme taken by surprise.—( that there' was a good deal !) of reason in the objections that had been taken as to niaking this an instantaneous repeal, and in the suggestions which had been thrown out about the propriety of proceeding with it very gradually. The repeal. indeed, he was disposed to think, should be delayed certainly for a little time. After a few words front Mr. CHARLES GRANT, Sir Joint NEWPORT, and Mr. MADER LY (who said that if Ireland were not 1.9 be considered as an exception to the application of those general principles upon which the Chancellor of' the Exchequer was proceeding oelate, in respect to the trade of this and of other countries, her population must starye)—the petition was read, and laid upon the table. Mr. BARING presented a petition from Taunton against Negro Slavery. SILK TRADE, Mr. HALDIMAND rose to present a petition from some of • the most respectable, and he might add, the most intelligent silk manufacturers in England. It related to the arrangements • which it was understood were to be made for carrying into effect the propositions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in respect of. this trade ; and it prayed that no alteration might be made in those arrangements.—(Hear !)—The petitioners especially prayed that there might be no delay in their execution ; and they added, that if this question of delay had not been agitated afresh, the whole of their hands would have been by this time in active employment. They also expressed their perfect satis faction with the intention which had been avowed of allowing them . a drawback upon manufactured articles. With regard to the suggestion about spreading the operation of the new ar rangements over a certain number of years, he (Mr. Heidi mend) really thought it could have no other effect but to para.. lyre the trade, and repress the energy, which, if the Right Hon. • Gentleman's propositions were at once adopted, it would un doubtedly manifest. Ile (Mr. Haldimand) had seen that morn ing some silk merchants, as well as the manufacturers, and had expected to be intrusted with a petition front them. Ile was, however, enabled to say, that the silk merchants were favoura ble to the new arrangements.—(Hear !) Mr. BARING would not enter into any discussion upon the general questions to which the petition referred, bemuses more eligible opportunity would be offered in the Committee into which they should that evening go. From the speech of his Hon. Friend, however, the House might have been induced to suppose that he was holding it up as the petition of a certain number of persons in favour of the measure proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But no such thing; for his lion. Friend having favoured him with a sight of this petition, he (Mr. Baring) was enabled to state that there was no recom mendation of the measure.—(Hear !)—What. he meant by " the" measure was, the free trade of silk manufactured goods, of the goods of France coming into competition with the goods of this country. Now, in support of this proposition, the peti tion contained not a single word. The fact was, he believed, • that there were some Gentlemen in the trade who had large stocks in hand, and were therefore very willing to put emir hanks deep into the public purse. But he would repeat, that neither bad this, nor any other petition yet presented, proceeded frontany general body of persons concerned in the silk trade, who approved of the general principles upon which the House was in this case legislating. Mr. HUME thought the House would know how to estimate the argument of his lion. Friend (Mr. Baring) when it re- membered the petition, signed by twelve persons, which his Hon. Friend had presented-on the preceding night : 12 persorn, he (Mr. flume) believed, were all that could be found in the city . of London to .subscribe it.—(" Hear, hear !" from Mr. Baring.)—Those individuals (at the head of whose subscriptions he observed the respectable name of Mr. Hale) wit ted to keep up the Spitalfields soonoyoly. Now. the petition whiz!' the Her. Gentleman (Mr. Haldimand) had presented to-night, had been signed by 33 of the principal men in London, in the short space of two hours and a half; and so far from their not being favourable to the principles upon which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was proceeding► in this business, they humbly prayed that the measures proposed by that Right Hon. Gentleman might be acted on with as little delay as possible.—(Hear, hear !) He (Mr. Hume) had received a letter from one of the very first houses in London (Messrs. Wilson, Moore, and Ro binson), in which they expressly said, that with the time which was now allowed for the arrangements, the silk . trade in London had nothing to fear from competition.