The Sun. — London, England, 1834-04-24 00:00:00

c,he Or" rn ; a pit he wo xd Ley !nt He 01 1 of l ero 1 ill t of ) - ob L ad )0(1 ;ing " k ti : ) urabi bthZ 'Pbecause he was confident if he had the means of show- R the commercial statistics of Ireland since the , yea I:2, he would not feel himself called upon to argi i i i , the i ease fur ther. In fact. the measure of 1825 deprive_ .. th , , house of the most valuable information that could ossibl) s e e s ' upplied upon thepresent discussion ; and he hoped . that f ong snine means would be devised for ascertaining the li cross -channel trade and by that means the exact pro ; li Portions borne in it , by England and Ireland' He nehxe 1 • knumber and ' l ame to show the increase which had taken place in the i ports of Irelandtonnage of 'vessels entered inwards in the 1 i lnfor between the years 1790 and 1834. This ma t; 01 1 would be found in the document marked No. F, - From that Paper it appeared that the number of ships te ! I th 'ered in „ Wards for the triennial period terminatingonh 4,,,,, of ' J anuary, 1790, was 7,243, and that their tonnage ;"' 4 ° ,l rited to 6-)2 013 tons. But what was the number .. ' 1 ,„ -a ,," t "nage of the ships entered inwards for the triennial V,"od terminating on the sth of January, 1834 ? Between i, e ,and 1834 no fewer than 15,189 ships, with a e tonn as ag a e 'i•vr0'",123,291 tons, were entered inwards. proof of a w de l' e i i Pt In of a failing country ; here was Butho a w pr and when had theill i n ti g r Pres P erit Y I (Hear, hear. ) ta,l ( place ? Had it taken ij %.,, cutieaseotf_ e the tonnage 1 , '‘;-'r Crd h Irish Parliament ? No. (Hear, hear.) Ithe, al. from its taking place under the Irish Parliament_ " e w as a trifling diminution in the number of ships, if 1,. nou n the 4, Peri od tonnage, upon the computation for the triennial 1 nit er endin g in 1800. (Hear.) . e . number of ships 1 4 1 790 e" I nwards within the triennial period terminati t ng wa in s :h ; w as x,243, while for the period ending in 1800 i o t rt 7 i; : a trifling diminution unquestionably, but still hi th e Y cif notice. ( Hear, hear.) Since the Union, both '. 44 n uMber of ships and amount of . tonnage an increase ta the k en Place. For the triennial period ending in 1810 eriod ending in tor,: u nb .. er of ships entered inwards was 8,3 . 93, and . their f ao s t ' 6 4,658 tons ; for the triennial p , a l , t ,.. e number was 10,955, and tonnage 96 , 1,884 ;for azia ;lennial period ending 1830 the number was 13,337, ill I to ,''anage 1,325,079; and for the triennial period t r , as he had already stated, the number e l, fere l e s as n ,lB9 g , I tirnb e e to nnage 1,523,921 tons. As far, the eri le , 4, l ' and tonnage of the shipping of Ireland was ' con ( Pera t , t he whole of the increase took place under the Wa s t ° t , of the Imperial Parliament, andno portion of it I sere be attributed to the Irish Parliament. He would 41 1 ,4 0 a little out of his line, to remove a great delusion r l tibr n '' assage in the speech of the hon. memberwhich 11 41(1. 1 d W as Calculated to create. The passage to t ho Ct i , . t ` i, eons °At i-iinwas that in which the hon. member sought to prove umption of articles in Ireland had decreased 1 41 - g e hi'a tk e Union. The means by which the hon. member stf_ h e i o „ tike end were ingenious, but he thouhtm and, o after estit's• Ile took, say the article of tobacco, o ' Irel..g that the increase of consumption union n t o o n ba w cc as o in t th s 'ld within li the 20 Years previous to the i : c 4 riri rate ° f per cent., and in England (at the same y ear s )"" at the rate of 64 percent., and that within the 20 1.? kl ü bsequent to the union te rate of increase in ~sa n „ be 27 per cent., while in Ireland the con thatl.lr,rn decreased ed at the rate of 37 per cent., he argued ttpe,;`"e difference between the two proportions showed the )0 , - L°f matters in Ireland. Now that he contended was Pr,'„ - L ectly fallacious conclusion. To compare Irish with h' l ,°"sh consumption on such a basis as that used by the 4it% and learned member proved nothing whatever, and he :',', l i at once proceed to demonstrate the grounds on h,'tn he made the assertion. He would put a case to the i 5 „. 4 4. He would suppose that he (Mr. S. Rice) con- Wi t " h !ti one hogshead of wine in a year, while another party 1,,,,:n the same time consumed ten hogsheads. Now sup i, tw o al place of one hogshead a year he was to consume we r e and that th e ot h er party instead of ten hogsheads, p ro to consume fifteen, what would be the result of the th o P ° rtion ? In the first instance, namely, in the case of nu:Taller consumer, there would . be an increased con , at e ton of 100 per cent., while in the other instance, e r , of the large consumer, there would be only an in ' or e ° , f 50 per cent. But which of the two increases \l' - uo not lore indicative of wealth and prosperity ? b ,Idd not h Ili the Party who added five hogsheads to his 1, t,,4 a er rY ous ee t n h a su n rn p th ti e ou pa h r e ty considered more wealthy and thi a Ption by one single hoshead? who only increased his (Hear , hear. ) Now he,‘.course was strictly applicable to the argument of the ' Pet k i a nd lear ne d member y for Dublin. Everything de -•,,i0 on the • and looking at the cal ''',atj point of departure, petiau asserted that it proved nothing. l 'i -e''s o f the hon. member in that point of view, he (Hear.) But to be. r L it to the subject of trade and navigation. It would toutZollected by the house that in the report of the corn rity ;° l l the subject in 1830 it was stated, on the autho- 1 e kpo tt Sir Charles Whitworth's tables, that the annual Lad iLrade of Ireland for the seven ears between 1823 "ha ~.—v amounted but to the sum of 2,000,0001. Now, po rt t '' t,. , ° nid the house think when he told them that the C u ‘ ° nien t 'le of Ireland to Liverpool alone at the present . ' "aeh tit ex ceeded that amount to a considerable extent? duc ed as the proof of the growing poverty of Ireland ad ,theta i l „, t he hon. member and his co-repealers. But to ir SO i ii t —a do a little matter whether there was a decrease . 4 1 4 re e t a eaSe in consumption. (Cheers.) If there was l ' u 'ert e • se m consumption it was stated to be a proof of r lear ) i if a decrease was visible it was equally so. !solved T he fact was, the advocates of repeal were Prove herot be poor, and it was lost time attempting to t hey s,, ed i t o r ha y ot so'. Poverty was their deity, and \\orsh e resolved that none other should be (~ ' °Vt5 Of yet t he Pied in Ireland. (Laughter.) It was proved that eased, and"n `sauce was Yet it had of late years considerably . i 1 ., was thrown out that that very circum ountsv. But'roof of the poverty and distress . of the nisi ' j how had the vast increase in . the alto. et f i c e Nrt trade to En land arisen ? It had arisen Nit r I T the aphcati g on ef steam navigation to that h. y, andther ,' trust e d • e wa s in that mighty element apower which the ' 4l er I n many other respects would yet prove de tll,,, 6 Ire t o t h e eatue of repeal; it would defeat repeal in 1 ''Sji, rst P l ace by bringing the two countries more directly in 1 . hy ~ Would make c ' I 4 ; i t Idthem know each other (and they Per b anted to know each other to become mutually pros rely : 18 ); it would induce English capitalists to settle in f th ' y! .4 d, and employ their resources to the improvement . o the ,country ; but, above all, it would prove beneficial to 11 .k s `,„wo countries, by approximating their markets, and by 111 , 9 4 on a solid basis that connection, the most per l'' k .u t of all, be it observed, which arose out of mutual 41 g 11 4 --- , Ole ' ar, hear.) The trade of Ireland was improv t'e ',,l u dlY under its influence, and there was every reason tha l s ' o r d t that that improvement was fixed on a permanent Irr eet l i; basis ' He would here take the opportunity of 'subj ect e ' of ‘ ti, Ir. p 1'1„,,,a stAternent which the hon. member for Cork Ale member C onnor) was reported to have made on which he the of Limerick, the county of Ireland more immediately connected. That was reported to have stated--(he r !I°t whether correctly or otherwise, but, unlike some b ht°l(2olllividuals Whom he could name, the hon. member g o e r goetWasroott,ever Made observations out of the house which this it aa a r b e e Pared to repeat within its walls, and th Iti 4 4, ' or ether _ .. easy to ascertain whether the report was p, (ls ) t o tanlcl i se)---that it was very easy for him (Mr. S. 4 tie e ritv, b cd . the imports of Ireland as indicative . of li so its ' st , but that if he looked to his native city he would 04 1 ' 1 1 to breets covered with grass. Now he was most )r d toerir.totlbtsable to relieve the hon. gentleman . from t hat'. 