The Sun.
London, England, 1821-02-17 00:00:00

IRISH UNION DUTIES

Mr. CURWEN presented a Petition from the
Tann of Kendal, prayingfor a revision of the.
Irish Protection Duties. Hon. Gentleman
said, that those duties were found to, operate
most injuriously to England, without giving any
advantage to the Irish manufactures.

Sir H. /:3AIINELL said, that continuing those
duties had only the, effect of diminishing the
market for the manufactory of this country in
Hebeggedto suggest to the Right Hon.
Gentleman opposite (the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer) that a number of Petitions were in
progress similar to that which was before the
House, and it was his intention to propose an
inquiry as to the policy of considering those nick-
named Protecting, Duties. He did not think that
.there. ever was a greater mistake in legislation
_than that made by the Irish Parliament in esta-
blishing a system 'of protecting duties ; the effect'
of that system was to start the English manufac-
tures out of England, and to limit-their consump-
tion -merely. to-Ireland.. Those, Protecting "Du-
ties had continued, for nearly 40 years, and no
successful effort was ever made in the establish-.
ment of any branch of trade in Ireland,save those
branches which were marko free. He had no
dOubt but ,that what were called Protection
Duties operated most injuriously to trade, and
ought to be abolished.

ion;

Mr. C. liurcHiNsoN begged to call the atten-
tion of the. House to the object of the Petition.
The object of the Petition was to induce the
Right HON. Gent. opposite (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer) to depart froin the measure of the
last year, which continued the Protecting Puties
to Ireland. -The Petitioners wished, in fact,.
todeprive the Irish manufacturers of that pro-
tection.—(lfear, hear'.)---The Honourable Gen-
tleman who presented the Petition, dwelt on•the
existing depression .of- the English trade. No
man deplored that depression more than himself
,--but.was the existing misery in England to be
relieved by the sacrifice of the small Rrotec-
tioh that-Ireland enjoyed ? The argument of
his Honourable Friend (Sir 11. Parnell) would
go to do away the_ Protecting Duties, in order
to relieve the English manufacturer—but did he
not know that to take off those duties would add
to the., existing distress in Ireland? It was his
(Mr. Hutchinsua's) duty to state, that if those

Protecting -Duties were repealed instanter, a
number of manufacturers iu Ireland would be
ruined. Such a
.meastire would have the effect
of putting sa number ef. persons out of. bread in
.
the city which he had the honour to represent.'
Mr. LyrrLrrox said,. that if the Hon. Baronet
should move fo!' a Committee on those duties, he
would support the-.measure. He admitted that
any manufacture established in Ireland since the
Union was fairly entitled to protection be would.
o farther-he w say,. that mantifaetilie's esta-
blished even before the Union had a right to expect
that: those duties should- be only `gradually with--
-drawn; but surely those duties in common sense,
ought not to lie allowed to -exist' Is ith .respect to
manufacture's -Which never did exist in Ireland.
Such was the ease, with respect to the pottery
and hardware manufacture. ..A ,Deputation came
ever from Ireland last year on the' subject of
those duties; and though they. distinctly stated to
the Right Hon. Gentleman that there were nei-
ther pottery 'nor hardware manufactures in Ire-
! landrand that they. ought to be exempted, yet
the Protecting Duties. with respect to them were
continued—continued,
he would say, contrary to
the plain ,principles of common sense.
Lord ALTHORP said, that what were called
Protecting Duties amounted, in fact, to nothing
but a tax—a tax which did not operate for the
benefit of Ireland—which produced much incon-
venience to both countries, and no advantage to
either..