—(Here the Hon. Gent. read an extract from a letter to that effect.) - Mr. BUXTON made a singleobservation, that was inaudible in the gallery, • Mr. G. PRIMPS was convinced, that under the new ar rano-cm:ins, the silk trade could well bear any competition ; and he expressed his belief, that the true alarmists were the East India monopolists, who, on a recent occasion, had pre vented the confidential clerk of- a most respectable house in London from proceeding to Bengal, to undertake the manage ment of a large silk business. Mr. EDWARD ELLICE stated, that at Coventry, Maccles field, Derby, and other manufacturing towns in the country, the silk interest was well satisfied with the intentions of the Chan cellor of the Exchequer. He could not agree, however, with his Hon. Friend that the silk trade was able to bear competi tion as well as he seemed to think ; for he (Mr. Ellice) had reason to know that for many years past not only had looms been imported from France, but Frenchmen had come over to work at them. They exceeded us in the manufacture and the dying.. - On — the question that the petition be read, Mr. BARING thought it unfair in his Hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) to read, in .support of the propositions of. the Chan. cellor of the Exchequer, a letter from the only housein London, in the silk trade, which had stood by the Government in these propositions, which had been the adviser of Government on this occasion, and which, if it were fair to bring the private concerns of any house into the case, had, as he was informed, speculated largely upon the consequences likely to follow from the regula tions being carried into effect. After a taw words from Mr. lIALLIIMAND, not audible in the gallery, Sir T. LETHBRIDGE expressed a wish that the Chancel lor of the Exchequer should state to the House what was the exact sum which the country.• Was likely to lose by the amount of the drawbacks. Some had fixed it at 100,0001., and others stated that it would amount to 300,0001. or 400,0001. He was anxious that the real suns to be lost by th e country s h ou ld b e known. 1-1 e bad applications from the cloth manufacturers,manufacturers,ers, who were anxious that the duty on their stock on hand should also be taken off. It was unfair not to put both parties on a similar footing with respect to a remission of iuties. Mr. BRIGHT was glad this subject • had been brought be fore the House. The woollen trade were likely to suffer by some regulations in prospect with respect to them, and he thought it was injustice to give an advantage to one trade by a remision of duties, which was denied to another which had equal claims to 'The CHANCELLOR of the IGXCHEQUER said, that the petition before the House was on the subject of the silk trade, and he did not think such an occasion was quite the roper time for di s c uss in g th e ques ti on o f th e woo ll en trade. henever that question should come regularly before the House, he would undertake to demonstrate to the Hon. Mem ber himself, that the measures proposed on that subject were just those which had been desired by the woollen manufac turers themselves. As to the question of the amount which the country would he likely to lose by the drawbacks on silk, he thought that a greater exaggeration could not be imagined than to suppose that the country would lose a million, or one million three hundred thousand pounds, by those drawbacks. It was impossible to calculate such matters up to the exact sum. There might be a few thousands more or less than what had been stated on a former occasion, but it was quite absurd to suppose that it would amount to any sum near a million.— The greater sum was imagined, on a supposition that there was .a great quantity of raw silk and silk goods on hand, whereas it was contrary to all the principles on which the ma nufacturers conducted their trade to believe that as a fact.— They never manufactured for the purpose of having a large stock by them. They were prevented by the constant fluctua tions of fashion, and other causes. Then it should be con sidered, that it was only half the duty on the raw article which was to be remitted, and that it was not to be allowed on cut goods. 'raking all these circumstances into consideration, he might state the cost to the country, by the remission, at 200,000/. or 250,0001,, or perhaps 300,0001. at most; but it was impos sible that it would amount to more, and with the activity in the trade which the remission would cause, that sum would be more than repaid to the country. After a few words from Mr. BRIGIIT, Air; th A o l u d i er d ibiaeanauWow(e) as well said ctt as uncut t s h il a i t z. the draw back Mr. AIUNDY said, that the silk manufacturers of Derby ( ( lo i n acre satisfied with the proposed regulations. Mr. BA RING said they were, because they were throwsters, and were made an exception to the general principles of those regulations by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whq, in op. position, to all his own principles of free trade, was not bold enough to apply them to that branch of the trade. A tier a rex; w•orc',s from Mr. Evass and another Hon. Mem ber, the petition was read, and ordered to be printed. Mr. NV': SMITH presented a petition from the Journeymen Shoemakers of Portsea, against the Combination Laws.