11 ° Pon the condition of the city of Li to hear 1 , 411' s° st'''out would be glad, fet sure, it was ra_ teri Y ,, a nti e t te u. °M that city being grass-grown, er o ' Ns oadvancing in prosperity . . Biit the pros- Nitrity 15 ' he was happy to . say,.contined to Limerick. aeai l , s4 }., at i a a :s making rapid strides in every district of the absent ' hin t „ i f the gentlemen whom he now . saw arrayed Itti bles s • o " ct uld only allow its people to enjoy the I . ong e - Nv : ° f t" i ll of a little tranquillity (Loud cheers) h %%le „,s° cps in the world more likely to assume an 1 " . 'l ' t " 81ti °4 and rank. (Renewed cheers.) (here k i ‘ O l e ars rad , ,! Which had made rapid strides within the last et, telate'd that was the trade in porter. A few year e s t tt acl t4''le ree • h as an importing country in that article t a t i r % sU Ppi v 7.1 4 at the present moment not only did e 'At er ' eon I the wants of the Irish people, but there was rif ti,6llly ,-S.'derable export to England and the Colonies. hay c e - ,, ls hed for their own sakes, as well as for the sake ~nat..4ielves'lltritr that certain . individuals would confine "et '°e• of mor e to the brewing of porter and less to the (11 14 In% Political scenes, which, in the end,. must turn ittoN. hear, for themselves as for their country. ded. li ' a rh-4' hear ) But he might be asked, supposing N t it liti ß "`, as he" alleged it was, that Ireland, instead oi at c V ai q was a dvancing in prosperity, whence arose the e c 4 t at ior Qr .,,the peopre ? He confessed he could not e 'els' and I, " .11 of them (Hear. ) For some of them ~Niail,,,°f, thZthought saiisfactorily, but not for all of them. ncti log '" arose from the alteration in . the mode ol ,keei7,4°, o f `:'l-ornercial business in Ireland since the intro 'llc'cl ' 4 4 4.ar n navigation. Formerly merchants used to t ac- NiZ i siti r , s t°res in the .different ports . of Ireland for S - 5 a s - 6 of merchandise until required ; bu . , at . w ilie i the English markets became approxim they uia.s.'"hed ibutrodection of steam navigation, _- Pk - the .I"se stores, and only sent for goods accord 4i4 ht, whey requir.., to t'cL them. That was one cause of coni ,4ecjetting fa„. m ot others wre of a similar character, on ; I ,ne ~,1 tha n ~e from a change in the constitution o " 4 4 °° vern,,,' 'Nil any particular defect in the system . b ed tottedrelteit tote-4aftent of the country. The topic to which. ite t i h h th acute Was one of considerable importance. tiPou e hnion e stag of the manufactures of Ireland previous d th at if -I t he . ,., 'his was a topic which was much pressed t ot ,f to. th e 7,: ° cates of repe - al, their constant cry being -v° -'llll f 4 W ere repealed an imlse would be given Pres`e„not o,a,ctures of I' land.Novw he was prepared to tli,, •". la -"I tree le manufactures at the tip :, Unie h r4 eitt at the state of ttie . .. 4 ' R ''' L 'lt '4. " more flourishing than it teas before °f the wnd,torit,bat it was so flourishing by reason of t e the,,, n erd ' b e l 'cr, that repeal would, in the fullest . sense t hee. them sid t , Ruh deathblow deathblow to its prosperity. First, let Ghho efwe th e " l t i tat was the state of the Irish manufac aeisUlTeft° Whai ri° n• Upon that point he would refer , - , - Noc ee ', ria n , ", e onstituted the very best evidence . on li 'tera tio e n tlt • e ° l 4 - j e a the petitions presented to the Irish fined"'e b ean. in th ining of distress, and praying for , at, ,_'''d the commercial laws of the country. 1\ ow , le a' tl, e ' u t thos e d u o u e _se to attend to him . while he briefly re 'clared . ora th e "ments. The assertion of the . repealer 'n.ia • its ind Period at which the Irish parliamenthat sinel4ll3.tlnhit,s.ePendence, up to the year 1800, Irelanc h„,i'rupted pros erity • that such• as 11 satfered were then pr ' unknown ; and that the peasantry, the 'manufacturers, and the artizans were both busy and happy. Now he would beg the house to contrast that assertion with the list of petitions he was about to read - to them t— "On the 3 ,th of Octal Cr, 1771, p titian was received from Cork, representing that th, tif,.cturers :and artificers there were in the utmost di,trt s ; • i.e on the 6th of December :bilowing a similar petitioa way r. ivrl . from Wexford. _ _ _ On the 31st of October, 1763, the Lord Mayor and eiti7,:sns of Dublin petitioned for duties tm imported goods, and restraint.; on the exportation. of ma,erials, to re-establish the almost ruined manufactures;' and on the 3.1 of November following petitions were received from the Guild of Merchants in Dublin, and from the inhabitants of Dublin, Cork, Queen's County, Csrrick.on.Suir, Roserea, and other places, representing that Ireland was pregnant wills the most alarming circumstances of distress.' " On the 2%th of January, 17, , 8, Mr. Edwards, of Old Court, county of Wicklow, petitioned for money to enable him to ma nufacture fl,rest cic.a, and bring over a number of manufac turers' families fr,m England And on the 31st of the same month the Londonderry Gre?nland Fishery Company pet,tioned for 3,0011. to build refining-houses, and to ri pay the expenses incurred by their outfit, and by bring ng from England expe rienced officers, artificers, harpooners, and s amen and alsa all the materials necessary for carrying on the fishery.' " On the 13th of February, 179.1, 111e4srs. O'Reilly, of the Argina Iron Works, Leitrim, petitioned for 10,000/. t:, carry on their works, as they had incurred heavy expenses in their outfit, and ' by employing foreign artificers.' " On the 25th of January, 1793, Messrs. Gregg and others pe titioned for aid to mMU facture delph and • earthenware in Bel fast, their expenses h ,ving exceeded their expectations, and having been obliged to bring their workmen from foreign places.' _ _ " Un the 25th of February, 1723, the parishioners of St. Luke's, in the Liberty of Dublin, petitioned against the police tax, representing that the greater part of them were dependent on the produce of their labour as manufacturers, which af forded them a very scanty subsistence,' and that within the preceding twenty years the parish had declined considerably in value. " On the 18th of March, the servants of the Irish Nobi lity and tientry petitioned, comp Lining of the employment of foreigners. _ _ •' On the sth of February, 1794, the Corporation for the Relief of the Poor of Duhlin petitioned for aid, reprPsenting that the dearness of provision and fuel was one of the principal causes of distress. " In 1797 a Bill was presented to the Irish Parliament to re gulate the wilding of houses in Dublin, and prevent the exten tion of fires. Petitions against it were received from the Cor porations of Carpenters and Bricklayers, and also from the journeymen carpenters, who declared that they were already reduced to the utmost distress by want of employmzii , .' " The idea of builders praying the Parliament not to pass a law to protect houses from fire was certainly a ridiculous one, but certainly it was not more absurd than that for which, in all probability, some of their descendants were now petitioning—he need scarcely say the repeal of the Union. So far as to the general state of trade and em ployment ; but the petitions emanating from particular trades presented an equally wretched and deplorable pic ture. He would content himself by stating a few of those petitions:— " On the 31st October, 178,3, a petition was received from the broad cloth manufacturers of Dublin, representing that, by the importation of cloths and the exportation of materials, they were then in a state of unparalleled distress.' And on the fol lowing day a similar petition was received from the working worsted-weavers. " On the s;h February, 1787, a petition was received from the woollen and worsted manufacturers of Dublin, representing their great di-tress, and praying for aid to avert the necessity of turning their workmen ad, ift. On the 12th of the same mouth a similar petition was presented from Cork. " On the 30th of April, 1793, a petition was received from the Irish woollen manufacturers generally, stating that, from the commencement of the failures and distresses in England, the goods then in preparation in Ireland, and those subsequently fabricated to keep the workmen employed, were all remaining oil hands; and that they were unable to continue employing the working people. of whom there were nearly fitteen thousand in wretchedness, who would perish unless relieved.' " On the 18th of June, 1792, a petition was rt ceived from the working worsted-weavers, &c., of Dublin, representing that they were then reduced to penury and famine.' " On the :list of January, 1788, a petition was received from the manufacturers of sattinets, &c., in Dublin, representing that they had laboured under insupportable