The Sun.
London, England, 1824-05-19 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Mr. M. A. TAYLOR presented two petitions from Sun-
derland, praying for a Reduction of the Duties on Coals car-
ried coastwise. _ .

Lord EBRINGTON presented a petition from' Tavistock
in favour of the Oil Gas Bill.
Mr. WHITBREAD presented a similar, petition from the
Cities of London and Mrestminster.—Referred to the Com-
mittee.

Mr. MANNING presented a petition from the Proprietors
of the London Docks against the South London Dock Bill.
Mr. C. CALVERT presented two petitions from certain
Residents in the Cities of London and Westminster in favour
of the Oil Gas Bill.
Four other petitions to the same effect, trom parties of the
same description, were presented.
Also two similar petitions from the County of Middlesex.—
Referred to the Committee.
Mr. LOCKHART presented a petition from certain Pawn-
brokers against the Equitable Loan Bill.—Referred to the
Committee.

Several petitions were presented against the General Gas
13111.
Lord LOWTAER presented a petition from certain Shoe-
makers and Tanners in the County of Cumberland
against the
Hides and Skins Bill. Referred to the Committee on the
Bill.
Sir J. YORKE presented a petition from an, al
.n
named George Bennett, complaining of certain provisions

the Saving Banks' Bill, which were injurious to the intetestd
of Friendly Societies —Ordered to be printed. • . • :
Mr. H. DRUMM ON tYpresen ted a petition from the. County
of Stirling, in favour of a free trade in Spirits. Laid en the
table.

(Zr. V. FITZGERALD- presented a 'petition from a most
respectable body of landed proprietors or the County of Clara
against the repeal of the Bounties on Fish. Ordered to be
printed.
Mr. V. FITZGY:RALD also presented a petition from dei-
tain Attornies of Ennis, in the same County, against the
tornies Bill. Laid on the table. •

Mr. LOCKHART presented a petition from. certain Attor-
.
nies practising in the superior Courts at Westminster, tom-
plaining that their interests• will be injured by the COUnty.
Courts Bill. Ordered to be printed.

BEER .DUTIES BILL.
Petitions vrere present4against the above, Bill from Bridge.,
north, by Mr. W. Wirrr MORE ; from Peat, by Mr. Lvr-
TLETON ; and from York, by Mr. IVvirtm.. Laid on the
table.

Mr. MONTEITH presented a petition from a Scotch Burgh
in favour of a free trade in Spirits.
31r. HUME. observed that. it was highly necessary for serne
measure to be taken upon this subject.
-Mr..IigURIES-said, that the opinion of Ids Right Hon:
Friend. had been frequently expressed as the necessity of a,"
general measure for Nualizing the distillery duties--' but the
difficulties of the question were so great, that it was found im-
practicablt to bring forward such a measure until the-next
Session.

After a few words from Mr. T. Cox s, Mr. H. D RIT Matorrn,
and Sir IL FE lIGUSSON, the petition was laid' on the table.
Lord R. 311 ANNA RS presented petitions from Loughbtough
and other places.—Laid on the table.
Mr. 111111 E gay.-: notice that on Thursday next he should
bring forward a Motion for preventing Members interested in
Private Bills from sitting and voting on the Committees foe
such Bills.

31r. DAWSON said that in consequence of the indisposition
of his Ilight Hon. Frind, the Secretary of State for .the Home
Department, he wished the Hon. Member for Aberdeen to
Postpone his motion which stood for to-night, relative to Cok.
mitment by Magistrates.
HUMS postponed the Order for Thursday.
PALAMBANG PRIZE AIONEY.