—lt was referred to the Committee on Artisans. _ _ Mr. JOHN :57111`H presented a petition from the Isle of Ely, against Negro Slavery.—Laid on the table. USU RY LAWS. The Committee on the Usury Laws' Repeal Bill was post poned to this day week. Mr. Alderman THOMPSON presented a petition from the Silk Mercers of London and Westminster, praying that the drawback on silk might be allowed on cut, as well as uncut pieces of silk. Mr. T. WILSON briefly supported the prayer of the peti tion, which he observed was very just.—The petition was read. On the motion that it do lie on the table, Mr. Alderman THOMPSON said that he would take an op portunity, in the committee, of moving that the drawback be allowed on pieces of silk not less than 15 yards in length. IRISH LINEN BOUNTIES. _ _ Mr C. H. HUTCHINSON presented a petition from the merchants of the city of Cork, praying that the Bounties on Irish Linens might he withdrawn. The Hon. Member then proceeded to peinto4t the evils which would arise, particularly in the south of Ireland, where coarse linens were manufactured, from the repeal of those bounties, and expressed a hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might seriously reconsider the subject. The petition was laid on the table, as was a similarpetition„ presented by the same Honourable Member, from the mer chants of Cork, against certain West India duties. They were ordered to be printed. Mr. H. G. BEN NET presented a petition from a Mr. Grant, of Margate, praying for a r e mission of the sentences of those convicts who were sent on board the hulks from the Peniten tiary, in consequence of the sickness which bad prevailed there. —Laid on table. Mr. I.II"rLETON presented a Petition from the Fleet, in Staffordshire, against negro slavery.—Ordered to lie on the table. THE SILK TRADE. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that as the Counsel who was to have addressed the House that evening was prevented from doing so by indisposition, he would pro. pose that the House should resolve itself into a Committee on the Silk Bill, in order that the blanks might be filled so as to render the Bill intelligible. The Counsel might be heard on the recommittal of the Bill on Monday, on which occasion the discussion might also take place. On the motion - of the Hight Hon. Gentleman the House re solved itself into a Committee on the Bill. Mr. HUME suggested that a drawback should be allowed upon cut silks when they were 30 or 40 yards in length. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER declared that it was not his intention to make any alteration in the Bill, ex cept such as he had already stated. After a short conversation, in which Mr. BARING, Mr. J. SMITH, Mr. HALDIMAND, Mr. ELLICE, and Mr. HER RIES, participated, the blanks were filled up, the House re sumed, the report was brought up, and ordered to be taken into consideration on Monday. Mr. BRIGHT gave notice, as we understood, (for the noise occasioned by strangers leaving the gallery prevented us from hearing distinctly), that he would on a future occasion call the attention of the House to the subject of the relations of Great Britain with the Barbary States. COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY. IRISH MISCEL LANi..OUS ESTIMATES. Mr. GOULBURN moved that the sum of 2,0001. be granted for the support of the Royal Cork Institution. Mr. HUME opposed the grant. Mr. C. HUTCHINSON supported the grant. The Insti. tution, he said, had been productive of great benefit to that part of Ireland in which it was placed. Mr. S. RICE said, that when the grant was first proposed in 1800, Go:•ernment had announced that it should not be con tinued long. _ _ _ _ Sir J. NEWPORT thought that the benefits of the Insti tution should not be confined to the City pf Cork alone. Mr. W. WILLIA.MS opposed the vote. Mr. PEEL felt the force of the objection to the principle of the grants, on the ground of their damping local exertion ; but .here was a difference between originating such guilts and con tinuing them. Mr. WILLIA3IS was surprised to hear that Cork, which he thought was the first trading town in Ireland, should be so generally impoverished. Mr. C. H. fl LUCE' INSON said, Cork contained a most wealthy and respectable mercantile connexion ; but, neverthe less_, thousands of the poorer classes were severely distressed. After a few words from 3lr. 3loNcic and Mr. I'ELHAM, the resolution was agreed to. Mr. GOULBUIIII moved that a sum' not exceeding 7,0001. be granted to the Royal Dublin-Society. Mr. HUME inquired how the balance of 1:3,0001., the 'alleged expenditure; was furnished ? Mr. GOULBURN replied, by private subscriptions. • Mr. HUME designated, this society as a great humbug.— Gentlemen, he knew, read the newspapers there, and ladies walked upon-the lawn ; but as to•the promotion of science, and the fine arts practically, he had great doubts of its utility.— There was an expenditure of money for opening mines, for mineralogical purposes, and. statistical survey; where were these benefits conferred•? 