distress during the pre ceding year, owing to the price of materials, and that more than one-half of the working manufacturers were then, 'by want of employ's ent, reduced to a degree of wretchedness beyond de scription.' " On the 21st of June, 1793, a petition was received horn the working silk-manufacturers in Dublin, representing that silk weaving was nearly annihilated ;' that, in 1791, twelve hun dred looms were engaged in silk fabrics in Dublin ;' and that nine-tenths of the persons then employed were subsequently re duced to penury, and were a burden on their fellow-citize ns .' " On the Sth of February, 1787, the cotton manufacturers of Belfast and Drogheda, the principal manufacturing towns, re presented to Parliament that they could not carry on the trade without a bounty of Si. per cent. on the value of their home sales, in addition to the protecting duty charged on im ports. •• On the 30th of April, 1793, the Irish cotton manufacturers represented that from the commencement of the failures and distresses in England the goods then its preparation in Ireland, and those subsequently fabricated to keep the workmen em ployed, were all remaining on hand, and that the petitioners were no longer able to give employment. " On the tith of February, 1788, the Irish calico and muslin manufacturers petitioned for the repeal of the import ditty on cotton yarn, as otherwise their trade could not be extended. But counter-petitions from the cotton-spinners were presented on the 10th, 12th, and 15th of the said mouth. The spinners of Prosperous, county of Kildare, stated that they had no ad vantage trom their trade in the preceding year hut the amount of the protecting impost of lid. per lb. And the Dublin spinners represented that'two.thirds of their machinery had been idle during the preceding twelve mouths, and that the remainder would be unemployed if the duty on imported cotton yarn were repealed. On the 13th of February, 1797, the cotton-weavers of Dub lin petitioned for an increase of the import duty on British manufactured grey cottons, as great numbers of Irish weavers were then reduced to beggary."' But of what character were the measures of the Irish Par liament ? Were they founded on principles likely to provo a check upon the distress so generally complained of ? He would cite one instance as a specimen of many. In order to protect the interests of one or two colliers a tax was im posed upon all foreign coal. This was done at the instiga tion of the owners of the collieries, who, in order to enrich themselves, limited the Irish people to the option of using a bad article, or of paying a heavy tax for a good one. The hon. member, in the course of his speech, stated that the repeal of the union duties were more for the benefit of the manufa c turers of England than those of Ireland. If arti o c f l e ever there wa s a m i s t a k e , th a t certa i n l y was one. Wh at w protecting of wastorise T t h h e e price the of the eff ect ;? It protection. the consequence wasthat the artificers were confined to the mar kets where the fine was imposed, from which it must at once be obvious their interest s were prejudiced. But what was the fact? Why, when the last reduction was declared to take place on a certain day, the merchants and manufac turers, finding that the previous reductions had been at tended with great benefit to themselves, petitioned Parlia ment that the final repeal should take place immediately. (Hear, hear.) He thought he had now given a complete answer to the hon. and learned member. (Hear, hear, hear.) There was something in the name of a pro tecting duty which had a strong temptation to those who were ignorant of its real effect, and of that temptation the hon. and learned member, it was well known, had availed himself when exciting agitation upon the repeal question. In Ireland the hon. and learned member had stated re peatedly that if the union were repealed he was ready to consent to a protecting duty on Irish manufactures to the extent of twenty-five per cent. This he stated in Ireland; out he would not state it in that house, for he felt it would not answer his purpose to do so. (Hear, hear. ) Ireland was an agricultural country that required a supply of English manufactures, whilst England was a manufac turing country requiring to be supplied by Ireland with corn. If, therefore, it was good for the people of Ireland to send corn to the people of England, and if it were good for the people of England to return manufactures in exchange, what became of the argument that the export of corn was the cause of poverty in Ireland ? What became of the doctrine of giving Ireland the benefit of duties which would restrict this mutually beneficial trade ? The hon. and learned gentleman was bound to vote against a repeal of the union if such were to be the consequences. This ap peared to him to be a most important part of the question. It was second to none, and the state of the manufacture of Ireland was a matter upon whichhe wished earnestly to fix the attention of the house. The hon. and learned member had stated that there had been no inquiry into this subject oefore the union, but he was most egregiously in error. There had been published the long deliberations in the committee of the whole house. There had likewise been an inquiry into the state of Irish manufactures. One gentleman had stated that the manufactures could not exist without a protecting duty ; and another had said that a duty of from 30 to 40 per cent. ad valorem was necessary to secure the home market, and that every wise legislature would secure the home market, as it was exclusively supplied by home manufactures. Mr. Gallighan had considered the superintending of the parliament necessary for the protection of the silk trade of Dublin, and yet all that was done in his time was to send over to England to get the Spitalfields Act, and to fix the point of wages be tween labourer and master. But he would come to the subject of sugar. Mr. Cross had said that before the union there had been twenty sugar-houses in Ireland, and that from ten to twenty men were employed in each; and he (Mr. S. Rice) asked whether it would be necessary to call on parliament to repeal the union in order to keep up the protecting duties on twenty sugar-houses? The next point was very important. Mr. Grimshaw, of Belfast, had said that the manufacture of cotton goods in Ireland cost from 40 to 50 per cent. more than in England, owing to the price of coals and labour; but now, since the union, cotton goods were actually printing in Belfast for Man chester, in consequence of the removal of the absurd pro tection which was one of the consequences of the repeal of the union. Mr. Williams had said that Irish glass be fore the union had required a protecting duty of thirty four per cent., and that it was otherwise out of the power of Ireland to manufacture or send a single article of this sort to England. What was the case now ? [he Irish manufacturer not only sent his glass to England, but he was able to compete with the English manufacturer in the foreign market. He had a letter in his hand from a gentleman of the highest possible autho rity, giving an account of the state of the cotton manufac tures in Dublin. He had said that there had been two manufacturers in Dublin, and that they were both bank rupts. Now calicoes were printed in Dublin, and sent to England and Scotland, and one house alone had exported to the value of 80,000/. ; and this was owing to the free intercourse between England and Ireland, and to the re peal of the protecting duties. The silk trade had decidedly improved. The tabinet-workers were fully employed, and raw silk was sent from England to be thrown in Ireland, and to be returned. The export of porter from Dublin was remarkable. In 1792 the porter and ale consumed in Ireland was imported from England ; now Ireland was au exporting country. The tanning trade, with the manu facture of oil of vitriol and of bleaching-powder, were nog• thriving in Ireland. But the manufacture of machine:, had sprung up in Ireland, which was the best proof of ai that manufactures in general were thriving. He shook say, if any one thing more than another could prove tin thriving state of Ireland since the union, it was the fact of that country passing from a rude and simple stat, of manufacture into the use of machinery. But the country having arrived at this stage of manufactur ing industry, how was capital to be employed in it ? Unless there were tranquillity, unless then were security for property, unless there were secu rity for life, how could it be expected that capitalist: would invest money in fixed manufactories, and expos( themselves to agitation and convulsion ? (Hear, hear. ) When manufacturing industry was rude, and simple agita tion was not