Sir J. NEwrcrwr said, that if the repeal of the
Protecting Duties could by possibility injure the
manufactures of Ireland, the-House, he hoped,
would believe that he would be the last man in
the world to seek for that repeal. He believed
that those duties 'operated as 'a -heavy 'tax, and
threw a great impediment in the way of British
manufacture. With respect to pottery, that
manufacture never did exist in Ireland, and never
could, because coal could not be had but under
great disadvantage and at a heavy price. Ilis
opinion was, that all articles which-were duty
free should be put on the same footing—that ar-
ticles should be imported from Ireland to Eng-
land precisely as .theY were from Leith to Lob-
don. Though no duties existed,. yet the port
charges were the same with respect to the manu-
factures of Ireland as-they were with regard to
foreign countries. This operated as a burthen
and an injury.to both countries. He hoped the
Right lion. Gentleman opposite (the Chancellor
of the Exchequer) would have' the Goodness to
take the matter under his consideration. These
di3couragements tended very much to the injury
of the tillage of Ireland, and broke through a
Principle which was held in -that House, on
which both parties expressed themselves anxious
to act, namely,. to bind the two countries toge-
ther by mutual interest, and to do away all cause
of irritation and of unpleasant feeling. It was
.with this .view that in the year 1806 he brought
in the Grain Intercourse Bill. Ex.perience
proved that that was a useful measure.
Mr. PEEL said, that connected with Stafford-
shire, and feeling ever anxious for the welfare of
Ireland, he begged to add his voice in favour of
the repeal of those misnamed protecting duties.
AS was well remarked, those duties, so far froth
being. found a protection to Ireland, operated as
a tax upon that country. Nothing could be more
clear than that the continuation of those duties
could be of no advantage to freland—nothing
but local or individual interests could be atrected
by the repeal of those duties. lie would Wil
lingly give such manufactures as might be in any
way affected by the repeal of those duties, ample
time to withdraw their capital. Upon the gene-
ral yrinciple the House was agreed. General
principles were agreed to without hesitation, but
they were unfortunately too often departed from
in individual cases. Regulations on trade, of the
description under the view of, the House, only
tended to fetter and injure it. All vexatious re-:
straints should be done away. He submitted to
the "plain sense of the House, that those regula-
tions fettered the commercial intercourse between
England- and Ireland, which they must have been,
anxious to prevent.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
that he would not .at present enter into a dis-
cussion on the subject, because future oppor-
'unities would, present themselves for explana-
, The House were aware that the appre-
aension of discontinuing those duties created
great alarm amongst the manufacturers iii Ire

laud. These manufacturers made -pressing re-
presentations to Government on the subject, and
under all the circumstances, he considered it the
most advisable mode-of acting, not suddenly to
withdraw these duties, 'but to. do so gradually.
He stated this to shew that he did not act upon
any •hasty or sudden impulse, nor even with any
view to the increase of the -revenue,: though the
latter was a consideration of the :utmost import-
ance; The principle on which he acted was;• by
withdrawing those duties gradually, not to take
the Irish manufacturer by surprise, but, to give
him an bppc,Ftiwity of withdrawing his ,capital;.
without injury. With respect to the system
of .drawbacks' anti countervailing duties, be had
only .to assure the .House that he had 'given
much consideration to that subject daring- the
summer. He. was naturally anxious to do every
thing in his power' to facilitate the trade between
both countries
Mr. M. FITZGEII ALD- said, the temper in which
this subject was discussed was with him a sub-
ject of congratulation, for no Member, either
Irish or English, had recommended that the du-
ties should be so dealt with as to injure the in-
terests of Ireland. 'these duties had been enact-
edat the Union for 52.0 years, with a view that at
the end of that time they might be revised and
possibly extinguished. He . did not complain
that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had acted,
unfairly in - continuing, but that he had acted
Without inquiry, and without laying any 'grounds
for, his measure. The great part Of these duties'
were an injury to the English manufaCturer who
sold, and to. the Irish consumer who- bought,
_ .

without the least possible protection to the Irish
manufacturer, for there were many duties on ar-
ticles, no manufacture of which existed in Ire-
land. Some of these duties too were on articles
of prime necessity. A general inquiry into the
regulations respecting the intercourso between:

the two colintries would be highly expedient.--
He had himself discovered that there was a re-
gulation respecting the coasting trade in Ireland,
by which duties were levied by port charges,
amounting to 20 per cent. 0n,,-the freight, lie
brought this fact under the ktiowledge of the
night Hon. Gentleman opOSite (Mr. Peel), who,
\vitt] theattNtion that chiracterised hinrin the
Nformance oT his ilutieiiii‘treland, entered upon
stn hiquirySancl fAtl‘tWeerrvctilessNaf Yact
which.he fiad stated. The length of time which
this oppressive charge had continued, convinced
him of the existence- of many vexations, unne-
cessary either to trade or revenue, which might
be got rid of: -
Mr. CURWEN disclaimed any intention to take
any, step respecting .theSe d.aties at the expence
of Ireland.
Mr. SHAW approved of the proposal of a Com,
mittee of Inquh)r.
The Petition was read.—On the -motion that
the Petition be laid on the-Table,
Sir H. PARNELL said, there would have been
many Petitions against these duties, if the Bill
respecting the' had not been passed so quickly
in the last Parliament. It was said by the thin.
Member for Cork, that the duties prote!:ted Irish
manufactures. This might be the case, but for
himself he did not know %vhere they exiisted.
After a few 'words from Mr.'C. Hutchinson
and Mr. J. Browne,
Mr. Spain RICE said, there was one manu-
facture in Ireland which needed protection, and
to which it was not afforded by those Duties,:
and that was Agriculture.--=-(Hear!)—He could
not recognize the claim of the Chancellor of the'
Exchequer, that the Act of last Session respect
in these Duties should be cOnsidered a final
settlement, whether they were regarded as to
revenue or as to protection. There was an una-
nimous opinion' in that House (it was to be re-
marked) in 'favour of inquiry, and he was at a
loss to conceive on what grounds the Chancellor
of the Exchequer could resist the motion which
the Member for the Queen's County (SIT: H.
Parnell) promised to bring forward-.---The Peti-
tion was laid on the Table.
ESTINIATES, &c.

The Commissariat Barrack; and N.'ictuallimr, Department
Estimates, were laid on the Table by Mr. Arbuthnot. -
. Mr. HORACE TWISS gave notice of a motion for Monday
fortnight, for leave to bring- in a -Bill for the disposal of.
business (Bankrupt busbies, we believe) in the Court of
Chancery.
• Mr. CIIFTWYND gave notice Of a motion for Monday
next, for a Return of Fines levied in the Court of King's
Bench doring_the last three years, and their application.
It was ordered, that the House on its rising' ad.;unrn to
Nloodov, -and that the defoultets at the Ballot be ieporfedon
that day.
The Report on the Court of Session Acts was brought up and
read.

Mr. CREEVEY wished to know, wbether.the etterations
Proposed to be made in the salaries of the•Oliic rsif the,
Comet of Session were recommended by a Scots Commission
The LORIYADVOCA FE said, it was inconsequence Orthe
Report of the Parliamentary Commission on the Scots Court,
of Justice.
Mr. CREEVEY said, it was impossible that the House
could dulylecide 'on the proposition without mature consi-
deration. Ile conceived, as to this Proposition as weir as
that respecting the Irish Courts, the best way would a
he,t hat
the Reports of the Commissioners should he'referi ed. to Se=
lect Committee to make the•preminent.facts into
After a few words from Mr. Kennedy and the Lord A tiro-
cafe, the Report was agreed to, andleave was given to bring '1
in a Bill arcordingly.
Mr. C. GRANT moved the Order of the Dry for a 'Com'-
mittee of the whole Ilonse on the Salaries of Jutlesatid.Odi-
tli Of Com ts of Justice in Ireland.
The Reports of the Commissioners on the Irish Courts of
Justice were referred to the Committee. •
The Speaker having left the Chair,
7011 r. C. GRAM' proposed to the Committee rations 8.-so-
lutions, for Compensation to the Chief JUstices, Chief 'MN
and Judges, of the Br. nch, Common Pleas, and x-
chequer, in Ireland, in lieu of Fees, as also to the Prot holm-
taries, Cnstos Ifiecium. Filacers, Friacer of Exigentets,
Taxing Officers, and • Cie; ks ot the various Courts, and the
yeeat Patent Officers, to be charged on the Cunsultdated.
Fund.
Sir J NEWPORT observed, that some years ago, tee Offi-
cers of the Exchequer in Ireland-had compensations made to
them for the business transferred to the Bench and
Common Pleas, by which the hnsiness, and consequently the
fees of Office's in tho latter OMEN; were increased, It would,
be unfair that the public should make compensation 1,1 the.
great Patent Officers to the amount of these fees, whieh had
hecn thus eidetnced,
The Resolutions Weft' agreed to,. the IjouFe resumed, and
the Report was ordered to.be reeeiVed on Nlonday. •
COMPE.NSATION TO THE CLERGY OF 'ME COURT•
, .