31r. S. RICE highly praised the progress of the society, and said that it furnished practical information, which aided the foundation of a mining "comptlny with a capital of half a mil lion. It had also a good school for the tine arts, and Mr. Johnston, of the Board of Works, had munificently contri buted from 10,0001. to 12,0001. for the erection of a gallery for the fine arts, in the institution. Mr. GOI,I , I4BURN corroborated the statement respecting the practical scientific benefits of the society. • Mr. ELLIS also defended it.• - ----- Mr. HUME repeated his objections,. and said that more money had been spent upon this useless Dublin society, which was split into political parties, than was expended by Buona parte upon any scientific institution in his most extravagant, days. He was inclined to move that the grant be reduced 3,0001. Mr. PEEL recommended the Hon. Member -to become a subscriber, and personally examine the society , if after, that he saw cause to retain his opinions, he could next year propose his reduction. Mr. HUME said, that if the Right Hon. Gentleman would grant him a Local Committee to examine practically into the proceedings of the society, he should have no objection to go over and pursue the inquiry.__(A laugh.) Air. Alderman WOOD hoped that the Irish Government would make his Hon. Friend (Mr. Hume), an Honorary Mem ber of the society, as he was of many of the London corporate bodies. Mr. Alderman THOMPSON hoped to hear more evidence of the practical value of the.society, to justify the vote. Mr. MONCK saw no reason why Dublin should not have a Museum, as well as every other capital. Sir JOHN NEWPORT said, that at the time of the Union, these grants were promised to Ireland, and ought not now to be withheld, when that country was impoverished by the Union, and her gentry transplanted to spend their money upon English objects. :Mr. W. WILLIAMS had a high opinion of the Irish gentry, but would prefcr to see them stimulated (if that were necessary) to support in preference their own national objects. Mr. (OULIIURN rose. for the purpose of rescuing the in habitants of Dublin from the charge which had been made against them. They subscribed very liberally to all the public institutions for the relief of human misery that were established amongst them. Mr. W. WILLIAMS had not meant to make any charge against the inhabitants of Dublin. After a few words from Mr. Hiram, the grant was agreed to. The next rant proposed was 10.1591. as. 3d., British cur .rOncy, to defray the expence of the commissioners for making ' wide and convenient streets in the City of Dublin. Mr. HUME wished to know why the inhabitants of Los don or Aberdeen were to pay for widening the streets of the City of London. Such grants were never made by Parliament to widen the streets of the City of London : he therefore trusted that the House would reject this grant altogether. Mr. J. SMITH was surprised at the course which his Hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen had pursued that evening with regard to the grants to Ireland. fte did not know whe ther the streets of Dublin wanted widening ; but he thought that the people of Ireland had as much right to call for a part of the public money for the improvement of their capital, as the people of Scotland had to call for it for the Caledonian Canal, and other public works. If he were not afraid of jobs in the grants which were made to Ireland,he should be inclined to vote larger sums than were now given to the people of that unfortunate country. Mr. PEEL contended, that the Committee ought to agree to this vote for certain local reasons, which he detailed to Parliament had granted money to widen the avenues to both d trat ? the grants to which the Right Hon. do means justifiedthe houses of Parliament, and to repair Westminster-abbey. Why should it not be us liberal to the citizens of Dublin as it had bi„Grereealnnittril:miliilint:l‘heicaE:dnf ssaalidlilaeun;deettlibeygrant to Westminster Abbey p a :id th a e h p e u av b y l ie fe s e ve to re t n b o e w b e e x an clu a d t el fro very entering bes towiet unlesses Chapter.—(Hear !)—No grant s h a d ever been made to the citizens of London forthe imp rovemen t o r t h e i r c i ty . pec A Mr, LOndoll 11 , 4•1 ge to wit.."—(A laugh.) Mr. HUME allowed that 150,0001. had been granted for the purpose, but contended that it made no difference to his argu ment, as he had been one of 1 0 Members who opposed it. Besides, it was only a payment to the city out of the funds which it had set aside in the reign of Qtteen Anne for the building of new churches, and which for the last 70 years had been diverted into the public Exchequer. The proposed grant, in his opinion, was perfectly iinjustisaule. Sir JOHN NEWPO RT rose to suggest a mode of dimi nishing this grant, by diminishing the interest upon the debt which the Commissioner s had contracted. Part of it, he ob served, paid 6 per cent. intereet. 