productive of so much evil, the peasant might escape with his loom, or would suffer little by the loss of his loom ; but the capitalist, who had 100,0001. to invest in fixed property, aslong as alarm was excited, felt him self insecure, and as long as his home and happiness were likely to be disturbed by agitation, would say, " I will not risk any establishment in such a country." (Cheers.) The necessity of repose to Ireland was infinitely . greater now than it ever had been. There wAs not one single gentle man of Ireland, that threw that country into agitation and confusion, that did not incur the responsibility of injuring that country, and of depriving its inhabitants of the means of supporting themselves. (Hear, hear.) He would now return to the woollen trade. Since the repeal of the coal duties large steam-engines had been erected in Ireland, and there had been a very great extension of manufactures. The principal site of this manufacture had been Dublin, and before the union there had been 300 looms, and about 2,000 men had been employed in them. He would not name his authority. Mr. GRATTAN here requested the right hon. gentle man to name his authority. Mr. S. RICE—He would not name, but he would state his reason for not naming, lest it might be said that he was speaking fro m anon y mous au th or it y . S uc h a question was dealt with very quietly on this side of the water, but it was a very different case on the other side of the channel. Even he himself had been denounced before a large meet ing in Ireland because he differed in opinion from certain gentlemen in that house. He did not complain of this, but he did lament that if a fault should be found in him, it should not be found within that house, where he would have an opportunity of answering it, rather than before an excited multitude. It had been told to the people of Ire land that there was no chance of justice being done to their country as long as he continued to be a servant of the pub lic. This had been said. It was too much the custom to hold up persons to public obloquy for merely a difference of Opinion, but he did trust that it would be found that in no case had he ever acted unjustly. When he found that the Irishman who was hostile to a repeal of the union was de clared to be weak and wicked, and deserving of contempt, or dishonest, and deserving of execration—when a person for differing in opinion on this subject was even held up as deserving of assassination—when he found that names, vulgar, abusive names, were unjustly applied to individuals of the highest rank and respectability, the hon. member would excuse him if he now refused to give up the names of those from whom he derived his information. He would expose no man to be held up as an object of public execra tion to a misled and excited populace. He spoke upon the best information, and all gentlemen who had known him, and he trusted that the house would not believe that he was capable of manufacturing such statements, or of giving them an undue colouring. (Hear. ) Mr. GRATTAN—WiII you give the facts ? Mr. S. RICE was happy to give the facts. There had been 300 looms in Dublin employing 2,000 individuals of all classes. Small as this number might appear it was tolerably correct, for the importation of English wool was not allowed. Spanish wool was not imported, and Irish wool was alone worked up, and this was coarse and amounted to only 8,000 bags, equal to 4,000,000 stone, which, at 15s. a stone, amounted in value to 256,0001. This was not equal to the consumption of two Yorkshire manufactories. The trade had been ruined, not by the acts of the English Parliament, but by the combinations of the Irish workmen. Such had been the effects of the protecting duties. The abolition of the anti-union duties had given a new impulse to trade, and were it not for agi tation the Irish manufacturer would have nothing to fear from competition. He would now come to what had been said respecting the woollen trade of Kilkenny. The offi cial returns had shown that the number of mills worked by water was only eleven. The woollen manufactures ol Kilkenny had always been confined to coarse cloths and blankets until 1806, and all the operations had been carried on by manual labour. Afterwards water-power mills had been introduced, and now the manufactures had increased two or three fold. Carpets were now made there, and this perhaps accounted for the petition from Kidderminster in favour of the repeal of the union. Dr. Doyle had said that if artisans could be convinced of the evils of com bination great advantages would result to them and to the country at large. At Kilkenny, whilst he (Dr. Doyle) was there, 400 artisans had applied for relief, and the blanket manufacture had been extinguished. Although the artisans were relieved out of the public funds, yet when the manufacturers received an order they would not work except upon higher wages than the manufacturers could pay. What, then, became of the Kilkenny case ? So far from the union having injured the manu facturers of Kilkenny, it had nothing to do with it. He would now say a word on the linen trade. He de plored the necessity of detaining the house with details of this description ; but he had no alternative. (Hear.) He held in his hand a letter from an individual in the north of Ireland. That letter denied that the linen trade had suf fered from the union. At present linen goods were manu factured much more extensively than before the union. The Irish Parliament, by prohibiting the importation of foreign yarn and flax, had deeply injured the linen manu facture in Ireland. The Parliament of Great Britain, however, had acted more wiiely. That branch of the Irish manufactures which had been almost lost by the absurd conduct of the local legislature had been regained by the better system of policy which had been adopted by the Im perial Parliament. In answer to a letter whi c h h e h a d written to ascertain the state of trade at Belfast and its neighbourhood, he had been assured that one single mill at present produced more yarn than all the mills in the North of Ireland had done before the union ; that the protecting duties which formerly existed had greatly retarded the pro gress of the trade, by preventing competition ; that it was difficult at present to procure a sufficient number ol brewers, that they were never before so comfortably off; and that the same remark was applicable to all the work men engaged in the foundries, and to the millwrights. And yet the hon. and learned member for Dublin held out pro tecting duties as essential to the success of the manufac turers in Ireland. It appeared by the same letter, that since the union, nine flax mills and fifteen cotton mills had been erected at Belfast, and ight more were in pro gress. He thought, therefore, that he had completely made out the proposition which he wished to establish— namely, that the manufacturers of Ireland had greatly risen since the union, and that the cause of their progress was the freedom of intercourse which the measures of the imperial parliament had introduced in contradistinction to the unwise policy of the local legislature. (Hear. hear. ) To repeal the union, therefore, and to return to the old system of restriction on trade, would evidently tend to the utter destruction of the manufacturers of Ireland ; and he called upon hon. members opposite, who must now be ren dered aware of that fact, to go back to Ireland and unde ceive the people on the subject. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Limerick knew the true interests of commerce too well not to be aware that if the union be tween the two countries were dissolved, and a system of drawbacks and bounties, such as existed before the union, were re-established, the effect upon the manufacturers of Ireland would be most detrimental. And yet it was such a state of things that the Irish manufacturer had been taught to believe was all that was requisite for his pros perity. Let him be undeceived ; let the manufacturers of Ireland become good political economists, and sure he was that they would become stanch anti-repealers. (Hear, hear.) He would now address himself to the condition of the city of Dublin. They had always heard it stated, that before the union the city of Dublin had been in the greatest prosperity, but since the union it had fallen into the greatest decay. Now he found that so far back as the year 1780 the greatest distress had existed among the weavers in the liberties of Dublin. The hon. and learned member knew well where those liberties were, for his use ful and benevolent exertions had frequently mitigated the sufferings of their inhabitants. It appeared, however, from the statement of a gentleman of the highest character, and of the most unwearied charity, of the name of White law, that before the union the condition of the weavers and their families, who resided in the liberties of Dublin, was such, that anything more horrible it was impossible to con ceive. Mr. Whitelaw described the difficulties which he found in reaching a house to which he was directed for the purpose of relieving the tenants from the dreadful distress under which they were labouring. He stated that the roof was shattered ; that torrents of water were pouring into every room ; that nothing could be more frightful than the gaunt and sallow looks of the unhappy wretches whom he saw ; that in one garret seven persons were dying of want; that the landlord, unable to obtain any rent, had taken up the floors of the apartment, which nevertheless contained thirty-seven persons, all in a state of extreme destitution. This description proceeded from an authority of most un questionable character. It related to a state of things a year or two before the union ; a state of things, there fore, which could not be considered as a consequence of the union. ( Hear.) He did not mean to reason from this particular instance to any general conclusion, but merely to show by it that great distress did exist at the period in question in the heart of the great metropolis of Ireland, and that it was not too much to suppose that the general condition of the people of Dublin before the union was not so exceedingly prosperous as it was now repre sented t o b e . B ut what had occurred in Dublin since the union ? It had been maintained that the trade of Dublin had decayed. What were the usual indications of the decay of trade in any place ? The destruction of houses, and the abandonment of the inhabitants. He held in his hands a calculation of the number of houses—and houses of no common description —which had been built in Dublin since the union. From that calculation it appeared that the number of houses which had been built since the --. inion, within the Circular-row, was 2,213 ; and that about 1,000 had been built within what might be called he city, but wit! out the Circular-row. It might be said, , ahaps, that these houses were of a mean and wretched escription. Such, however, was not the case, Fitz illiam-square had been altogether built since the union. Jerrion-square had been completed since the union. Fitz .villiam-street, Sackville-street, and a variety of others, lad either been entirely built or completed since the union. the value of the houses which had been thus erected he ,vould bring to a fair test. He would calculate it upon he average value of the houses in Dublin. The number if houses in Dublin was 70,324, of which the rental was about 701/. Now taking the average rental of the whole city of Dublin as applicable to the houses which had been built since the union, he found that the rental of those houses was 123,526/. Was not that a proof of , ecreasing prosperity ? Was the building of houses a ?roof of the decay of a city, and the increase of rental proof of the poverty o' its inhabitants ? (Hear, hear, hear.) But this increase was not confined to Dublin ; it ran through all the towns of Ireland. In Limerick, Bel fast, &e., buildings had greatly increased since the Union. Fhe hon. and learned gentleman had told the house that the people of Ireland were taxed to build Regent-street and the National Gallery in London. In the first place it should be remembered, that the workmen employed in these erections were principally Irish. (Hear, hear.) But if the people of Ireland had contributed to the improve ment of London, the people of England had equally contri buted to the improvement of Dublin. And here he must beg to allude to one part of the argument urged by the hon. and learned gentleman which appeared to him most extra ordinary. The hon. and learned gentleman contended that injustice to Ireland had been done in two ways ; that injustice had been done to her by increasing her tax ation, and that injustice had been done to her by dimi nishing the expenditure of . public functionaries. They had been charged with reducing offices in Ireland, and it had been alleged that of that reduction the Irish had a right to complain. Undoubtedly the Irish had a right to the maintenance of whatever establishments were neces sary for the interest of the country. But to say that esta blishments ought to be kept up, not for the purposes of public business, but for the benefit derived to individuals from the expenditure among them of the salaries of the officers of such establishments, was, in his opinion, to talk the most absurd nonsense conceivable. The hon. member for Middlesex would recollect that soon after his Majesty's present Government came into power, the hon. and learned member for Dublin had asked whether it was not their in tention to abolish the offices of postmaster-general and vice treasurer of Ireland. There had been no difficulty in an swering that it was the intention of his Majesty's govern ment to abolish them. But was it reconcileable to common decency to press on his Majesty's government, within the walls of Parliament, the expediency of reducing certain establishments, and then to go back to Ireland and com plain to the Irish people of the injustice which they suf fered from the reduction ? (Hear, hear.) He was per fectly at a loss to conceive how the hon. gentlemen oppo site could justify or account for conduct so extraordinary. He approached his end. (Cheers and laughter.) lie as sured hon. gentlemen he felt the most earnest gratitude for the indulgence which had been shown to him, and he would justify their kindness by going rapidly over the re maining topics which it was his duty to touch upon. It was not his case—he repeated it was not his case—it was the case of his country (Loud cheers) ; and though he should not be so vain as to call himself the counsel for his country, he would still be bold enough to assert that he was on that occasion the advocate of usefulness. (Cheers.) In what he was now going to state he knew he subjected him self to unpleasant personal allusions—he knew he should be taunted as one without feeling—as cold-blooded and heart less. This was ever the meed of those who, not believing in, had the manliness to deny tales of distress. There was, he believed, nothing which would render a man more thoroughly unpopular as doubting dis tress. Now, he did not doubt the distress which had so often been alluded•to—he grieved, indeed, there ever should be distress--and if any efforts of his could ever relieve it, no man would strive for so good an end more eagerly or more zealously ; but he repeated lie was not doubting that the distress in Ireland had been ag gravated since the union—he was not doubting, but he was denying it. (Hear, hear.) In a curious manuscript on the state of Ireland in the year 1740, which had by chance come to his hands, he found that from the revolu tion down to that period, the land had been so reduced that it had cost five millions to renovate it ; and he also found that every third or fourth year in this period Ireland had been afflicted with a scarcity. Thus he found such a state of distress that grain had to be imported from abroad ; he found a periodical famine ; he found heavy taxes un posed on almost all raw materials, and yet he was told that the legislature of Ireland had been a boon and a blessing to her people. (Cheers.) In 1770 he had a description of Ireland and the moral condition of her people--all this be it understood, before the union—from the pen of the celebrated Arthur Young ; and he found from it, pretty plainly, that there was a " larger law than that of liberty— a power which allowed a man to break another's bones— knocking one another down in a fashion that would really make an Englishman stare." This statement might be exaggerated, but still it showed the severity which the rich exercised towards the poor—the tyranny which the high assumed over the low—at the boasted period ere Ireland had lost her paternal legislature and been bound in the withering bond of union with England. (Cheers.) Could any thing better prove the progress of amelioration in the condition of the sister people ? Where was the man in that country who dare now use his horsewhip to his tenant, de pendant, or humble neighbour? Who dare take the law into his hand? Who dare put might in collision with right ? Where was he—bold and daring indeed— who would even dream of such a thing in a country where all now knew their respective rights and respective stations—where all (save those who were lost to all shame) respected and maintained them ? (Cheers.) In proof of his position as to the increased comforts of the Irish people since their connection with this country, he would refer to the evidence of Mr. Musgrove, of ill.. Millar, of Mr. Williams, of Mr. Clayton, and of many