Mr. HUME preSented a petition from certain persons who
were present at and engaged in the capture of Palambang, in
1812, complaining that the Prize Money due to those parties
was not yet paid. The Hon. Member thought it was disgrace..
ful to the Government that such delay should take place.
Lord STANLEY hoped that some explanation would 1)^
given why these difficultier, and delays occurred. -
Mr. HERRIES said; that as far as he remembered the cir-
cumstances of this case, it had been for some time before the
Treaktry, and they were prevented from coming to a decision
for the want of information which the claimants alone could
furnish. They had been informed of this, and yet they had
failed to furnish the information so required. if the Treasury
decided upon the case 'Without it, their decision must be util
favourable to the complainants, because they had neglected to
establish their claims. This was as far as he could state from
memory, the nature of the case; but if be had been aware-that
such a petition was coming before the House, he would have
informed himself more particularly upon the subject to which
it related.

After some further observations from Mr. Hunt, Lord
STANI.EY, Sir Ft BUDDETT, and Mr. HERMES, the petition
was ordered to be printed.
FREE THINKERS. -
.Mr. 111731 E rose to present a Petition which bad been in his
possession for some time, but which be had felt reluctant to
present, if it could have been avoided: The parties, howevei;
had pressed him either V) present it, or to place it in the liandS
of some other Members for that purpose ; and as he thought it
his duty to present any Petition which was proper and resped-
ful in its language, he had not felt himself warranted in re-
fusing. The Petition came from a number of persons residing
in Edinburgh, calling themselves Freethinkers, who com-
plained that the 'law did not protect them, and that they could
now only hold their meetings under the forbearance of the Law
Officers of Scotland. The lion. Member argued at some
length upon the impropriety of endeavouring to fetter inckuiry
in matters of religion, and deprecated the practice of maxing
martyrs of the unfortunate men who sold' " Pame's Age. of
Reason," and " Palmer's Principles of Nature." He under-
stood that one of the Petitioners had proceedings now pending
against bins on that account, and that hii books had been
taken from him. He had lately read a Decree, issued‘by
.Ferdinand• at Madrid, by which all persons were prohibited
from having books of inquiry and instruction in then. posses-
sion. But Ferdinand only took the books away from them,
whereas in Scotland the books were taken away and kept; and
the unfortunate person afterwards punished. Be did not ex-
pert, at the present age, to see the Law Officers of this country
or of Scotland running a race with Ferdinand, iii the suppres-
sionof •

give ill ra.nlyl
eUXllpilaEnasatii,..
The LORI) ADVOCATE said, that the lion. Member *as
not well informed as to the prosecutions now pending in Seot-
odn, that as
oth
jeml,eoarrtnaendt
aLrd subject,b rheefusshett:ltLot
Scot-
land, and he had no observation to make upon the petition. •
henceforward consider that there was a Holy Inquisition in
Scotland, and that the Learned Lord was Grand - Inquisitor.
The petition was ordered to be printed. .
Wareham ' .14;'t.
Mr. FLEMING presented a Petition from against
the Bonded Wheat Bill.—Laid on the table. . '...
Sir F. BURDErr presented ten Petitions from *the City of
Westminster, in favour of the Oil Gas Bill. . , `.
Mr. CURTEIS moved for a Return of all persOns whO have
made returns from the different Ports, of the Sales of .(,Orn
within the six weeks previous to the Ist of May. •. - ...
Also a Return of all Letters written by order of the Boasil of
Trade respecting fraudulent and delusive ReturnS of the.Sies
of Corn and Grain, with the Answers thereto,to tite'Corn n-
spectors of London, Liverpool, and Boston, or such 'other:COrn
Inspectors, as may have been suspected of making such Re-
turns ; and for a List of all the Returns of Sales.of Cotß.and
Grain made in the sit weeks previous to the month of, flay,
where such returns exceed fifty quarters.,-Ordered.
Mr. E. ELLICE gave notice that when the Bonded Wheat
Bill should be in the Committee; he should move a clause
exempting Canadian Wheat float its operation. .
DERRY CATHEDRAL. - 0.

• Sir J. NEWPORT, seeing a Right Hon. Baronet in his
place, wished 'to ask him a question as to whether he had' be-
come acquainted with the existence of any document or record
by which it appeared that there was a fund provided for the
repairs of the Cathedral of Derry.
Sir G. HILL said he was ready to give a full answer to the
Hight Hon. Baronet's question. When he introduced a Bill to
the House upon this subject, he believed that there were no
Other means of providing for the repairs of the Cathedral but
by an assessment on the inba;itants. Not expecting. the fkiilure
of the Bill, he had prepared to collect evidence to bring before
a Committee up stairs, to which he was desirous that the Bill
might be sent. In consequence of the research which had.been
made for thatpurpose, he had since been informed from Lublin
that a record had been found, from which it appeared that a
fund had formerly been appropriated for the purpose of re-
pairing the Cathedral.
Sir J. NEWPORT gave notice that he should to-mcrrow
move to have the document laid upon the table-

Meinber
. LEATHER TAX•
Mr. CALCRAF T.S. name having been called—
General GASCOYNE rose to
for Wareham, that for the more full consideration of the ques.
would be better to wait for
tion he was about to propose, it
the Report of the Committee propose, the Hides and Skins Bill.
suggest to :he Hon.
The evidence of that. Committee iwou d greatly strengthen-the
Hon. Member's case.
he was glad,
Mr. CA LCRAFT
said ken beforethough not surprised,
to hear that the evidence . this Committee was '
fa-
vourable to the object be had in view ; but he thought b
..e al
evidence as strong as any which
ready possessed c .
~ ,could D .
He was watt to say he sh td ..."1-
bly be produced. c . o d not trouble
the Hooe Jong, as the Committees which had
c of too, recent a date not to be still sat upon this
subject were
tion Members, and he should not therefore
tion o . have to trouble
with the reading of many extracts. His object -
them was to re-
ale whole of the duties upon
move leather ; but in.
order;to
give time to the arties co
p the he si
the time'when they should cease atl
sth 0f1825 I
the whole list of taxation, there was
principle or injurious ut its application no tax more defective in
And with regard to expediency, than the Leather Tax.
with it'or inexpediency. I there was no tax to compare
little money into the Ex he knew of no tax that brought so
the pockets.of the, People.c equer—that took so much out of
year, while it took
produce was only 300.0001. a
from the public three times that amount.—

either was it to be retained with a view to its increase in
shoe of war. The tax was three halfpence per pound, and
ivhen it was doubled, the produce decreased so that the Go-
v ernment were obliged to reduce the additional duty again.—
Be was at a loss to conceive upon what 'ground the Right
Honourable Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the liberal
view which he took of financial questions, could defend the
tax. Its effect was to prevent the same person from carrying
on the two trades of tanner and currier, which ought to be con-
ducted together. The method of taking the Excise Duties
necessarily spoiled a large quantity of the article, by taking
the skins out of the vat at an improper stage. Was the tanner
expected to suffer this loss ? Would the currier consent to bear
it ? No ; it fell upon the consumer, and the public was obliged to
pay for it. These restrictions originated in the enlightened ages
of Richard the Second and James thnFirst—periods in which
there was the least intelligence as to commercial affairs and
matters of this nature. The tax was not imposed until the time
of Anne ; but the restrictions originated at the times he had
inentioned. He understood that the Excise Duties were pro-
posed to be extended to Ireland, but he implored the House
not to do such an injury to that country for the sake of
the small sum which it would produce. He knew he should
not, upon the present occasion, obtain that support which the
principle deserved. He was asked by his Hon. Friends, " Why,
what are you going to do with the Leather Tax ?—You'll do
no good; prices were not reduced when it was lowered before."
The reason of that was, that the duty was taken away, but
the restrictions remained, and they were far more costly than
the tax. If they would reduce the whole of the tax, and remove
the restrictions, he would wedge himself that Gentleman would
hind their shoes, saddles, harness, and every thing else cheaper
than they were now. The Hon. Member then read the Cvi-
dance of a Gentleman who was examined by a Committee of
the House, chewing the injury arising from the disunion of the
trades. It was singular that he should not have the Tanners
and Currier; with him upon this question. But upon reason
and principle he would rather be without them than with them.
The fact-was, that they were satisfied to have no further reduc-
tion, because they found it give rise to competition. Smaller
capitalists were able to get into the trade, and they began to
tremble for their monopoly if the whole of the duties should,
be repealed. He thought he need not detain the House fur-
ther at present ; he bed shewn how little the tax produced in
comparison to its pressure upon the public ; he had shewn why
}ricer were not lowered by' the former repeal, and he had
eitiewn why the• tanners and carriers did not support him. If
it should be necessary, the House would no doubt indulge him
in making a few observations in reply. The Hon. Gentleman
concluded by moving for leave to bring in a bill to repeal the
duty on Leather, from and after the 25th July, 1825.
Mr. CURTEIS seconded the motion.. The benefit which
the public would derive from this repeal would overbalance the
loss which the Exchequer would sustain in consequence of it.
Mr. LESTER supported the motion. One principal objec-
tion to this tax was, that it took more from the pockets of the
people than it carried into the Exchequer. Nothing could be
more vicious in taxation than this: - Anotherobjection was, that
it fell upon the poorest classes with greater weight than upon
the other part of the community. But it would be said, that
much money would by such a course be taken out of the Ex-
chequer. He would tell them how this was to be supplied.—
Let them conciliate Ireland, reduce the number of her bayonets,
which were sharp as well as shining, and govern her in all
.respects upon more economical and cheap principles. The
results of such a course would soon restore to the Exchequer
any deficiency it might suffer from the loss of this tax.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER observed that
the Hon. Gentleman who introduced this motion had held out
a bait at him at •which it was probably supposed he would snap.
Ile was sorry to say that he must disappoint this expectation,
for he thought the substitutes proposed by the Hon. Member
would do as much prejudice in one direction, as the Hon. Mem-
ber conceived already proceeded from that which he wished to
remove. The Hon. Member proposed that-he should raise the
duty on tallow licenses to 501. This would only produce
175,000/. which being but one half the loss of the tax, the duty
ought to be raised -to 1001. if at all. He could as little agree
with the Hon. Gentleman in his proposal to raise the duty on i
- foreign bark, or on other foreign articles -used in tanning,.
Such a course would be contrary to all the principles upon
which he had professed to act. He could not, therefore, be
tempted by any of -the acquisitions held out to him by. the
Hon. Member. His reasons generally against the motion,
he could state briefly. It had been his lot since he had been
in office to propose the reduction of taxes to the amount of
four millions and a half sterling, and it was natural to suppose
that among the various objects that had presented themselves
to his mind for the operation of this re-auction, leather had
been one, If he should be able to go on in repealing taxes,
either direct upon consumption, or affecting trade to die ex-
tent that it was desirable they should go, he had no hesitation
in saying that this was not the first which he should pro-
pose to the House to deal with. He did not mean to defend it
neon principle. He was aware that the objection to it was not
.to the amount, but the restrictions upon trade which it imposed.
It could not, however, be levied without those restrictions.
But there were a great many articles open to the same objec-
tion which ought to receive the attention of Parliament, when
-the means of reducing taxation were in their hands, before
this. The English distillery question ought to come before
it. The same might be said of tobacco, upon which a duty of
1800 per cent. was levied, and which led to a great deal of
smuggling. In short, if lie could now say, that the 350,0001.
.could be reduced next year, the HoUse would act most impro-
vidently in agreeing to the repeal of the leather tax. The coal
tax was also one upon which there was a general feeling in
favour of a repeal. To agree to the 'notion, therefore,
would he tying% up their hands most inconveniently, and
prevent their looking at many questions which they,might be
most anxious to do next year. The Hon. Gentleman was dis-
pleased at the restrictions applied to England being extended
to Ireland. But there was au absolute necessity for this, if they
weuld not have the tax entirely evaded. The character and
credit of Irish leather required that they should be placed un-
der the 'same restrictions as prevailed in England. He had
always told the curriers that the only way to protect the trade
was to retain the tax. As he would not, therefore, pledge
himself to the repeal of this tax, he must oppose the motion.
Lord ALTHORP thought that the arguments used by the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, with respect to the Silk Tax,.
applied to the tax upon leather. He disapproved of all restric-
tions on trade; and as it always happened that when a restric-
tion was placed upon one part of a trade it caused many others
to follow, so it was the more necessary in the leather trade to
-.remove the tax altogether. Nothing could be more absurd than
taxing a man to make him take care of his own property ; •yet
.this was the case with reference to skins. He could not agree
with the Right Hon. Gentleman, that it was not wise to give
notice one Session of what it was intended to do with respect to
-taxation the next. Ssch a course was the surest way to avoid
the many evils attendant upon a sudden change in the system
ot' taxes.

Sir J. NEWPORT thought the Leather Tax highly detri-
mental to the people at large. As a proof of the grievous ope-
ration of this l'ax it was a fact, that there was less duty paid
by Ireland now than at the time of the Union. It certainly
was completely established that this tax was besides one which
took more from the pockets of the people than went into the
Treasury.
'Mr. NABERLY, Jun. supported the motion. He felt him-
self at Monty to vote for the repeal of taxes, because he was of
opinion, and always had been, that a Sinking Fund was pro-
ductive of much evil to a country. But there was another way
of making up the deficiency. This was by taking the whole
Tax upon Malt, instead of levying it upon malt and beer too.
-It was besides of that class of taxes which pressed upon the
springs of trade, and which therefore ought to be got yid of as
soon as possible. It was said that the tanners were making
large profits, but he knew this was not the case, from the num-
ber of tan-yards which were inoperative throUghout the king-
dom. In London there were four in which no work was doing;
,t Bristol, six ; Manchester, three ' - and Warwick, twenty-
three. These were so many proofs of the decline of the trade.
Mr. COLTHURST supported the motion.
Mr. MABERLY, sen. co,.tended that the arguments of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer were contradictory from
those advanced by his Right Hon. Colleagues upon the prin-
ciples of trade. The evils of this tax were among the many
resulting from the maintenance of an expensive and useless
:Sinking Fund.
Mr. J. MARTIN considered that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer had gone
as far as he could in the reduction of
p the Sinki
totes, without he were to. give u Sinking Fund. This he
hoped he never 'would do. k h e t at oppertunit t
by which 3' to ex-
press his admiration of the principles'eh the Right
Hon. Gentleman! had been guided, in taking off the taxes al-
ready repealed. • 'nal intention to
Sir J. YORKE said it hdd been his original sup-
port the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the arguments of
the Hon. Mover had turned the scale in his
favour. When heExche
heard that this tax brought 350,0001. into the
took 900,0001. out of the pockets of the people, he made,_.
express nisP his
sur-
- mind against it: But he principally rose to
Friend be-
prise at the comparison drawn by his Right Hon.
twettn tobacco andleather, in favour of the former_a poisonous
weed, that attacked the stomach, lug and nasal organs.d been
was surprised, that amidst "all the ,reductions that
za
made, the talc of schoolmasters had not been reduced. The
bills of the schoolmasters of Eton and Westminster were just
as high as ever. They had done nothing towards keeping the
valuable young British Statesmen in the country from the semi-
n%ries of France and foreign parts.
Sir G. ROBINSON spoke in support of the motion.
Mr. Secretary CANNING said, that after the disposition
gliewn by his Right Hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Excht•
+icy) and in a great degree carried into effect, of lessening the
,'?vrderis of the people, it was a little unfair to say that he should.

retain no tax which he could not shew not only not to be op-
pressive, but in which there was not something eminently ami-
able.--(A laugh.)—He really was expected to shew that a tax
was something in itself which supported the State, but that
it was eminently delightful as one of the Institutions of the
Country. The House would recollect that it was the duty of
his Right Hon. Friend to take a view of the resources of the
country, and give relief to the burdens of the people as far as
he could. The House were to exercise their discretion in the
selection ; but it was hardly fair after the plans of the year had
been agreed upon to propose changes in that plan, unless they
were to rescind some of their last Acts ; or to come to some
new resolution with respect to the Sinking Fund. This was
not the first moths of a similar nature. The window tax, the
house tax, all the assessed taxes, and the coal tax had been
recommended for repeal after the scheme of the year had been
broached. His Right Hon. Friend was not responsible for the
laying on of these taxes ; although for the taking off he would
be very glad to be responsible when' the proper time should
arrive. His Hon. Friend (Sir J. Yorke), partly. from a hatred
of tobacco, and partly from a love of cheap learning, had joined
in the motion before the House. His Hon. Friend had not
censured the tax on tobacco from any partiality to the herb,
for he believed no part of him was polluted by it, but because
of its enormous disproportion to the value of the article. As
to his Hon. Friend's complaint as to the charges for education
at Eton and Westminster, he could not at first connect it with
the question. Hon. Gentlemen were all agreed upon the pro-
priety of diffusing learning, and many motions in that House
had been made cowards its promotion. These motions, how-
ever, had hitherto been directed to the contents of learned
books, whereas the present one referred to the binding. —(A
laugh.)—Probably his Honourable Friend conceived, that if
the binding were reduced in price, the book of learning would.
become so much cheaper. So long as they retained the Sink-
ing Fund, which at least was binding upon them for the pre-
sent year, the House would see that it would be premature to
decide upon the repeal of any tax, and above all upon the
Leather Tax. He trusted the time was not far distant when
they would be able to take off many taxes, but it did not fol.
low that this should be the first.
Mr. CALCRAFT replied, and the House divided_
For the Motion - 55
Against it - - - 71
Majority against the Motion - —l6
PRIVATE BANKS
-(IRELAND.)
•

On our return to the gallery we found
Mr. DAWSON speaking on the subject of a motion of which
he had given notice, for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal certain
clauses in several Acts of Parliament which prohibited the issuing
of promissory notes payable on demand, or bills of exchange, by
any bank or firm,consisting of more than six partners, anti re-
quired that the names of all the partners should be mentioned on
the face of such promissory -notes and on the indorsement of
such bills of exchange, exception being made in favour of the
Bank of Ireland. His object was to facilitate the formation of
Joint Stock Banking Companies on the plan of those in Scot
land ; and he was convinced that if he succeeded in obtaining
leave to bring in his Bill, much good would result to Ireland,
from the drawing of hundreds of.thousands of pounds into that
country, which would be applied in the employment of the poor.
—For he knew there was capital to a large amount existing in
the hands of numbers of individuals, who would readily come
forward and employ it it in forming Joint Stock Companies of
the description which he had mentioned, if the restrictions on
private banking were removed. In the whole kingdom of Ireland,
the-city of Dublin excepted, there were only ten banking esta-
blishments. In the provinces of Leinster there was only one, in
Ulster there were tour, in Munster live, and in Connaught
there were none at all. Much of the immediate depression
of trade and agriculture in Ireland lie considered as owing to the
inadequacy of the number of banking establishments to the
wants of the country; and in support of that opinion he referred
to the greaterprosperity of the country during tile war, and the
period immediately following its close, when they were more
numerous than at present, and to the number of similar esta-
blishments in England, where there were 587 provincial banks,
and in Scotland, where there were 128 establishments of that
description. The Hon. Member then proceeded to take a re-
view of the several restrictive clauses in the Acts of Parliament
which he proposed to repeal. He was anxious that the measure
which he proposed should be fairly discussed; and he should
be glad of the assistance of his Right Hon. Friend the Attor- •
ney-General for Ireland in drawing up a Bill, so that every
thing might be granted which was consistent with the interests
of the Bank of Ireland and of the true interests of the country.
He trusted that the House would perceive an absolute necessity
of repealing those obsolete Acts of Parliament to which he had
referred. He then concluded by moving " for leave to bring in
a Bill to amend the Laws relating to the Banking Establish.
menti in Ireland."

On the motion being put by the SPEAKER,
Tice CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose and said,
lie could assure his Hon. Friend who had proposed the motion
that he did not feel disposed to underate the topics which he
had introduced in the course of his speech. The subject was
one of considerable importance, and had engaged the attention
of Government. lie (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had in
point of fact taken the same viaw of the question as his lion.
riend had recommended. When he had received the propo-
sitions from Belfast respecting the establishment of Country
Banks, he thought it right to submit them to the Law Officers of
the Crown, in order that their judgment might be had as to the
rights of the Bank of Ireland. It would be in the recollection
of the House that the Bank of Ireland was in the possession of cer-
tain rights granted in 1821, when the Charter was renewed,
and it would be exceedingly unjust to deprive it of the benefits
thus derived. He would only give a limited consent to the
motion of his lion. Friend; for if it should be hereafter dis-
covered that it was likely to break the good faith established by
the renewal of the Charter, he should not sancion the measure.
He begged the House to understand that the subject had not
escaped the attention of Government—(Hear !)—and that he
most likely should have brought in a Bill to repeal the laws
alluded to by his Hon. Friend, had not the present motion been
brought forward.
Mr. VESEY FITZGERALD said_ he did not believe Ire-
land was unanimous in the establishment of private banks; on
the contrary, the objections to the establishments now proposed
were very numerous. Every Gentleman connected with the
western provinces of Ireland would know that, so far from
being desirous to contribute to establishments of this nature,
they were involved in general ruin and distress from the fai-
lures of banks of a similar kind. The question was not, who
were most competent to conduct banking establishments, but
who afforded the greatest security. Persons engaged in great
speculations were not those who afforded the greatest security
in banking transactions.

Colonel TRENCH took this opportunity of correcting a mis-
statement which had gone forth, of what he had stated on a
former evening, respecting the absence of a Nobleman from
Ireland. The estates of that Nobleman had been placed under
the management of a Gentleman whose administration was
most beneficial to the country.
After a few words from Mr. H. Grin.NEY, Sir G. HILL,
and Mr.. FITZGERA LI), in explanation,
Mr. DAWSON consented to withdraw his motion, for the
purpose of leaving the subject in the hands of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, who, he doubted not, would give it the
benefit of his immediate and undivided attention.
Mr. V. FITZGERALD further explained.
The motion was then withdrawn.
CHURCH OF IRELAND.
• Mr. HUME stated the inquiries which he had made since
his late motion respecting the number of resident and non-resi-
dent incumbents in Ireland, led him to believe that what he
had then advanced was s4stantially correct. That it might be
known whether or not he was right,- he now moved, " That
there should be laid before the House an Abstract of the num-
ber of the resident and non-resident incumbents in each county
in Ireland, according to the diocesan returns in the years 1822
and 1823."

Mr. GOULBURN confidently expected the statement of his
Right Hon. Friend would be found correct. The motion was
agreed to.
Mr. HUME moved foi a Return of the number of Parishes
and Benefices in the gift of the Bishops of the several dioceses
of the Crown—of the Universities—of the Lay Proprietors,
witq the number of Churches and Endowments.
Mr. GOULBURN said the number of benefices could easily
be known. In the diocese of Dublin there were 95, but the
Archbishop, by a new species of arithmetic, was made to have
the patronage of 144.
The motion was-then agreed to.