'The improvements which these Commissioners had made tended not only to in the beauty, but to promote the health of the City of Dublin. After a few words from Air. Goim.nunet and Mr. Alder man Woon, the grant was voted without a division. The following grants were then agreed to : £2,500 for the Farming Society of Ireland. £3OO for the Royal Irish A ca d emy . £5OO for the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests. £19,938 for the Linen Board of Ireland. £16.800 for Board of Works in Ireland. £16,000 for printing,, station ery , and other disbursements, for the Chief and. Under ecret a ,_ y's Office in Ireland, &c. Mr. HUME wished to know whether the reform promised last year with respect to the prices of stationery was carried into effect ? Mr. GOULBURN was 1101 aware that any promise had been given. Mr. HU3IE said, that it had been understood that the prices of stationery in Ireland were to be brought down to the level of those in Eng,land. Mr. GOULI3URN said, that the prices could not be brought to that level, because the greater Part of the paper consumed in Ireland was English paper. The course now taken was this : a list of prices was ear from England, and upon those prices 10 per cent.additional was allowed in Ireland to the patentee, besides 13i per cent, in consideration of his sup plying the stationary rota:., which saved the expence to Govern ment of a separate establishment. Sir J. NEWPORT thought it more than questionable whether the Crown had power to grant patents for the supply of articles for the public service. The effect of this system, which was a remnant of the monopoly abuse of the reign of Elizabeth, was, that we were paying 16i per cent. fur stationary in Ireland more than we paid for it in England. What advant.Ne it was to Ireland as a country that the paper consumed there should conic from England, he did not well understand ;—(hear!)-- and he thought that if the clerks made shift to write upon Irish paper, it would be, to say the least of it, quite as well. M. GOULBURN said, the paper was furnished at the low est rate at which the public cOuld possibly be served. The Right Hon. Baronet asked, why persons in the different offices could not write on Irish, instead of using English paper.— Now, he believed the Right Hon. BaronetThimself, when he was in office, never write on Irish paper. tWe understood Sir J. Newport to dissent from this.] He was convinced, that if the Right Hon. Baronet had such a number of letters to write as fell to his (Mr. Goulburri's) lot, he would hare been anxious to use English paper, on account of its superior smooth ness. lie was sure the Committee would agree with him that there was true economy in procuring a moderately good article at an advanced price, rather than a bad one at a very low rate. Mr. HUME said, when he, last year, proposed that the printing of certain public documents should be executed in Eng land, by which a saving of 2,500/. might have been effected, the Right Hon. Secretary exclaimed, " Oh ! .how can you think of injuring Ireland. by taking from her this branch of the public printing ?" Now he wished to learn, why the Right Honourable Secretary did not adopt the same principle with respect to the purchase of paper ? He was informed that Alderman Maguey, and other gentlemen, who had paper manufactories in the South of Ireland, could supply all the stationery that was wanted. As to the inferiority of the paper, lie would only say, that if they gave a fair price, they would certainly procure as good an article as they could get else where. Much had been said of the right of an individual to sup ply the Government office of Ireland with paper ; but did not gentlemen recollect that Sir Samuel Shepherd gave it as his opinion that there was no patent.—(Hear !)—And why should they countenance this monopoly in the person of such a man as Bradley King ? —(Hear, hear !)—He also would cry " Hear, hear !" and he would ask whether any man could place his hand on his heart and say, that the transactions which had been brought before Parliament, and in which Mr. Bradley King had taken a very prominent part, were fair and just?— (Hear, hear!)—lf any person declared them to be correct and ' proper, it would surprise him very much indeed.—(Bear, hear !)—Many an individual had been discharged from his situation, who had not done half so much as Bradley King was proved to have clone by documents which were familiar both to that and the other House of Parliament. Mr. GOULBUItN.—The Honourable Gentleman had asked, why he (Mr. Goulburn) would not take the print ing from Ireland, at the same time that he felt no hesi tation in procuring paper from England. The answer was simply this—that the Irish paper was much worse than the English ; but that the Irish. printing answered the ob ject as well as the English printing would do. He would not stop to inquire whether Mr. King had a patent or not; but if he furnished paper at a fair . price,and if, for a long time, a pa tent had existed, (even adinitiing, for argument's sake, that it was no longer good in law), these points, he conceived, were sufficiently strong to induce Government still to procure its sta tionery through the same channel. Mr. DAwsos and Mr. T. ELms supported the vote. Mr. HUME observed, that it appeared, from papers which had been laid before Parliament, that the . public had been de frauded to a considerable extent in the stationery department in Dublin. What was the excuse which was made on that oc casion ? It was fit that it should be stated, as it was truly extraordinary. Why then they were told, that though the money went into the pocket of the master, it was totally with out his knowledge that the fraud was committed by his ser vant.