others, given be fore the committee of 1830, all touching on different points, yet all arriving at the same conclusion—the gra dual improvement of the country : not alone in manufac tures—not alone in agriculture—not alone in commerce —but in everything which constituted the wealth, the prosperity, and the true greatness and happiness of a state. But he had other proofs of what he said. Oh ! he had many others—he had them in abundance ; and would, but that lie had already greatly wearied the house, produce them at once. (Cheers.) There were one or two he would just refer to. About the year 1825 an Act of Par liament was passed, giving the power to transfer stock from one part of the empire to another, for the advan tage of receiving the interest in any part where the per son entitled to it might happen to reside. And what was the amount of funded property transferred to Ireland ? No less than sixteen millions : thus giving an increase to her national income of 562,000/. per annum. (Great cheering.) Now, would the honourable and learned member for Dublin (Mr. Ruthven) say that Ireland was getting poorer—that she was getting every day more and more steeped in misery ? No ; he was by far too candid. (Loud laughter.) He (Mr. Rice) would tell the house what remarks would be made on this subject in Ireland. It would there be told to the people that this sixteen mil lions was an amount not of wealth to her, but of debt. —actually of debt; and this would be pointed out by those who could, and seldom hesitated, to point out things their own way ( A laugh), as one in the long catalogue of conse quences which had resulted from the union with England. Another fact—for facts were the things for that house— other than facts might do out of doors. (Cheers.) The total amount of property passing by probate had increased since 1819 from 2,000,0001. to 3,612,0001. Surely Ireland was not so utterly ruined as had been stated. (Laughter. ) There had been strong political causes at work, which had at one time great effect on the savings banks, causing dis tress and ruin to many a poor man ; yet, 'notwithstanding all these exciting causes, the deposits, during the last year, had amounted to 349,0001., and the sums drawn out only to 252,000/. (Hear.) There was another case in point more particularly referable to the higher classes, and it was almost the only thing in which a comparison might be in stituted, as it was well known there were no assessed taxes in Ireland—he meant the duty on wrought plate, which had risen, on an average of three years, 1801, 1802, and 1803, with 1815, 1816 and 1817, 65 per cent., and on an average of the period first mentioned, with 1827, 1828, and 1829, 197 per cent. This increase--this large increase, was on an article of pure luxury, usedby a gentry who were ruined—in a country which was deserted. Surely these facts showed how utterly fallacious were the statements and prog nostications of the hon. and learned gentleman who had opened the debate. (Hear, hear.) Another proof of the progress of civilization and the increase of comfort was to be found in the number of Roman Catholic chapels, and the extent to which many had invested their money. He rejoiced to see these edifices rising, for they were unde niable indications of the humanizing influences of religion. In Dublin there was, previous to the union, only one Ro man Catholic chapel of any extent; now there were eight or nine of large dimensions, one of which he believed had cost little less than 40,000/. Again, lie thought that the very large contributions which had been made by the peasantry of Ireland on several occasions, and these for political purposes, showed that there state was not quite so distressing but they could help a friend in need. (Loud laughter, and cheers.) Another proof of his argument that he should very hastily glance at was, the increased domestic intercourse, as shown by some canal returns. He would take the Grand Canal, the Royal Canal, and the Borough Canal. On the first comparing the years 1831, 1832, and 1833, with 1821, 1822, and 1823, there was an increase of sixty-two per cent. ; on the second, of sixty-one per cent., and on the third of forty-nine per cent. The tonnage down and up had also increased twenty-six per cent. So much or the internal traffic which, combined, as it ought to be, with the increase of the export trade, gave a damning negative to the assertions which had been so boldly, and, as he thought, so recklessly hazarded. The same results would be found by investigating the other modes of communication in Ireland. He had greatly condensed these points, for lie felt the necessity, after so long detaining the house, of so doing ; but if honourable members would, at their conve nience, look closer into them, he was satisfied they would be more than ever convinced of that for which he was coo, tending—the great benefits which Ireland had received from her connection with England. (Hear, hear:) And now he had closed his case—he 'stood on his eVidence• ' and ha he called up on t e house to state whether he or the! and learned member for Dublin had right and truth and . reason on ins 7;'-'l2: Hts thanked the liseise deeply for hav ing s o l ong an d so p a ti e fitly Eats-tied to him—their indul gence had been great indeed; belt hP eottld net take that indulgence to himself ; he who had nd cl tim, frowever fondly he might aspire to it, could not, ought not, dare not appro priate it ; he knew it was given to the consideration of that grave--he might say, that awful question in which wtat ina , olved the happiness, the interest, aye, the very existence of this country. (Cheers:) That was indeed no ordinary contest; it was not an ea - gin:tient for victory, but for truth; a inighsier stake had been played for—greater duties were to be performed—the duty of shrouding in everlasting ob livion p ersona l con t es t s an d par ty diff ere n c e. (Great cheering.) The conduct of hon. members ought to be swayed solely by the consideration of doing their duty, for they would have to answer .t to their own conscience now —to a more terrible tribunal hereafter. They ought to forget for the moment that they had Constituents, and act as if they had a country—a country's honour, a dOitntry's just liberty—a country's happinessaloneto strive for. (Chea'a They had great names to think on—high titles associated with the question—glorious c eeds ; but they had greater motives than these to inch ce them to bestow their at tention on a subject whip h it was impossible to hear debated without being animated by the spirit of those mighty men—alas ! too soon departed, whose • names were still green in the pages of history. He would adjure them to look at this question in such a light, and to treat it in such a manner, as to deserve a far . higher reward than that_ of becoming members of that 'house. Even an unreformed Par ifiment had treated Ire land with a liberality that ought never to be forgotten. Where would the Catholics of Ireland have been, but for the liberality and the constancy of the English Parliament s many members of which, with a courage that time only, and the justice of mankind could do full honour to, advo cated manfully their claims, in all circumstances, under every disadvantage, without regard to personal inconveni ence, and often not merely at the risk, but at the certainty of giving high displeasure to their constituents? (Cheers.) What sacrifices had not there been made, how had the yearnings for personal eminence, how the ambition of parties, been lost ,in one overpowering feeling of affection for the peace and comfort of their common country ? (Cheers.) And had not the later days shown even sterner examples of ennobling patriotism—where the bonds of affection had been rent asunder, where the ties of kindred had been rudely severed, the endearments of home aban doned—where every connexion that had previously soothed and delighted had been given up, for Use sake of the per formance of what appeared to him a duty to his country, even though, in fulfilling this duty, after all his previous sacrifices, he went in the very teeth of one of the most powerful constituencies of the .kingdom? [We suppose the right hon. gentleman was alluding to Sir R. Peel's conduct on the Catholic question.l It was, indeed, not uninstructive in these times, that they should look back to the period previous to the union, and to the bear ing since of the Imperial Parliament towards Ireland—that thy should glance at the grovelling conduct of the inde pendent legislature, as it was called—its selfish designs and ignoble trafficking, and compare it with the anxiety, the willingness, the readiness, the eagerness of the English Legislature to do its duty. (Cheers.) On this subject there .could be no compromise, neither should there be. (Great cheering.) He should meet the proposition of the hon. and learned member for Dublin in the most direct manner possible (Cheers), and he should call on'hon. mem bers to support his amendment, and justify their votes by the great interest which was at stake—regardless of any despicable triumphs which a fleeting and spurious popu larity might offer to them. He should take the liberty, before he sat down, of quoting words infinitely better than his own—words that might be looked upon as the dying legacy of the great Henry Grattan—great because he was essentially and truly good—words which embodied advice of the purest and wisest character, and to which on that important occasion, he earnestly invited the attention of those he was then addressing :—" I most strongly re commend that the two countries may never separate, and that Ireland should never seek for any connection except with Great Britain." (Cheers.) [Mr. Rice here took out a paper, evidently supposing it was the copy of his amend ment, but it proved to be otherwise, and the right hon. gentleman, though assisted by several of his colleagues, was unable to find it. This accident caused a good deal of con fusion on the ministerial bench, and considerable merri ment in the house, Mr. Rice resuming the speech, which had evidently been finished, in order to give time to his friends to find the missing document.] He would ask hon. gentlemen did they consider that this sort of connexion asked for by the hon. and learned member for Dublin could last one twelvemonth except by force of arms? (Loud cheers.) He (Mr. Rice) maintained, that if they once granted the repeal, the connexion would go next, and then there would rise up a fierce democratic republic (Great cheering from the Treasury benches, vehemently responded from the repeaters)—a democracy which some might hail as a blessing (Renewed cheers from the re peelers), but which he, happily a subject of a constitutional government, mild in its form and just in its operation, should deplore as one of the greatest evils that could befall his country. (Cheers.) If such was not the object of the hon. and learned member for Dublin, what could be made of the beginning of his speech ? Why the reference to America—to Bonaparte? Why, in referring to the United States, - use the words " and now I approach the Atlantic, and feel the fresh breezes that come from a country where" (Great cheering, in which the close of the sentence was entirely lost.) What but such a motive—such a hope, could account for such language as the following :—" The emancipated convicts of Botany Bay have a Parliament of their own—we have none, and we arc eight millions. ( Cheers.) The slave drivers in the West Indies, and the fishermen of Newfoundland, have domestic legislatures— we are without one, and we arc eight millions. (Hear. ) The United States of North America, the western boun dary of Ireland (Cries of "Hear" reiterated) threw off the British yoke, and gained freedom by the sword—they were three, and we are eight millions." (Cheering.) What was this but an appeal to the spirit of democratic liberty ?—what was it but an attempt to raise up the hydra of democracy on the ruins of sound constitutional liberty ? (Cheers. ) Again he would refer to the words of Mr. Grattan, and then close. That great man, on this subject of a repub lic, said:—" My next advice is, that the people of these countries should not look to a demoeratical government. (Hear, hear.) They are not fit for it. (Cries of " Hear" reiterated.) He did not wish to cast any disparagement upon his own country, but he would ask the house whether it would feel itself justified, with this knowledge of the state of party feeling in Ireland, to hand over the people of that country . to the mercy—must he use the word—of a domestic legislature? Did they think that the contest and collision of opinion, which such a measure would in fallibly produce, would not produce in Ireland a civil war ? ( Hear,hear. ) Did hon. gentlemen think that because they possessed a certain force in certain parts of Ireland, they could compel other parts of Ireland to submit ?" (Loud cheers from the Irish Anti-Repeal members. ) He (Mr. Rice) denied that there could safely be any indepen dent legislature in Ireland ; it would create two parties, between which a contest would arise, quarrel and crime would follow, and the ultimate consequence would be the entire subversion of the constitution of the country. Again he thanked them. If he could have safely com pressed his matter more, he would have done so, but he preferred the risk of wearying the house to any thing which could bear even the appearance of a neglect of duty on so important an occasion. He must throw himself in some degree on the courtesy of the house. He was placed in a situation of great embarrassment, having an amend ment to propose in the shape of an address to his Majesty, the copy of which he had unfortunately mislaid. (Cheers, and cries of " Adjourn, then.") He would entreat the indul gence of the house, and state the substance of his amend ment, which was, " That an humble address be presented to his Majesty, and communicated to the other House of Parliament, declaratory of the fixed determination of that house to maintain inviolate the existing legislative union between England and Ireland, believing it to be necessary for the genuine good of the state, and the happiness of all classes ; that both on general and special grounds, that union had been hitherto eminently conducive to the inte rest of Ireland ; and that they had enacted, and had still under contemplation various measures for the good of that country, and concluding by an expression of their unalter able intention to persevere in their endeavours to remove any just cause of complaint, and to promote the happiness of her people, and the cause of sound and rational liberty." (The hon. gentleman then resumed his seat, and was for many moments greeted by loud and very general cheers.) The following was the amendment proposed on Mr. O'Connell's motion : We, your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons, in Parliament assembled, feel it our duty humbly to approach, your Majesty's Throne, to record in the most solemn manner our fixed determination to maintain unimpaired and undisturbed the Legislative Union between Great Britain and Ireland, which we consider to be essential to the strength and stability of the Empire, to the con. tinuance of the coni,ection between the two Countries, and to the peace and security and happiness of all classes of your Ma. jesty's subjects: We feel this our determination to be -as much justified by our views of the general interests of the State, as by our con viction that to no other portion of )our Majesty's subjects is the maintenance of the Legislative Union more important than to the inhabitants of Irela , .d ti,enlselves We humbly represent to out Majesty, that the Imperial Parliament have taken the affairs of Ireland into their most serious consideration, and that various salutary Laws have been enacted since the Union, for the advancement of the most im portant itterests of Ireland, and of the Empire at large In expressing to your Majesty our resolution to maintain the Legislative Union inviolate, we humbly beg leave to assure your Majesty, that we shall persevere in applying our best atten tion to the removal of all just causes of complaint, and to the promotion of all well-considered measures of improvement " Mr. FERGUS O'CONNOR rose and moved the ad journment of the debate. The SPEAKER said the amendment had not been seconded. Mr. EMERSON TENNANT seconded the amend ment, and moved the adjournment of the debate, which n w o a agreed rs being gt t h o id o a s m de s fe t a a te g d ood d in hi e s al in of m tent er i r on im o e f nt ad , Adrler. addr essing Co the house immediately after Mr. S. Rice. On the disposal of the different orders of the day, Mr. II TIME rose .anfl said, in allusion to the abolition of the ( - nee of Clerk of the Pi t e hi Scotland, that he was sorry the bill ; r - a.s having an opportunity of de:iariiig his ire conduct of 'his hen. and learned fi iud the member iii Leith, who had most gene firilAy relinquished its emuluments. His conduct could only be contrasted with that of the Marquis of Camden, who had given up so large, so magnificent a sum for the public service. (Hear. ) Mr. MURRAY thanked his hon. friend the member for Middlesex for the remarks which had fallen from him. He had resigned the profits of the office alluded to, because h felt it wtis a duty which he had owed his country. H e net deserving of the praise which had been bestowed upon hit*;. (Hear.) Mr. WALLACE said many offices had been bestowed by an individual well remembered, Henry Dundas, which were a disgrace to Scotland. lie was a radical reformer, and lie disowned them. The conduct of his hon. and E.arned friend the member for Leith had been so generous *lld noble, that he doubted if King William the Fourth would be received with more respect in Scotland than his Len. and ittained friend would be for his high and generous conduct. Lord ALTHOE.P must interrupt the hon. gentleman i!t his remarks. Without observing at all upon his allu e!ops 4o the Sovereign, and without saying whether he was (inite erjyrt , 4 in bringing the name of his M a j es ty b e f ore is house, he bifght to have remembered that King Wil liam lind, on his anititig„ to the throne, given a large por tion of his hereditary raenties to the public. ( Hear, hear. ) Mr. WALLACE explained; and the house adjourned et half-past twelve o'clock. CALL OF THE HOUSE. The following is the list of Members who did not attend the call of the House on Tuesday, and who were ordered to attend last night. Those printed in italics did not ap pear, and no excuse being offered for them were ordered to attend this day : Mr. Hamlin Adams Mr. Henry Elegant Baring Mr. W. Bingham Baying Mr. Biddulph Sir Richard Bulkeley Mr. Edward Lytton • Bulwer Mr. Calley Mr. Cobbett Sir John D arymple Mr. Daihwood Mr. Dick Mr. Thomas Dundas Mr. Esteourt Mr. Fancourt L•ud James Fitzroy Mr. James Grattan Mr. Hallyburton Mr. lieneage Sir Robert Heron Sir Alexander Hope Sir Frcder:ck Johnstone Mr. Lamont Mr. Lennard Dr. Lushington Mr. Methuen Mr. Meynell Sir Gerard Nod Lord Visconnt Newark Mr. O'Grady !Aril Ossulstoil Mr. Owen Sir lichry Parnell Mr. Petri' Sir Richard Philipps Mr. Poyntz Mr. Pryse Pryse" Mr. Seale Mr. Frederick Shaw Mr. Mansel i alba Mr. Mikan ache Lord Charks Townshcnd Sir it- ben Vaughan Mr. Whitbread Sir Hedworth Williamaan Mr. Peers Williams Sir W. Williams Wynn Mr. Williams Wynn Captain Yorke HIS MAJESTY'S LEVEE. Their Majesties arrived at St. James's about a quarter past 1 o'clock yesterday afternoon from Windsor Castle, and were received on their arrival by the Duke of Cumberland and the Duchess of Gloucester. The Duke of Sussex, the Duchess of Gloucester, and the Princess Sophia lunched with the King and Queen. The King - held a Chapter of the most Honourable Mi litary Order of the Bath, for the purpose of investing Lieut.-General Sir H Taylor with the ensigns of a Knight Grand Cross of the Order. The following Knights Grand Crosses assembled at the Palace, and were robed in their crimson satin mantles (having the star embroidered on the left breast) by Messrs- Hunter and Webb, wearing also the collars of the Order, viz. :—Their Royal Highnesses the Dukes of Cumberland and Gloucester, Admiral Lord de Saumarez, Lord How den, the Duke of Wellington, Lord Viscount Beresford, Lord Hill, Lord Cowley, Hon. Sir E. Paget, Sir J. Doyle, Sir W. Keppel, Hon. Sir C. Colville, Right Hon. Sir J. Kcmpt, Sir G. T. Walker, Sir T. Hislop, Lord Heytes bury, Lord Howard of Effingham, the Earl of Rosslyn, the Duke of Gordon, Lord Farnborough, Sir George Martin, Sir Harry Neale, Sir H. Fane, Sir James Whitshed, Sir Philip Durham, Sir John Byng, Hon. Sir Robert Stop ford, Hon. Sir William Lumley, Sir Willoughby Gordon, Sir Thomas Hardy, Sir Pulteney Malcolm, Sir George Anson, and Sir Thomas Dallas, attended by the following officers of the Order :—Genealogist, Walter Aston Blount, Esq. ; Bath King of Arms, Algernon Greville, Esq. ; De puty Secretary, Sir William Woods ; and Gentleman Usher, G. F. Beltz, Esq., in their mantles and wearing their chains and badges. At two o'clock the Knights Grand Crosses ware called over in the entree room, and with the officers of the order proceeded into the presence of the Sovereign in the throne room, with the usual reverences. Then, by his Majesty's command, Lieut.-General Sir Herbert Taylor was introduced to the Royal presence be tween the two junior Knights Grand Crosses present, pre ceded by Bath King of Arms, bearing the ribbon, badge, and star of the order upon a crimson velvet cushion. _ His Royal Highnes; the Duke of Cumberland having thereupon received from Bath King of Arms the ribbon and badge, presented them to the Sovereign, and Sir Her bert Taylor kneeling, his Majesty was graciously pleased to put the same over the Lieutenant-General's right shoulder. Sir Herbert Taylor, rising, had the honour to kiss the Sovereign's hand, and afterwards received from his Majesty the Star of the Order. Major-General Sir A. Wallace was introduced to the presence of the Sovereign, and received from his Majesty the insignia of a Knight Commander of the Bath. sir 11. Taylor was not knighted, having received that honour on a former occasion. his Majesty afterwards held a Levee. It being a Collar day (St. George's day), the principal members of the Orders of Knighthood wore the collars of their respective Orders. At the Entrée Levee there were present the Russian, Austrian, and French Ambassadors; the Sardinian, Neapo litan, Prussian, Swedish, Wirtemberg, Netherlands, Danish, Portuguese, Brazilian, Grecian, Spanish, and Saxon Minis ters; the Hanoverian Charge d'Affaires; the Lcrd Presi dent, the First Lord of the Treasury, the Secretaries of State for the Home and Colonial Departments, the Chan cellor of the ExChequer, the First Lord of the Admiralty, the President of the Board of Control, the Postmaster- General, the Lord Steward, the Groom of the Stole, the Master of the Horse, the Vice-Chamberlain, the Captain of the lion. Corps of Gentlemen at Arms, the Captain of the Yeomen Guard ; Lord Hill, Gold Stick in Waiting ; the Master-General of the Ordnance, the Judge Advocate General, the Treasurer of the Household, the Comptroller of the Household ; Sir Wathen Waller, Extra Groom in Waiting ; Lord Saltoun, Field Officer in Brigade Waiting; Major- General Macdonell, Principal Equerry to the Queen ; the Master of the Ceremonies ; Sir Ralph Bigland, Garter King of Arms ; the Master of the Robes, the Clerk Marshal, the Principal Chaplain to his Majesty's Forces ; Colonels Bowater and Horace Seymour, Equerries ; Lieutenant-Colonel Richardson, Silver Stick in Waiting ; and Master Graves, Page of Honour. Amongst the general company were— DuxEs—Rutland, Newcastle, Grafton. MARQUlSES—Queensberry, Salisbury, Graham, Bath. EARLS—Aboyne, Jersey, Caledon, Bandon, Howe, Ross lyn, Grosvenor, Chichester, Radnor. ViscouNTs—Alexander, Bernard. Loins--Maryborough, King, George Hill, Heytesburv, James Stuart, Walsingham, Radstock, W. Fitzroy, San don, Bolton. RIGHT HONOURABLES—CharIes Grant, Robert Grant, Charles Tennyson. Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry. Sias—Wm. Horne, Wathen Waller, IThos. Thompson, H. Vivian, J. G. Craig, J. Cross. HONOUR A BLES—MT. De Grey, Rev. James Saumarez, Hugh Lindsay. REVEREND MESSIEURS—KeysaII, Lord John Thynne, R. Musgrave, G. R. Gleig. MEssizuas—N. Wigney, M.P., Pulman, H. Story, Alex. Carmichael, Westmacott, G. Berkeley, Balguy, Herries, Grierson. ADmißALs—Sir George Martin, Sir James H. Whit shed, Lord 'de Saumarez, Sir William Gage, Sir P. Mal colm, Sir R. Stopford, Sir H. B. Neale, Sir T. Rodd, Lawford, Thomson, Sir P. Durham, Sir H. Neale, Sir H. Digby. GENERALS—Sir J. Cameron, Lord Lynedoch, Sir J.. Byng, Sir F. Wetherall, Lord Howden, Pearson ' Sir G. • Walker Hon. Sir C. Colville, Gascoyne, Sir R. Fergu son, Shrapnel, Sir A. Wallace, Sir G. Anson. CAPTAINS (R.N. )—Mildmay, Berkeley. CoLoNELs—Sir C. Thornton, Wilson, Bouverie, Mark ham, Sir G. H. Berkly, Bentinck, Douglas, Adye, Fer uson, Sir C. Dance, O'Reilly, D. Campbell , Nick le, Howard, Hare, Limond, Thackwell, Carmichael, Sir A. Christie, Macadam, Reeves. COMMANDERS (R.N. )—W. Hargood, • Rooke, Max well, T. Gill, Sir T. Thompson. MAJORS—Jones, Wells. LIEUTENANT (R.N. )—C• Mathison. CAPTAIN Lord F. Paukt, Vivian, Fenwick, C. Berkly, Hudson, Sir W. Smith, Mildmay. LlEUTENANTS—Fitzpatrick; F. Horn, J. Chambre, Crofton, W. F. Crofton, Drummond, Malcolm. Pay. master Eagan The following addresses were presented to his Majesty by the Duke of Newcastle • From the incumbent, curate, and congregation of St. James's Chapel, within the liberties of the Castle, in the county of Nottingham, for the preservation of Church and State. From the parish of Tollerton, in the county of Notting ham for the preservation of Church and State. From certain persons calling themselves " A Society for Promoting the Rights of Industry," in Manchester, signed on behalf of the society by James Lowe, Secretary. stating their view of the state of trade, &c., and praying an inquiry into the condition of the industrious classes, and that his Majesty will be pleased to rebuke his Ministers. Earl Howe presented a petition from the landowners of Weathersfield, Stambourn, Tilbury, Pentlow, &c., in the county of Essex, praying for protection for the establisheit church. Addresses were presented to his Maesty for a measure