The Sun.
London, England, 1833-01-22 00:00:00

THE NATIONAL COUNCIL.

(From the Dublin Freeman's Journal of Saturday.)

The first meeting of the National Council took place yes-
terday. It was numerously attended. A great deal of public
anxiety was manifested regarding it, and a crowd was assembled
outside the Royal Hotel at an early hour of the day. The fol.
lowing members were present :

The Hon. Colonel Butler, Daniel O'Connell, Maurice
O'Connell, Morgan O'Connell, John O'Connell, Charles D.
O'Connell, W. F. Finn, C. Fitzsimon, A. C. O'Dwyer, Richard
Shell, Sir R. Nagle, Henry Grattan, William Roche, W. 0.
Daunt, O'Connor I)ou, Patrick Lalor, M. L. Chapman, Fer-
gus O'Connor, James Roe, E. S. Ruthven, E. Ruthven, W.
Blackney, Nicholas Fitzsimon, J. H. Rorke, G. S. Barry, Dan.
Callaghan, Richard Sullivan, D. Ronayne, C. O'Brien, H.
Baldwin, and Lachlan Maclachlan, Esqrs.
The Hon. Col. BUTLER, Chairman.

MAURICE O'CONNELL, Esq, Secretary.
Mr. SULLIVAN gave some information as to the amount of
property possessed by the corporation of Kilkenny.
Mr. ROE afforded similar information as to the property pos-
sessed by the corporation of Cashel.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that Mr. Staunton was present, and
would be able to give some most
_valuable evidence. He moved
that he be examined.
Mr. STAUNTON then came forward and would in the first
place submit a statement of the present amount of the Irish
debt, also a statement connected with the consolidation of the
Exchequers, together with some observations upon the effects
of that consolidation. He would enter into a short inquiry as
to whether Ireland had any surplus taxation; as to whether it
was true that Ireland was a burden to England, and whether
she had made any progress in trade, manufacture, or commerce,
since the Union. It was known to Hon. Members that very
exaggerated notions prevailed amongst public men as to the
actual amount of Irish debt. Some imagined it was 134,000,0001.,
others that it was somewhat more. Now he was about to show
that the money borrowed in the name of Ireland, in the period
between the Union and consolidation, did not exceed
107,000,0001., and of that amount Ireland was not responsible
for more than 67,000,0004 He held in his hand a Parliamentary
document, printed by order of the House of Commons on the
sth of April, 18'24, and signed J. C. Herries, and numbered 256.
It was as follows :

THE AMOUNT OF THE UNREDEEMED DEBT AS IT STOOD AT THE
CONSOLIDATION OF THE EXCHEQUERS.
Funded debt unredeemed. £107,380,!58
Charge for interest thereon
And the amount due from Ireland to Great Britain,
as the proportion of 2-17ths of the joint expendi-
ture by virtue of the Act of Union was 2,012,136
" J. C. HERRIES.

Whitehall Treasury Chambers,
15th April, 1824."
Mr. STAUNTON then referred to the 4th and sth pages of
that document, in which was a statement of the funded debt of
Great Britain, from 1792 to 1824, on which he relied as part of
his proof to show that Ireland owed but 69,000,0001. out of the
107,000,0001. of the funded debt unredeemed. If an Hon.
Member would move that it be reprinted, it would be found a
useful document.
Mr. O'CONNELL moved that the Secretary do make a me-
morandum upon the subject for getting reprinted a Parliamen-
tary document, entitled " An Account of the Revenue from
1791 to 1821, ordered to be printed on the 15th April 1824. No.
9.s6."—Agreed to.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that by an article of Union, it was
agreed that whenever Ireland, after paying her own share of
the expenditure had a million of surplus revenue, that million
was to be applied exclusively to the local improvement of Ire-
land. Mr. Staunton's object was to put them in possession of
a document that would show, by the confession of the
treasury, that the casus fmderis had arisen.
Mr. STAUNTON resumed, and proceeded to show the un.
fairness with which the debt is apportioned. He mentioned a
circumstance stated to him by Mr. P. Mahony, who told him
that he met Sir G. Hill going to transfer a large sum of Irish
surplus revenue to the credit of the English exchequer. In the
course of his statement Mr. Staunton referred to Sir Henry
Parnell's work on finance, and went into various able and con-
vincing calculations in support of his argument.
Mr. O'CONNELL said, the object of Mr. Staunton, by that
portion of his evidence, which he had then given, was to show
the decline of Irish prosperity since the Union. The promi-
nent facts were these :—ln 1792 the consumption of the
luxuries of life, such as tea, sugar, wines, &c., amounted in
England to thirty-seven millions, and in the same year in
Ireland they were only seven and a half millions. In 1800 the
consumption in England had risen to forty-seven millions, and
in Ireland to twelve and a-half millions. In 1827 the consump-
tion in England had increased to seventy-one millions, whilst
in Ireland it had fallen back to nine and a-half millions,
although the population within that period had increased.
Thus proving that from the period of the Union to 1827, the
consumption of the luxuries of life had fallen off nearly one
third in Ireland. As his friend, Mr. Staunton, had alluded to
the woods and forests, he would say that it was a subject of the
utmost importance to the landed proprietors of Ireland. After
the two revolutions of 1641 and 1688, almost every one
who had estates in Ireland passed patent again, and though
the titles were clear, yet, in all these cases a reversion was
given to the crown, as if the titles were originally pro-
ceeding from the crown. This fictitious reverson on thecrown
did not operate injuriously so long as they had an Irish Parlia-
ment, because all the Members had an equal interest in resist-
ing it. But since the Union there were instances of its operat-
ing most injuriously. Lord Kenmore had lately had to pay
three years' income of his estates to get rid of a claim of
this kind, made by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests.
Lord Bantry had a serious demand of the same kind made upon
him. He (Mr. O'Connell) knew an instance in the county
Meath, where estates had been sold for 14,0001. to pay creditors.
The Woods and Forests came in with a claim of 9,0001., and
left the creditors but 5,0001. At Mount Anneville, a barrister
lately purchased property, and he had told him (Mr. O'Connell)
that he had to pay the Woods and Forests a sum nearly equal
to the original purchase money to establish his title.
THE SOAP TRADE.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that one thing that had occupied
their attention last year was the state of the soap and candle
trade, which had been, before the Union, a trade of consider.
able export. He had received information from a member of
the trade, that one house in this city exported 7,000 boxes of
soap and candles annually to the West Indies. He believed
that in Dublin the export of soap and candles was at present
annihilated or interfered with to such an extent as to be almost
ruinous to the manufacture'. Our trade was ruined, because
there was a duty in England and not in Ireland. He thought it
would be most important if the Irish Members would agree to
form a deputation to wait on Lord Althorp, and to insist upon
some regulation, so as to prevent frauds upon the revenue. He
now thought it would be well to hear the gentlemen who were
there from the soap trade.
Mr. PETER FARRELL then came forward and read the
following statement, showing the advantages which the British
soap-maker possesses over the Irish manufacturer, by means of
the existing excise regulations :
" There has never been any excise imposed upon soap
in Ireland. In England, on the contrary, it has been subject
to an excise duty for many years. An Act of Parliament was
passed in 1816, which is now in force (the 56th Geo. 111. chap.
44), by which threepence per pound is granted on every
pound avoirdupois of hard soap made in Great Britain. This
Act, though it repeals the previous Acts relating to the duty
upon soap, declares that it shall be collected in the same man-
ner as it had been previous to that time. It would have been
only reasonable, as considerable changes had taken place in the
mode of making soap, that the manner of estimating and col-
lecting the duty should have been varied also. When the duty
is now levied, it is not calculated upon the real weight of the
soap, but upon the weight ascertained by measurement. The
frame into which it is cast is required, by the commissioners
of excise, to be always of the same length and breadth; the
officer has therefore only to measure the depth, which being
done, he charges a given number of pounds for every inch in
depth of the frame, allowing the manufacturer every tenth
inch, on which the duty is not charged. This allowance
was originally granted, because it was considered that
one-tenth of the soap so framed was not sold, nor fit for sale,
but would come under the rod of the excise officer again, after
going through another process. This consideration holds good
only as respects mottled soap, then much more used than it is
at present, but is not justly due to the maker of yellow or
brown soap, which undergoes an operation that the other does
not. In fact, all that is framed or guaged of the latter descrip-
tion, is or may be made saleable. The consequence is, that
whilst mottled soap pays threepence per pound upon the
actual weight sold, yellow or brown soap is charged with one.
tenth less ; or supposing the former to pay 28s. per cwt., the
latter would pay but 255. 3d. Besides, the specific gravity of
soap is not always the same. A given bulk of it may he made
by the manufacturer to weigh either more or less, as he
pleases. It is impossible, therefore, to estimate with ac
curacy, the weight of such an article by measurement.
The Act before cited gives a drawback of the whole duty where
the soap is exported; this drawback amounts to 295. per cwt.,
being threepence per pound upon the actual weight ascertained
by weighing, as soon as the soap is cool enough to be packed.
Therefore there is a difference of two shillings and ninepence
per cwt. between what is paid as duty and received as draw-
back upon hard yellow or brown soap, and this is in favour of
the manufacturer in Great Britain who supplies the Irish mar.
kets with soap. For this same reason, almost all the soap
thence exported is of the description before mentioned, which
pays the low duty ; and it is, besides, a well-known fact, that
this article costs in England, besides the duty, two or three
shillings more per cwt. than it can be purchased for in Dublin
or Cork. here, then, is the principal cause of the immense
importation of British-made soap into Ireland, and of the con.
sequent destruction of the Irish manufacturer. The remedy is
simple—either to alter the mode of estimating the duty in the
first instance ; or, should that remain as it is, to lessen the
drawback, so that no bounty may be afforded to exportation.
To the adoption of one or other of these alterations, it is im-
possible to see any objection, if this statement be correct. No
increase of smuggling would take place--no further extension
of the excise laws would be requisite, and there would be an
increase instead of a reduction of the revenue. It has been
i
proposed to lay a duty upon soap in Ireland equal to that n
Great Britain. The soap-makers here do not look upon
the proposition as one likely to put the trade upon a better
foundation ; because, though it would remove the bounty
upon the exportation of soap into Ireland, it would throw
obstacles in the way of all improvement in the manufacture it-
self, by subjecting it to the vexatious trammels of the excise-
officers, and though smuggling would be diminished, so far as
the introduction of soap duty free into England, still it would
be likely, on the whole, to be increased by the frauds upon the
excise which would take place all over Ireland. Considerable
facility is afforded by the present custom-house regulations here