—(Hear, hear !)—There ought, in his opinion, to be 2,000/. struck from this vote, which was paid in the way of commission. Certainly he hoped it would not be passed in the ensuing year without that reduction. Mr. MONCK said, if proper paper could not at present be made in Ireland, the best course would be to invite over a 'number of English manufacturers, who would very soon fa bricate a proper article. The motion was then agreed to. Mr. GOULBURN moved for a sum of 6,500/. to defray the expence of publishing proclamations in the Dublin Gazette, and other newspapers in Ireland, for the year 1824. Mr. HUME opposed the grant, which, he contended, ought to be reduced to 3,2501. He could see no reason why a mode of promulgating proclamations should be adopted in Ireland different from that which was followed here. It had been over and over again stated from that (the OppOsition) side of the House, that the system pursued in Ireland, with respect to the publishing proclamations, was selected for the purpose of bribing a great part of the public press in that country. Those who were thus bought over were ready to argue that black • was white, or white was black. It sometimes happened, when there was not one of those convenient in struments in a county in which an outrage, calling for a proclamation, was committed, that that proclamation scarcely appeared on the scene of disturbance, though it was profusely published every where else. Thus the charge to the public was increased, whilst the effect of the proclamation was in a great measure destroyed. He had before shewn the absur dity, partiality, and injustice of this system. It was proper that i. shouPt be altered, and therefore he should move that the suns of 3,250/. be substituted for 6,500/. The former suns was sufficient for keeping up the Dublin Gazette. Mr. C. H. HUTCHINSON could not conceive why the Right Hon. Gentleman should call for precisely the same sum this year as he had done in the last ? What reason had he to suppose that the proclamations would be equally numerous? Mr. GOULBURN defended the grant, the amount of which, he observed, was calculated with reference to the pro bable expenditure. Of course, if there were any surplus, it would be accounted for. He wished it to be understood that the notices of commutation under the Tithe Bill, which, in con sequence of a clause inserted in that bill, at the suggestion of the Hon. Member for Limerick, must be inserted in the Ga zette, had last year • created an expellee of 2,000/. ; so that, taking this into consideration, the grant was by no means a large one. If the mode adopted in this country for the dissemi nation of proclamations were acted on in Ireland, the expence would be double that which he now called upon the House to sanction. Mr. S. RICE said the allusion which the Right Hon. Gen tleman had made to the expenditure of 2 ,0001., m consequence of the clause suggested by him (Mr. Rice), had only plunged the Right Hon. Gentleman into a greater scrape. The Right Hon. Gentleman had called for a grant of 0,000/. before that clause was brought in. It .vas therefore apparent that he had demanded 2,000/. more than the circumstances of the case at the moment justified.—(hear !) After some further conversation between Mr. V. FITZ GERALD, Sir J. NEWPORT Mr. BENNET, an d Mr. Gout- BURN, the Committ ee divided, when there appeared-- For the motion • • - 51 For the amendment, 27 Majority, . - —24 Mr. GOULBURN then moved for the sum of 5,0001. to defray the expense of printing and binding the Public Acts, for the use of the Magistrates and Public Offices in Ireland. Sir JOHN NEWPORT opposed the grant. The sum now called for was 1,3001. more than that demanded last year. Mr. GOULBURN said, the vote of last year was 1,3001. short of the actual expenditure. Mr. MONCK objected to printing the Acts in this manner. Upon the same principle, they ought to be printed in Scot= land and in Wales. Why not print all the statutes in one place ? Mr. GOULBURN said, if the Acts were printed here, the cost would be greater than that incurred by printing them in Ireland. Mr. HUME moved as an amendment " That the vote be postponed until information was laid before the Committee to enable them to judge of its propriety." Mr. GOULBURN could see no reason for such a postpone ment. The amendment was ultimately withdrawn, and the resolu tion carried. The following votes were then carried : £24,000 for Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Proceed ings in Ireland. £5,200 for deficiencies of last year, upon the subject of the grant last mentioned. £8,843 for the support of Non-conformist Ministers of Ireland. £4,254 for Seceding Ministers from the Synod of Ulster. £756 for Protestant Dissenting Ministers of Ireland. £1,072 for salaries of the Irish Lottery Offi ces . £4,000 for the completion of the Harbour of Howth. £15,000 for Irish Civil Contingencies. £4,500 for expences of Inland Navigation. £27,000 for expences of Police and Watch Establishments of Dublin. 4 7,140 for salaries to pay Commissioners ofJudicial-Inquiry in Ireland. Sir NEWPORT eulogized the fearless and impartial con duct of the Commissioners. 4 1,651 to pay the salaries of Commissioners of Inquiry into the Receipts of the Land Revenue in Ireland. £5,100 to pay the salaries and expellees of the Record Com mission of Ireland. ------- £1,115 for Superannuated Allowances. £lO,OOO for Improvements in the Road between London and Dublin. • £5,000 for expences of Trigonometrical Survey of Ireland. The House being resumed, the CHAIRMAN reported pro gress, and obtained leave to sit again.—Report on Monday next. The Slave-trade Piracy Bill went through the Committee.— Report on Monday next. . Mr. HUME wished to know when it was intended to take the discussion on the measure. • Mr. LUSHINGTON said it would suit the convenience of many gentlemen to take it when the Report was brought up on Monday. next. The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at ONE O'CLOCK. LIST OF THE MINORITY For reducing 3,0001. out of 6,000/. for printing Government Advertisements in Ireland.—March 18. Althorp, Visct. Hume, J. Rice, T. S. Allan, J. H. Hamilton, Lord A. Rumbold, C. E. Bennet, Hon. H. G. James, W. Rickford, IV. Calcraft, J. Kennedy, T. F. Robinson, Sir G. Calvert, C. Leader, IV. Smith, J. Duncannon, Visct. Monck, J. B. Tierney, Rtiln. G. Evans, W. Newport, Sir .T. Webbe, E. Hobliouse, J. C. Parnell, Sir H. Wood, 31. Hutchinson, Hon. Palmer, C. F. TELLE R. C. H. Robarts, G. Gordon, R. SILK TRADE.—Yesterday afternoon the Silk Weavers again collected around the House of Commons, and lined the passages and wayi leading into the body of the House. They, however, were by no means so considerable in numbers as on former occasions, hut they conduc ed themselves with all their wonted decorum and respectfulness. Along the sides of the passages, up the steps, and below the lobby stairs, parties of them were stationed, exhibiting large placards to the followi►►g effect :—" Silk Trade.—Pray vote against the repeal of the prohibitor!) clauses, and thereby save the Silk Trade from destruc tion, and thousands of familhs from ruin." By seven o'clock the crowd had retired, having learned that Counsel were not to be heard till Monday. PRICE OF FOREIGN STOCKS Ix LONDON, Manci;ifv, AT ONE O'CLOCK. ( Five per Cents. lON. 1 Scrip, In pm. {Six per Cents. 00. Five per Cents. (Metallic) 00. Ditto New 94.1. Five per Cent. Bonds, 892, Scrip, 13 prem. Five per Cent. Bonds, Spanish Ditto Ditto Five per Cent. Bonds, 1 Ditto New, 97. Portuguese { Bonds, 96i. Scrip, 4. Danish Five per Cent. Bonds, 99. Peruvian Scrip, 00. -• Chili 82. Colombian Six per Cent. Bonds, C 94. Poyais f 00. . New, 24. Hallett's, 1 prem. Anglo, 44 prem. Scrip, 74 prem. 2 prem. —lB. ' Bank Shares £24 Os. ed . Seven per Cent. 95. Six per Cent. 94-102. Five per Cent. 100—.102. Three per Cent. 77. Fr mai Russian Neapolitan A ustrian 18: 7 1.), 00. 1821,201. 1823, 98i. Prussian Alex ican Alines Mexican Greek Insurance:Share American If 1G H WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE TO-MORROW. Morning, 16 minutes after 6. 1 Evening, 4$ minutes after 6• PARMA AIENTARY PROCEEDINGS• ITO USE OF COMMONe. Veneris, 19" die Ma.rtii, i S c 24. aX' PORT OF Lomnox—Accounts presented—Amports an , ports ; Ships and Vessels ; Goods warehoused ; Frontage 0 4 Legal Quays ; Vessels moored ; Arrivals and Departure:.` Steam Vessels • Depth of Water off St. Catherine's, antler gal Quays ; Vessels which can with safety discharge ; P be treme Tonnage of Ships;—to lie on the table, and to printed. ROADS—Bluemantle Hall, Buckingham and Towcester, govt Street, and Teddington and Evesham—Bills orde u . to be brought in. Porthdinll aen , C o l ne , H arwe ll, and Pa t trington—Bills read a first time. Wilm s lo w Bridge, C arn j bridge and Ely, and Scartho—Bills read a second time, an committed. COMPANIES —PortabIe Gas—Bill ordered to he brought in " London and IVestminster Oil Gas—Petition for leave to 1 3. r; sent a Petition for Bill reported, a nd l eave g i ven ; Pain° fbr Bill referred to a Committee. CH CH—Oldham:—Bill read a second time, and commit iej. Barnsley—Bill read a third time, and passed. PAVlNG—Lancaster IxcLosußE—Swanland (York) HARBOUR—Brenogue GAS LlGHT—Edinburgh COAL TRADE—Dublin, and Sunderland IIIAnEET-11Iaidstone CANAL—Lancaster IBMs ordered to 1/1 Trr nEs--Cockerham, and Lancaster j brought in. P IMROVEMENT—EYeShain POLlCE—Bathgate—Bill read a second time, and committed. Poo a.-41u11—Bill read a third time, and passed. NAVlGATlON—Medway , —lleport on Petition for additional provision to lie on the table. CHAPEL—Maidenhead—Bill read a second time, and CO rnitted. RAiLWAY—Stockton and Darlington—Petition for Bill report ed, Report to lie on the table. LOCAL TAXATlON—Dublin—Petition of Inhabitants of St' Michan, Dublin, complaining therof •to be printed. • trfa 1.1 CA xs—Petitions of Licensed Innkeepers and Victuallers of Bridgwater, Christchurch (Spitalfields), Bristol, St. pan eras, Hounslow, Portsoken • and Billingsgate Wards, WI Bath, for the repeal of the increased Duties on Licences ; to lie on the table. ASSESSED TAXES—Petition from. Bridgewater, for the rep e 3l thereof; to lie on the table. HIDES AND SKINS REGULATION BlT.L—Petitions of Tar , ' ners, &c. of Lichfield, against, to lie on the table. COMBINATION OF WORKMEN LAWS—Petitions of Journey' men Shoemakers, &c. of Bradford, Bristol, Rochester, Port' sea, and Saddleworth, against, referred to the Select COM' mittee on Artizans and Machinery. DISTILLERY Laws—Petition of Distillers of Perth, for al lowing the importation of Whiskey inti England, to lie en the table. StrAc TRADE—Petition of Retail Silk Mercers, &c. of London , . praying that the drawback may extend to cut pieces ; of Wholesale Dealers of Glasgow and Paisley ; anti of Mena facturers of London, in favour of alteration of the Duties to lie on the table. COUNTY COURTS BlLL—Petition of Fletcher Rigge, Uf Northallerton, for compensation, to lie on the table. Woor.—Petitions of Inhabitants of Wellington, against the exportation of Long Wool unmanufactured ; to lie on the Bills read a Ist tif►C• FISHERIES (Ireland)—Petition from Dungarvon, for a conti nuance of the Bounties, to lie on the table. FISHERIES (Scotland)—Petition from Crail, for the 'rep's' tion of the Laws applicable to the Salmon Fisheries, to lie on the table. LINEN BouNTlEs—Petition from Cork, to defer the repeal.: to lie on the table, and to be printed. WEST INDIA PRODUCE—Petition of Merchants of Cork, for the extension of the Revenue Inquiry Commissioners to the Custom-house expences attending the intercourse with the West India Colonies; to lie on the Table. MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS—That they have agreed tb Mutiny Bill, Marine Mutiny Bill, Four per Cents. Bill, sued Gaol Act Amendment Bill. JURIES (Scotland)—Bill considered in Committee ; farther consideration of Report on April 2 ; Bill, as amended, to be printed. UNION DUTIES ACTS—The following Resolution reported and agreed to, and Bill ordered to brought in : " That the Duties on the various Goods, "Wares, and Mel' chandise, .specified in an Act of the last Session of Parliament for repealing the Duties on certain articles, and for providing for the gradual discontinuance of the Duties on certain other articles, the manufacture of Great Britain and Ireland respec tively, on their importation into either Country from the other, and which are thereby continued for certain limited periods* 1 , shall cease and determine, and be no longer payable." ORDERS OF THE DAY FOR MONDAY. 1. Cattle 111-treatment Bill—Further consideration of Report. 2. Judges in Wales Bill—Committee. 3. Clergy Residence (Ireland; Bill—Further consideration of Report. 4. County Gaols Bill—Further consideration of Report.. S. Tithe Composition (Ireland) Bill—Second Reading. . • 6. Game Laws Amendment Bill—Further consideraticea of Report. 7. Postage Rates Bill—Report. 8. Constables Act Amendment (Ireland) Bill—Second Read ing. 9. II ecovery of Penalties Bill—Third Reading. 10. Customs Acts—Committee thereupon. 11. Silk Trade Bill—Committee ; Counsel to be heard.. 12. supply—Report. 13. Supply—Committee. 14. Ways and Means—Committee. 15. County Courts Bill—Committee. 16. Officers in Courts of Justice (Compensation for losses in .consequence of County Courts liill)—Committee there upon. 17. Slave Trade Piracy Bill—Report.. 18. Penitentiary Convicts Bill—Report. 19. Insolvent Debtors Bill—Committee. 20. SuVly—Report. NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR MONDAY. 1. Mr. Ashhurst—Select Committee to consider the allowances granted to Bakers by the .53d Geo. 3, c. 116, in those places where the Assize of Bread is set. 2. Mr. Bankes—British Museum Estimates. (In Committee of Supply.) 3. Mr. Luskin„ ton—Army Extraordinaries ; Commissariat. (In Committee of Supply). NOTICES GI VEN YESTERDAY. Tuesday,,.yarch 23. _ _ Mr. Martin (of Galway),--Bill to regulate the proceeding by Outlawry, and subsequent proceeding by Custodiafn thereon, in Ireland. Thursday, April 1. _ _ Sir John Newport,"-Bill toCstalilish a Modus for the Tithe of Flax grown in Ireland, in like manner as it is now established by Law in Great Britain. PRIVATE BILLS—SECOND READINGS for MONDAY. 1. Carmarthen Roads 8. Faversham Road 2. Brighton and Newhaven 9. Counter's Bridge Canal Roads 10. Phcenix Gas 3. Bridport Roads 11. Dublin Oil Gas 4. Bideford Roads _ 112. MargateandßamegateGas 5. Kingsbridge Road 13. Ashford Improveiiient G. Great Torrington Roads 14. Bolton Waterworks 7. Cheltenham Road 15. South Lynn Poo: